A reader handed me his copy of this week’s Scottish Catholic Observer, pointing me, in particular, to an article by well known Scots musician – composer and conductor - James MacMillan, who is to Gregorian Chant in 2009 what the Beatles were to pop music in the 1960’s. Or so they tell me. His name is associated with traditional Catholicism – that’s the impression abroad - but don’t be fooled; he is about as traditional as Hans Kung. Just as being pro-life is no guarantee of orthodoxy, let alone traditional (i.e. real) Catholicism, neither is a penchant for Latin or sacred music.
James MacMillan’s article is entitled Vatican II was not Church’s ‘year zero’ (SCO 15 May, 2009). Unfortunately, the Scottish Catholic Observer does not publish all articles online and this one is only available to read if you fork out 90p for the privilege – which we do not recommend. In the absence of a link, therefore, I will quote at some length, this famous musician and wannabe-traditional Catholic…
In his hardly original commentary on the hijacking of Vatican II, James MacMillan effectively recognises the schismatic state of the Church in Scotland when, e.g. he points out the contrast between what Vatican II said about sacred music (that it was to be “preserved and cultivated with great care” and that choirs were to be “assiduously developed”) and the disobedient actions of the Bishops who oversaw the abolition of “scores, perhaps hundreds of choirs…”
Yet, despite his recognition of the de facto schismatic state of the Church in Scotland, read below his interpretation of Vatican II – and note his ridiculous comments about Summorum Pontificum, a document that must rank as one of the shortest papal letters in history, yet required a separate letter to bishops to clarify it, with promise of a further clarification which has yet to materialise. Nevertheless, MacMillian ignores the debacle and describes this Motu Proprio as “brilliant”. Give me strength!
“… Vatican II is part of an ongoing, perfect continuity with all the previous Councils throughout the Church’s history. Vatican II was not the start of a new church, as some might have it. It was a renewal of what was there, and not some revolution that happened for no good reason. It was not the Catholic Church beginning again in some ‘Year Zero’ convulsion – there was no rupture with the past – and we should always challenge those deluded souls who imagine it was. It was an affirmation and confirmation of a Catholicism standing firmly in a 2000 year Tradition. And it is our Tradition, rather than some pathetic pseudo-Marxist kidology that points us forward.
This explains why the Pope, in his brilliant Motu Proprio, Summorum Pontificum of 2007, rehabilitated the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. In a deft political move which outmanoeuvred the schismatic Society of Saint Pius X, he gifted the Old Rite back to the wider church to its grateful musicians”. End of Quote
I’m not in a very charitable mood right now. So, you won’t be surprised when I tell you that, like any informed Catholic reading the above description of Vatican II as being in “perfect continuity” with Catholic Tradition, I think James MacMillan is the “deluded soul” and, skipping over his crazy belief that the Pope has “gifted” what is our right, the Traditional Mass, reducing it to nothing more important than a forum for MacMillan’s favourite music, I’m inclined to think he is being deliberately misleading by describing the SSPX as “schismatic”. No informed Catholic believes that lie any more. Cardinal Hoyos has been explicit in one interview after another, long before the Motu Proprio was published, that the SSPX are not in schism. He got quite exasperated in one interview when asked the question again and actually said that to ask the question “are the SSPX in schism?” is to show ignorance of the situation. Pope Benedict made clear that the SSPX are not in schism, even before he was Pope.
The fact that Mr MacMillan goes on to quote Cardinal Hoyos saying that the Pope wishes to see a traditional Mass in every parish, proves that he is informed. He can read and understand plain English when it suits his cause. The guy, then, far from being a kosher traditional Catholic, is an out and out liberal. His SCO article reveals him to be an enthusiastic proponent of the daft so-called “reform of the reform” movement, who is intent, it seems, on peddling the false charge of “schism” against the SSPX in defiance of the facts. Indeed, that he does so, without any mention of the lifting of the excommunications and the forthcoming talks between the SSPX and the Vatican, is proof positive, it seems to me, that he is in bad faith. He must know the SSPX are not in schism, so why pretend they are? He needn’t have mentioned them at all, since his article is purportedly about sacred music. Naughty. Not nice. And “nice” is what the novus ordo Catholic, after all, with or without the ‘reform of the reform’ is all about…
The key question for this thread, though, isn’t actually about the ‘reform of the reform’ versus the Traditional Mass although bloggers are free to discuss that (again!) if they wish. The real questions are: (1) why, in the face of all the evidence, can’t James MacMillan and his ilk admit that Vatican II is NOT in perfect continuity with Catholic Tradition and (2) why is there so much hatred still, for the SSPX by people like James MacMillan, whose crusade for the restoration of sacred music wouldn’t have had the faintest chance of success but for the SSPX fighting for the preservation of the Traditional Latin Mass? Why? Why? Why?
Click on ‘comments’ to share your thoughts with us now…
Tags: james macmillan, sacred music, summorum pontificum, traditional latin mass
-
For a long time I have thought (hoped) that James MacMillan is just confused about the crisis in the Church. Not any longer. I’ve read over this article about three times and I think James knows exactly what he is all about. The article does indeed show that he is very well informed. It seems to be that James is a Modernist who attacks Tradition from the RIGHT, rather than the usual Loony-Left. Dangerous. I wrote a letter to the SCO when I read his article on Friday. Here it is:
“I read with interest James MacMillan’s letter in this week’s SCO. It seems to me that James, like so many others, is a victim of the great confusion caused by the Second Vatican Council.
James is undoubtedly a brilliant musician. However, he still seems to be under the illusion that the Council is in perfect harmony with Sacred Tradition. This is simply not true. Considering that there was no desire for a New Mass before Vatican II and the Mass of Paul VI was invented by the Freemason, Archbishop Bugnini, and six Protestant advisers it is ludicrous to suggest that this Mass can be reconciled with Tradition. James should also keep in mind that Religious Liberty and Ecumenism, exalted by the Second Vatican Council, were consistently condemned as heresies by the Church, particularly Pope Pius IX and Pope St. Pius X.”
Another thing to keep in mind is this: James MacMillan gushes with praise at Sacrosanctam Concilium’s insistence that the parts of the Mass should be sung in Latin and Gregorian Chant should have “pride of place” in the liturgy. It seems strange then that the most common “Mass setting” in the West of Scotland these days is “The MacMillan Mass”, written be our very own National Composer!!! With a Modernist tune and english words I doubt the Fathers who wrote Sacrosanctam Concilium would approve!! Double standards.
James seems to be blinded by his hatred of Tradition (real Tradition) when he claims that the Pope had somehow pulled a fast one with his Motu Proprio. In fact, the Pope issued the Motu Proprio because of his desire to give canonical status to the SSPX, not to mention that it is clearly Our Lady’s wish after the second rosary crusade. The fact that he again uses the word “Schismatic” (am I the only one who yawned when I read that) to describe the SSPX shows his hatred. There are no two ways about it – the Liberals are getting scared and upping their game.
We shouldn’t really be surprised at all of this. MacMillan is a crony of the Arch-Liberal, Dan Baird, and a professed member of the Modernist “Glasgow Lay Dominicans”.
-
Petrus, terrific letter – lucid. Let’s hope it gets published but why do I have my doubts?
-
Editor
Thank you.
I am considering your original questions ie. why can’t people like James MacMillan see the extent of the crisis and why do they hate the SSPX etc. I really don’t know the answer. I do have my suspicions.
Could it be that pride is a big factor? I think the post-Vatican II church encourages prima donas. Faith has been weakened so to people with interests and talents in Sacred Music etc. their love/development of the liturgy becomes a hobby and a chance to perform. I don’t want to be uncharitable but I speak from experience. It took me longer to leave my local parish because I was the organist and I liked being in charge of the liturgy.
Perhaps the hatred of Tradition/SSPX stems from this issue of pride? Let’s face it if the Church completely embraced Tradition there would be less opportunity for James MacMillan et al to shine because using Gregorian Chant would be the rule, rather than the exception.
Is this perhaps similar to, although on a much grander scale, the situation with Eucharistic Monsters and readers?
-
Mr. McMillan: no condemnation of communism? A pastoral, not a doctrinal council? Vague language promoting heresy? A Pope who says “Stop the Council!” on his deathbed? Sure dude, Vatican II is in perfect continuity with tradition. And I’m Jewish.
Editor, the answer to your question is simple: why is there so much hatred for the SSPX? Because there is so much hatred for Christ and His Church. Starting with the Pharisees.
-
Petrus
Terrific letter. And I think you’re spot on about the cultivation of prima donnas in the Novus Ordo Church. After all, it’s all about making God take a back seat to man.
-
I agree, Petrus’s letter is excellent.
James MacMillan is obviously wrong on so many things but I think it is more likely because he is popular with the establishment, the bishops etc and he is, therefore, influenced by them, it would be difficult for him to take up the right stance because that would make him unpopular and perhaps, who knows, affect his musical career?
I also cannot understand why so many Catholics hate the SSPX. I suppose they realise that they (SSPX) were right all along and don’t want to admit they were wrong. It is unbelievable that James McM sticks to the schism lie. It’s stupid to do that because it is so easy to prove him wrong.
-
Editor,
Why, why, why you ask. I do not think this can be answered given a hundred years of postings. That you will have divergence of opinions where two or more people meet is a given in life. That there are hardliners in every camp with supporters and detractors is the lot of mankind. This will not change and we must accept it. One of the problems in that currently the pendulum has swung over to a side which the vast majority of posters here do not support.What we must do now is educate the majority of Catholics who have either forgotten or never had the opportunity to understand both the liturgy and doctrines of pre VII.
An opportunity missed by Petrus in his letter above. Adding strident controversial statements might be very well received here but even you alluded to its chances of publication. Every missed opportunity is another delay in the education process and converting even one more soul back to the truth.
James McMillan was very clever in adding strident controversial statements in his letter – why? Simply because he knew this was what that rag needs to ensure publicity. If he had submitted that garbage to a traditionally minded magazine would it have been published? Not if I was the editor.
Interesting to note he has written two pieces for the installation Mass of the new Archbishop of Westminster on Thursday. Also that his words there are different to the pose he adopts in the SCO (see DT blog).
Petrus, your question re McMillan’s role if we were to re-adopt the Gregorian chant in our liturgy is very interesting. I think he would still have a role to play as did Mozart, Bach, Palestrina et al in their wonderful Masses and other liturgical polyphonic music.
-
I have not met James McMillan and would not be familiar with how he expresses himself. Nonetheless, on reading what Mistress Editor quotes him as saying, I had the very strong impression that they were not his words. I am aware that he has a very high profile, and that consequently people who hear him might be inclined to believe his every word, but I felt he was somebody’s mouth piece in this instance – but whose?
And why would they not speak up for themselves, unless they were nervous of being denounced to Rome for such views, and fearful that such a denunciation might affect their progression to higher rank?
Any candidates come to mind?
-
I disagree, convert. I am sure these are his own words. I’ve met him and heard him speak. I think it would be a waste of time and of no benefit for us to start speculating if he is a mouthpiece.
-
Benedict
We are in the business of truth. Do you really think it would be beneficial to write a letter to the SCO and omit the truth, controversial or not, in the hope they decide to publish? I call that cowardice. I will not compromise on the truth. If they don’t publish then so be it. My conscience is clear. Surely what is needed is perseverance and NOT capitulation?
-
Petrus,
Are you using the royal ‘we’ here? I regret to say your response seems to reflect your own post of 12:53.
Could it be that pride is a big factor?
So your conscience is clear; glad to read that but who else knows outside this blog? That is my point; preaching to the converted converts no-one.
Truth? What is truth? I certainly don’t know what it is; I have my opinions and perceptions of my beliefs but should I claim to call that the truth? No, I don’t thnk so.
I have persevered for some years now without capitulation and will continue to do so but in a manner that does go out to the wider world. Who knows, they might even listen and think about it.
-
Benedict
This blog is read by thousands (not an exaggeration) more people than those who actually blog so I believe it achieves more than preaching to the converted.
Anyway, a letter of mine was published in the SCO two weeks ago. There was no compromise with the truth in that. Do you know what? I’ll keep writing letters, even if they are not published, because I DO know what truth is ie. the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church. And truth will triumph!
-
Read by thousands Petrus, is that the truth?
Wow I’m famous; my jottings are read by thousands – Hi everybody.
Thank you Petrus for telling me that. I’m now converted to keep contributing to this blog – my readers surely demand it, even if they are not published I’ll keep writing.
-
Benedict
The Editor will be able to verify my claim when she returns.
-
It is a pity for James MacMillan, he needs our prayers so that his blindness to the crisis within the Catholic Church, drops away from his eyes.
Vatican II had the effect of leashing forth a revolution, but by no means a renewal of Catholic faith. It was devastating in that its products resulted in a massive loss of faith amongst Catholics. Modernism reared its ugly head above the parapets, and then we saw ecumenism and every other kind of “ism” thought possible.
Petrus in his very first post says:
“There was no desire for a New Mass before Vatican II, and the Mass of Paul VI was invented by the freemason Archbishop Bugnini and six protestant advisers”.The New Mass known as the Novus Ordo Mass, over the subsequent years since Vatican II has become more devastating than what happened during the time of the Reformation throughout Europe, in the 15th/16th centuries. This time round the Reformation came from within.
In an earlier Catholic Truth newsletter a comparison was made of the Tridentine Mass, also known as the Latin Mass, and the Novus Ordo Mass.
Though valid, the Novus Ordo Mass does have the greatest diffficulty in standing up against the Tridentine Mass. If in fact it can.
The fact is that the Tridentine Mass was never ever abrogated, that is forbidden, by any Pope prior to Vatican II or since Vatican II to the present day. This a fact which is ignored. I do not agree with the term Extraordinary when it is mentioned in conjunction the Tridentine Mass. That distinction I think lies with the Novus Ordo.
If it were not for Archbishop Lefevbre and the SSPX, the Tridentine Mass would have long since disappeared and the Church would have been left with a poor substitute. James MacMillan should, in fact, get a grip and understand this: Pope Benedict XVI had the Motu Propio published as a result of the Archbishop and the SSPX keeping the Tridentine Mass alive in the hears and minds of a growing number of Catholics. Plus the many Rosaries that these same Catholics have said, in order for the salvation of souls.
-
Petrus, I meant to add a most excellent letter.
-
When I talk of comparisons between the Tridentine Mass and the Novus Ordo Liturgies, It should read the Novus Ordo Mass cannot stand up against the Tridentine Mass.
-
Petrus
I congratulate you on a great letter and on your determination to speak the truth regardless.
My only fear is that they will not publish the bit about Archbishop Bugnini being a Freemason. This is because it was never made official, although everyone knows it to be true. I have learned this lesson by experience.
Anyway, Benedict, as usual, is quite wrong to insinuate that we cannot know the truth of things and speak them plainly. Our Holy Faith is one whole series of divinely revealed truths, we accept them without question and should defend them to the death. This is what the martyrs did. So once again, congratulations.
As regards James McMillan, he seems to me to be just another of those poor souls who has exchanged Papal Infallibility with Papal Impeccability. He may be good with music but he doesn’t know much about the traditional teaching of the Church. If he did, he would know that much of what happened during and after Vatican II contradicts previous Church teaching. Sounds like his adherence to tradition doesn’t run much deeper than the music side of things.
-
Benedict
“I have persevered for some years now without capitulation and will continue to do so but in a manner that does go out to the wider world. Who knows, they might even listen and think about it.”
It sounds as though you are committed to “dialogue.” Please tell the bloggers (and the thousands of folks at home) what fruits your dialogue has yielded.
-
Yes, Petrus, I do confirm your claim about the readership of this blog although I try not to let our enemies know too much about what we know and how we know it! So, don’t let Benedict lure you into the parlour with his taunts…
We do, as I’ve said before, have many more people reading this blog than contribute to it and in the past few – half a dozen, I’d say – weeks, at least 21,500 people from every corner of the globe, have visited this site.
So, Benedict, polish your keyboard and thumb through a pre-Vatican II catechism before your next post!
the convert, the idea that James MacMillan is not speaking for himself – even if, as you hint, he is speaking, as well, the mind of the bishops and many priests, is a non-starter.
To make the statements he made in there about the Mass and the SSPX if he didn’t really believe them, makes him a scoundrel, lacking, completely any integrity.
Could be, of course. But a much more likely explanation is that he is not as clued up as we might expect from someone who is treated as some kind of reincarnation of Pope Saint Pius X in layman’s dress – and carrying a conducter’s baton…
-
Hello again my adoring thousands, your favourite blogger here writing in the face of the usual adversity from the clan.
Yes editor. IP addresses, cookies et al are really revealing – beware Big Brother is watching you. Ooooh, scary stuff.
I think I’ll polish off this keyboard and it doesn’t seem to know how to type the truth and is guilty of multiple entries, not that my readers will object to that I know they love me even if you do not.
You mean there was a Catechism before VII? Is that why you guys are stuck in the past? The Penny drops at last!
Perhaps one day we shall all sing from the same hymn sheet – as long as it one of James’ hymns of course.
-
Thanks, Athanasius.
Yes, you are right: the part about Archbishop Bugnini will probably be cut (that’s if they publish, which I doubt). You never know I didn’t think they would publish the comment about the Consecration of Russia, so we’ll see.
-
Athanasius wrote:
“Sounds like his adherence to tradition doesn’t run much deeper than the music side of things.”
That’s what he would like us to think. As I said in the first post, his Mass setting is one of the most modern. Not exactly what you would expect from a man who claims to be traditional and goes weak at the knees at the sight of Sacrosanctam Concilium.
-
James MacMillan on the challenges facing Arcbishop Nichols:
James MacMillan, composer
“The new Archbishop will no doubt be aware of a widespread anxiety in the Church, stretching from the Pope himself right down into the pews, that there are problems with the liturgy. Vatican II gave clear guidelines that Catholic tradition should be maintained and nurtured in the new rite. Liturgical “activists” have used the vacuum after the Council to push their own agenda of de-poeticisation, de-sacralisation, and a general dumbing down of the Church’s sacred praise. Pope Benedict is determined to confront the problem. The faithful are fed up with sloppy practice, inappropriate, terrible music and the gradual drift away from Catholic standards in the liturgy. My hope is that Archbishop Nichols will give a clear lead in the pursuit of profundity in liturgy. This means a recognition that there were terrible mistakes made in the past few decades that have made new Catholic congregational music a laughing stock.” END OF QUOTE
-
So he wants the new Mass with good music. That fugures!!
-
Petrus, thanks for that revealing James MacMillan quote. The fact that he knows all of that and still insists there’s been no break with the past etc. and that the SSPX are in schism, heaps the proverbial coals of fire upon his head.
Benedict, “IP addresses, cookies et al ” = the wrong track. Big Brother (or in this case Big Sister) is NOT watching you. So, relax!
-
Athanasius,
That Mr McMillan wishes good music at Novus Ordo Masses is indeed great news and he is to be applauded for that. Anything which makes the NO Mass better is to be lauded and not treated with petty scorn as you attempt to do.
-
Benedict
Good music at a Novus Ordo Mass is like putting a Rolex watch on a pig.
-
How dare you, how b****y dare you compare any licit Mass of the Catholic Church in such a manner. Shame on you boy. Retract your last post immediately.
Editor,
delete his post please – it is a disgrace.
-
The Novus Ordo is not licit. It can be valid, but it’s not licit.
-
Boy you go too far with your nonsense. You are a heretic nothing more or less. Begone I say, go confess seek redemption and show God contrition.
-
I refute your ridiculous accusation that I am a heretic. This isn’t personal, Benedict. Don’t go down that road again. If you disagree, do so in an intelligent way. Please don’t hijack the thread with silly shouts of heretic!
-
Come come, Petrus, you have gone too far this time! It is not for you to declare the NO Mass illicit. You are not the Legislator. The Pope is, through general and liturgical law. And according to those sources, the NO Mass is both valid and licit.
-
Ah McEwan! Finally.
It is a grave departure from the theology of the Mass, as defined at the Council of Trent.
-
Petrus
You are, of course, correct about the pig and the rolex. The Novus Ordo is not licit, it’s a pretender to the sacred liturgy of the Church and it has destroyed the faith of countless millions of Catholics. The sooner it’s consigned to the waste bin and the true Mass restored the better. It is, in effect a B*****d rite that has no place in the Catholic Church, although it would fit well with the Anglican communion.
-
Says you, Petrus. You are no expert and you certainly have no authority to say what is and what is not in line with the Council of Trent
-
You know, Athanasius, the High Anglicans don’t want to convert to Catholicism because of “mediocre liturgy”. Enough said.
The Novus Ordo almost destroyed my faith. Thank goodness the Mother of God intervened. It doesn’t matter how it is celebrated, it is a boil on the Body of the Christ.
-
You are correct, McEwan. But Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci were.
-
By the way, it is worth mentioning that the proper legislative process was not followed in respect to the imposition of the New Mass on the Church. The Bishops’ Conferences were not consulted on the issue.
Pope Paul VI misused his authority when he implemented this radical rite in breach of the liturgical limitations agreed upon by the Council Fathers, e.g., the Canon was to remain entirely in Latin. The New Mass promulgated by Paul VI was, and is, a complete theological break with the Mass that preceded it over the centuries.
So unless we accept that Paul VI was impeccable, we must admit that he did not follow normal procedures in respect to this New Mass but rather foisted his own radical liturgical ideas on the Church, ideas that contradicted both Session XXII of the dogmatic Council of Trent and the measures agreed upon by the Fathers of Vatican II.
-
Whatever those Cardinals may or may not have said, it does not match up to the authority of Vatican II and the post-conciliar Pontifical Magisterium of Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI, all of whom endorse the validity and liceity of the NO Mass.
-
Ah here comes Uncle Athy following the young lad to the hilt; well there is a surprise – NOT.
Well, dear thousands of blog readers, here you have it. The heretics have finally declared themselves. Here are the sedes in their full trumpet call. Bloggers who strut their pride in attending ilicit Masses having the gall to declare Mother Church’s liturgy a pretender, a b******d rite and having no place in the Catholic Church.
You really couldn’t make this up. You have to laugh! Game, set and match. Your outed!
-
What about the opinion of St Josemaria Escriva and St. Pio, McEwan?
-
Benedict has got it in one. Athanasius and Petrus – yer b*ms are oot the windae!
-
Petrus
It beggars belief that having destroyed so many vocations and having caused so many millions to lose their faith, Catholics still attempt to defend that dreadful liturgy. It shows how deeply the Modernist spirit has seeped into Catholic souls. They simply do not see the absolute destruction visited upon the House of God by that revolutionary rite.
-
Petrus
From reading the McMillan quote you supplied above, I get the feeling that he thinks the liturgy is only composed of music!
Benedict
It looks like this path is headed toward that old argument about “two forms of the same rite,” so here’s a question: since Pope Paul VI admitted that the Novus Ordo was based on a Calvinist communion service, how could it then be a “form” of the traditional Mass?
Ath
A question or 2: the “Missa Normativa,” as Bugnini called it, was presented to a Bishops’ Synod and voted down soundly. Does this constitute “consulting the Bishops’ Conferences”? Also, does the nature of that vote alone make this rite illicit?
-
Athanasius
I propose that we do not respond to the ridiculous posts from other bloggers. Spiritually we can rejoice in their outrageous statements and there is enough factual information on this blog that anyone reading the inaccurate statements on this thread can read in order to educate themselves properly. Let’s not descend into the gutter and allow another thread to be hijacked.
-
Benedict
Archbishop Lefebvre called the New Mass ilicit and a B*****d rite, I merely agree with his assessment. I reckon St. Pio and St. Jose Escriva agreed with it too.
As regards your claim that the Council legitimised the New Mass, this is completely false. The New Mass contradicts what the Fathers of Vatican II asked for in liturgical reform. Indeed, the Synod of Bishops who gathered together in Rome in 1967 to pass judgment on the Missa Normative (New Mass mark I) overwhelmingly rejected it. Two years later, Pope Paul VI bypassed the hierarchy and promulgated exactly the same rite as had been previously rejected.
Now heretics are those who change the faith of the ages, Benedict and McEwan, not those who uphold it. I think you’ll find that Petrus and I are not the ones pushing novelty in this debate. You must look to the Post-Vatican II Popes for that, unless, once again, you will argue for Papal Impeccability. Since when were Popes promised absolute freedom from error?
-
McEwan
There is no “authority” of Vatican II, except in any of its statements which were already contained in the Magisterium, since it was pronounced a pastoral Council. Moreover, the Novus Ordo is clearly and irrefutably in blatant violation of the standards set by Vatican II documents, specifically, the Constitution on the Liturgy.
So here’s what you have proposed: the documents of Vatican II, which have no authority, are bestowed authority by you (i.e. by liberal Catholics) in order to justify the validity and licitness of the Novus Ordo, which itself violates the authority of those Vatican II documents which have no authority!
Wow, I’m starting to feel like Christopher Ferrara…..
And speaking of circular reasoning, what exactly is the “post-conciliar Pontifical Magisterium of Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI”?
-
Benedict & McEwan / Morecambe & Wise / Little & Large… whoever…
Yet again you hijack a thread to promote the new Mass and Vatican II but I can’t complain. At least you’ve picked the right thread this time and not the thread on MPs expenses or the Month of Mary…
Here’s the quotation to beat all quotations on the new Mass, coming as it does from the present Holy Father… After pointing out that, throughout the history of the Church, the Mass was built, additions being made but never any subtractions, all to protect the doctrine of the Faith, the Pope/Cardinal Ratzinger wrote…
“…What happened after the Council was totally different: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We left the living process of growth and development to enter the realm of fabrication. There was no longer a desire to continue developing and maturing, as the centuries passed, and so this was replaced – as if it were a technical production – with a construction, a banal on-the-spot product.” Cardinal Ratzinger in Preface to the French edition of Klaus Gamber’s classic work: The Reform of the Roman Liturgy
What was that about “game, set and match” Benedict?
And McEwan, you accused Petrus of expressing a personal opinion which he has no authority to pronounce when he said: “(the novus ordo) is a grave departure from the theology of the Mass, as defined at the Council of Trent.” You seem unaware that this statement is to be found in the Ottaviani Intervention, the letter written by two eminent Cardinals, Ottaviani and Bacci, and handed to Pope Paul VI to express their deep concerns at this novelty Mass. It is available on our website if you wish to read it in its entirety. See the Masses section.
So, it is not Petrus’s opinion and goodness knows, we’ve all quoted it often enough on this blog, so I cannot believe that you didn’t recognise it.
Anyway, gives me another opportunity to say…
Game, set and match, McEwan! Game, set and MATCH!
-
Ah and finally, here comes Aunty. Wondered where you were lurking. I most certainly did not highjack the thread – take time to read the posts and you will see who actually did.
Cherry picking quotations is a favourite game with you guys. Usually to deflect the facts presented and then filling the post with “we are waiting for an answer” posts. Clever, but greatly overused. You need a new strategy.
-
Torkay
It seems I was writing some comments on the 1967 Synod of Bishops just as you were asking the question.
There is no question that the Bishops of that Synod, and indeed the Bishops of the Catholic Church in their various Conferences, were bypassed by Pope Paul VI because he could not get their support for his ecumenical Mass.
He even went so far as to ignore the urgent critique and appeal signed by Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci to halt the New Mass before it caused widespread damage to the Faith of Catholics. These two Cardinals were not the only ones involved in this critique/appeal, there were many other senior prelates, theologians, liturgists, etc., involved with it.
Add to this the very active participation of six heretical Protestant ministers in the construction of the New Mass, and the almost-certain association of its chief architect, Mgr. Bugnini, with Freemasonry, and it becomes clear that this was no normal, organic Catholic development.
The bitter fruits of forty years of this liturgy have proved that the New Mass is, to all intents and purposes what those Cardinals said it was right at the start “in whole and in part a grave departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent, which, by fixing the Canons, erected an insurmountable barrier to any heresy that could compromise the integrity of the Sacrifice.”
Back to you Benedict and McEwan.
-
Dream on Ed!
Cardinal Ratzinger’s comments were about some of the things that were happening in the post-conciliar Church, not about the liturgical development of Vatican II per se.
Also, your oft-quoted comments by the two Cardinals have no theological locus at all. They are interesting testimonies, but without ecclesial authority of any kind. The teaching of the Church trumps all personal opinions, including the ill-informed ones of Athanasius and Petrus. -
Benedict
You will note that the traditional Catholics here are producing statements and facts to support their side of this debate. Any chance you and McEwan could let go of the personal assaults and start producing some hard evidence in support of your side of the dabate? So far your comments say little more about your position than that you are intoxicated with the exuberance of your own verbosity.
-
And what about Vatican II’s Constitution on the Liturgy, McEwan, the Constitution that insisted on the retention of the Latin Canon? What do you have to say about this?
-
McEwan
What do you make of the fact that St. Pio and St. Josemaria Escriva never celebrated the Novus Ordo?
-
McEwan
You said: “Cardinal Ratzinger’s comments were about some of the things that were happening in the post-conciliar Church, not about the liturgical development of Vatican II per se.”
How do you know that Cardinal Ratzinger was not referring to the New Mass per se? Read the statement again.
“…What happened after the Council was totally different: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We left the living process of growth and development to enter the realm of fabrication. There was no longer a desire to continue developing and maturing, as the centuries passed, and so this was replaced – as if it were a technical production – with a construction, a banal on-the-spot product.”
-
Athanasius, tell me…
what number in Sacrosanctum Concilium says that Latin must be retained for the Canon of the Mass? -
36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
2. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.
-
McEwan
1. If Cardinal Ratzinger’s statement quoted above is not about the liturgy, then why does he use the word liturgy twice in it?
2, Since the teaching of the Church trumps all opinions, please cite the teaching of the Church which affirms the licitness of the Novus Ordo.
-
54. In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue. This is to apply in the first place to the readings and “the common prayer,” but also, as local conditions may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the people, according to tho norm laid down in Art. 36 of this Constitution.
Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.
-
McEwan
Number 54 gives the general rule.
-
Thank you, Petrus. SC does not say anywhere that Latin must be retained for the Canon of the Mass. SC in fact lays the groundwork for a gradual extension of the use of the vernacular in the liturgy. It is undeniable that the use of the vernacular has been of the greatest benefit to the Church.
-
You beat me to it, Petrus, well done!
-
Nowhere does it say in SC that the vernacular language is to be extended to the Canon, or even the Ordinary of the Mass. Now whose making things up to suit themselves? This is precisely the trickery that Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci wrote urgently to the Pope about. SC is quite clear in its instruction regarding the Ordinary of the Mass.
-
Anyway, even if the documents of VII supported the NO, which they do NOT, the Council was a PASTORAL council and had no authority to create such a departure from theology.
The fruits of the NO also give a safe indication of it’s worth – vocations in freefall, Mass attendance in freefall, record numbers leaving the priesthood. Does anyone really think an organic development, in complete harmony with Tradition, would have such a devastating effect on the Church?
-
Read my post above, McEwan. If you think all of that has been beneficial then you are perverse.
-
McEwan
“It is undeniable that the use of the vernacular has been of the greatest benefit to the Church.”
So we’re back to the old “springtime of renewal in the Church,” are we? You mean the empty or closing seminaries, the pitiful attendance at Mass, the empty Confessionals, the disappearance of belief in the Real Presence, the skyrocketing number of Catholic divorces, the closings of Catholic schools, the thousands who left the priesthood and the millions who left the Church, the nuns prancing around in leotards, homosexual priests molesting children, bishops playing their shell games with said molesters, clergy and theologians in open disobedience and dissent………..you mean THOSE benefits?
-
Petrus
You are absolutely right. Our Lord said by their fruits you shall know them. The bitter fruits of the New Mass, as you describe above, tells us immediately what the New Mass is. It is in whole and in part a grave departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent, and it shows in horrendous casualty figures.
-
Faithless bishops who hate the Traditional Mass – a few of them about.
-
I agree that the tendency to suppress Latin compeletely in the post-conciliar liturgy was a mistake. But this is gradually being corrected as the singing of some parts of the Mass is becoming more common. But the presence or absence of Latin in the Mass in no way compromises the validity and liceity, and indeed the spiritual benefits of the NO.
If there has been a crisis in the post-Vatican II Church, it is not the fault of the NO Mass. It is the fault of people who did not observe liturgical law. And, of course, many other things to do with the influence of modernity throughout western civilisation. -
Petrus
Who are these Bishops who ‘hate’ the traditional Mass?
-
McEwan
Sorry – but that is verbal diarreah.
-
McEwan
I think you should follow Benedict’s example and beat a retreat, you cannot argue against the sad facts and fruits of the New Mass. The evidence of forty years defies your testimony that this radical Mass in the vernacular was a good thing for the Church.
-
Bishops who fail to implement Summorum Pontificum.
-
McEwan
Of course the crisis of faith in the Church is intimately linked with the New Mass. It’s not the language, it’s the doctrine. There were no abuses of the old Mass, so how can anyone justify a New Mas that opens the liturgy up to abuse and heresy. It is not a licit rite, it is a B*****d rite that has no common patronage with the Mass it usurped. The six Protestant ministers should be enough for every Catholic to abandon it immediately and return to the Mass of the saints and martyrs.
-
Petrus 12.33am
You can’t spell it but you can sure talk it!!!…Your problem is that you don’t know what SP really said and so you conclude that they ‘hate’ the traditional Mass? You really do have a way with words tonight. Shame on you!
-
McEwan
Maybe I should do a Doctorate in the Theology of the Eucharist, as defined at the Council of Trent.
-
It’s a real pity you feel the need to pick up on typing errors, McEwan. You are obviously schooled in more than one language.
-
Sorry Athanasius, you in dreamland. There were abuses in the celebration of the old Mass. You just didn’t see them. Also doctrinally the NO and TLM are one and the same. We’ve been over this. And you cannot tell me that it is not a good thing for people all over the world to engage with the Mass in their own language.
Petrus
If you think you’re up to it, that’s a very good idea! -
Petrus
Only the ones which make me laugh!
And Ath,
Not the 6 protestant ministers again.. yawn, time for bed! Goodnight all and thanks for the chat. Most entertaining as ever…
-
Petrus
Make no mistake, the majority of bishops do “hate” the traditional Mass. Summorum Pontificum does not even require priests to seek the permission of bishops to celebrate the old Mass. It’s that staraightforward, and yet they make it sound like some complicated document requiring the intepretation of Philadelphia lawyers.
The utter hate spewed against the SSPX at the time of the lifting of the excommunications of its bishops, under the pretext of Bishop Williamson’s rogue comments, was a disgrace. Oh yes, they hate the old Mass with a vengeance.
-
Yes, My Lady, a very good idea.
You reduce the Mass to something superficial and rubbish the centuries in which the Mass was in Latin – the Mass that the martyrs died for. Would you die for the Novus Ordo, McEwan?
-
Remember us in your breviary, McEwan.
-
Yes, McEwan, away off to bed. It’s as good an excuse to beat a retreat as any. When you wake up tomorrow I suggest you compare the old with the new Mass and then return and tell us seriously that it’s the same. It was a silly comment!
As regards these abuses in the old Mass you claim went on but we just didn’t see them, that doesn’t wash in the slightest. I bring you evidence of abuses in the new Mass and the best you can offer is a claim to abuses in the old that no one ever saw. I told you, you’re just digging a big hole for yourself. Goodnight, McEwan!
-
Faith of Our Father, Holy Faith!
We will be true to thee ’til death! -
McEwan
I forgot to say that your joy over the Mass having moved from a universal Latin language to a vernacular Tower of Babel is my heartache.
-
Petrus and Athanasius
Game, set and match. Tennis, anyone?
-
Torkay
I don’t mind a game of tennis provided it doesn’t involve me on one side and a dumb machine firing balls over the net on the other! I’m sure Petrus is of the same mind.
-
Ath,
Sorry the only retreat I do is to the Abbey. See my 11:48pm post. I don’t play your little games.
Goodnight.
-
Absolutely!
-
Tam,
You asked earlier what I do? Here is a small example for the next couple of weeks:
Just finishing organising a traditional weekend retreat complete with Conferences, daily Mass, Holy Hour, Benediction and Missa Cantata on the Sunday.
Sing in the Edinburgh Schola, next is Vespers for the Feast of Ascension on Thursday in Edinurgh Cathedral. For Feast of the Sacred Heart we shall have solemn vespers with 7 priests. Each occasion draws a larger congregation so spreading the word.
In June off to Germany to attend ordination of traditional priest.
At home my PP has agreed that our Chapel can be used for traditional Masses. Even the Bishop has acknowledged this. Now seeking a suitable priest.Yes small stuff but at least the word is getting around and people seek me out for further info. Through dialogue I am building “brick by brick”
What are you doing?
-
Benedict
You say you do retreats to the Abbey, is that were you hold your account?
-
Oh Benedict, dear Benedict, come tell us, it’s late:
What facts have you presented at 11:48? -
Ath,
That is the very last place I would hold any account. They are worse than the RBS.
-
Benedict
What you call “dialogue” I call compromise. While you’re organising all these traditional events with the help your bishop and PP do you ever ask them why they allow laypeople to touch and receive the Blessed Sacrament while standing. No, I’ll bet you don’t!
-
Benedict
I would hardly characterize those efforts as “small stuff,” so kudos to you. As for me, I am preparing a new project, having just concluded a 5-year run as the publisher of a newsletter satirizing the crimes and liberalism of our local Archbishop. I also sing in the Chorale at our seminary, as well as in my parish choir, and I’m about to join the local community of OCDS.
How about organizing one of those traditional retreats over here?
-
Your right I don’t because except for the use of the Chapel the Bishop and PP are not involved in any of the activities, only the laity.
-
Speaking of dialogue, it sounds as though Benedict has read Father Z’s commentary on Father Jenkins’ Commencement address at Notre Dame. Here is an excerpt from said commentary on the hidden meaning of dialogue:
“The liberal strategy is to push for dialogue. It is not supposed to be real dialogue, in which the actual truth is sought. It is to be dialogue which guides all involved into agreement about the liberal agenda. Note also the “appeal to reason”. I don’t think they really mean “use reason, make distinctions, drill down to the fundamental principles”. I think he means “be reasonable”, in the sense of “don’t make problems”. At the same time, you will hear all during this address and that of Pres. Obama, a carefully projected “reasonableness”, juxtapositioned to those who “demonize” by dissenting from the liberal gospel.”
-
Torkay
To think that Benedict can do all those things thanks to Archbishop Lefebvre, without whom few Catholics would have access to the Tridentine Mass today!
-
Ath,
My premise is that through a stronger laity (grass roots) we can change the mind set of the priests and Ordinaries. The top down approach is not working – you only need to look at VII and see how many bishops have cocked their snoots at the SP. It’s time for a bottom up approach, not through scare tactics and wild rhetoric but proactive dialogue.
-
Yes Torkay, all those who speak today of “dialogue” really mean compromise, as in “unity in diversity.”
Benedict is permitted to go ahead and arrange his traditional thing provided he doesn’t confront those who do their liberal thing. It’s unity in diversity, except it’s not. What it really is is being bought off. And to think that the martyrs could have so easily dialogued with their persecutors instead of surrendering their lives for the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth!
-
Benedict
As regards your comments of 1:42, don’t you think Archbishop Lefebrve tried all that before you. They’ll eat you for breakfast. It has been the firm stance of the SSPX alone which has won much ground back for traditional Catholics. It is the only way, head on with the truth no compromise.
-
I really must hit the hay now folks because I have a very busy schedule at work in just a few short hours from now. Goodnight all!
-
Ath,
Your great on the old verbals I give you that but tell me, what are you actually doing to educate the ordinary Catholic in the pew? Are you not also arranging your traditional thing provided you don’t have to confront those who do their liberal thing. I too can shut my door and only exit to attend an SSPX event but is that educating, informing. Is that what the martyrs did? How many have you brought back to the fold? How did you do that? How many events do you organise to promote Tradition – where are you in the Church Militant?
-
Ath,
Your 1:47. Yes but he did not give up did he – a great man as I have often acknolwledged in the past. But it was it the laity who built the SSPX, without them the society would not be in the same position of today. They will eat me for breakfast, so what. If I have helped even one to seek the true faith then I have succeeded beyond my wildest dreams.
-
Benedict,
You are to be commended for all that you do and I mean that sincerely. However, don’t you think you are begging for scraps at the hierarchy’s table?
By the way, how can you have been contributing to this blog from the very beginning and still ask how Athanasius contributes to the Church Militant? Another thing, this blog has brought me back to the fold and Athanasius and the Editor have both played a big part.
Benedict, how can you continue to defend the Novus Ordo? Weird.
-
Benedict, by implication, it seems that you are describing the educative work of this blog (and Athanasius’s massive contribution to it) as “scare tactics and wild rhetoric”. I am very surprised at you – and disappointed.
How you can speak in such derogatory terms about this blog and its excellent contributers, is beyond me. Several people have told me that there is just no other blog out there of the quality of Catholic Truth, that they have learnt so much from Athanasius and others – you appear to be in the minority of exceptions to this rule.
You are doing great work by encouraging people to learn more about Tradition but you present Traditional Catholicism as merely an option and not the essence of the Faith. That is such a pity, because it is not true – there can be no choice other than the Traditional Faith for any of us.
Like Petrus, I find it incomprehensible that you continue to defend the novus ordo, knowing its history and having read the words of the Pope himself (“banal, on the spot product”) and knowing that, contrary to what James MacMillan claims, Vatican II was a break with tradition in so many ways.
Disappointing, Benedict. D Grade, at this point in the course. You need to make more effort, pay attention to the details in the argument and ask about anything you don’t really understand, so that you can improve your grade in the future…
-
Editor,
A ‘D’ ? You rate me so highly? Shucks, I’m blushing with embarassment. Last I had was F for Failure, now I’m only a D for Disappointing. At least I have not descended to an H for Heretic.
-
I’m only now catching up with what has been happening late last night and early morning on this thread. Petrus and Athanasius, both of you having been making short shrift of the arguments that the Novus Ordo is the same as the Tridentine Mass, as indeed it is not.
How many have lost their faith due to the Novus Ordo rite. Priests and nuns abandoning their vocations on the back end of a mess of pottage.
A couple of years back, on a brief holiday to the south west of England, I had occasion to visit Wells Cathedral. It probably predates the reformation in 15/16th centuries, but it has the distinction of being the smallest Cathedral in England. Just after I entered the Cathedral proper,
A service for the Church of England retired clergy began. To be honest the service was almost a word for word account of what is said at an Novus Ordo Mass. This seems to be one of the “fruits” of ecumenism. -
I’ve just remembered a saying in Scotland which goes something like -
“We’re all Jack Tamsons bairns”. Meaning if the illicit Novus Ordo is good enough for everyone else, it had better be good enough for the Catholic Church, who should not be upholding the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, Doctrines and spreading it throughout the world. -
Some great posts have left me with very little to say to Benedict, except that those who say they stay within their Novus Ordo parishes to change things are fooling themselves and they know it.
The truth is that they don’t have the stomach for the fight. They don’t want to become unpopular with the PP and the Bishop, so they get on with doing a bit for tradition while approving the New thing also. They see this as the best of both worlds. It’s actually lukewarmness.
-
I don’t get much time to blog (Petrus, how do you do it?) but I read it when I get a minute. I don’t pretend to know much about the NO versus the TM debacle but I do find this particular thread very informative and helpful. Even my husband, a non Catholic, has read some of it with great interest. He asked me (and I ask you, Athanasius) to explain why a valid NO is not licit. I’m sure if I read all the links and other threads I’d find the answer therein, but I really don’t have the time or I’d have a divorce on my hands! I wonder is the Internet ever cited in divorce cases??!!
I really don’t understand why Benedict keeps harping on about the same things. Either he accepts what he is being told or he should go elsewhere to blog. I find it very wearying that just when very good material is being explaned, in he pops again with the same old chestnuts and disrupts the flow.
-
I’m wearing protective clothing today as I tackle the dust and the grime in anticipation of a visit from those two formidable ladies who ask How Clean Is Your House?
Since I couldn’t answer “very” with a straight face, I’m going to do what McEwan does best and claim I’m much too busy to come on here chattering to you lot of layabouts…
Except to say that Benedict, you will get yourself that much desired ‘C’ grade if you simply stick with the facts. Don’t waffle, don’t think you’ll fool the Examiner because you won’t. He knows what you are up to and, He’s already on record as saying he will vomit the lukewarm out of His mouth…
So, get the facts clear in your head, make the only decision you possibly can, which is to reject the VII novelties, and take the high road – literally: that is, the road that leads to the TLM – and stick with it! No fudging, no get-out clause to keep your seat on the fence… do it! That ‘C’ grade is very close, you just have to work a wee bit harder…
And before you ask, you don’t get a ‘B’ grade until you admit that the Catholic Truth blog is the best of the bunch!
-
Editor
Does that “C” grade stand for “chestnuts”?
-
Catherine
I’m lucky enough to have Internet access on my mobile phone so I can blog ok the move.
I also have a wife who is just as determined to learn more about AND defend the faith – so she doesn’t mind my efforts on the blog.
Anyway, who says men can’t multitask?
-
to all heretics who claim the NO is not licit,
Please read the following from the Abbe of Nantes. Sorry it took so long but I wanted someone who even Athanasius would accept.
-
Benedict
Was Archbishop Lefebvre a heretic? Sts. Josemaria and Pio, were they heretics too?
-
Benedict, you mislead catherine. The question of what is legitimate, i.e. licit, centres on whether or not any pope has the right to give us a new Mass. Answer: not.
Here’s a quote which explains why not…
“With the Bull Quo primum, Pope St. Pius V used his authority, both legislative and magisterial, to codify the Tridentine Mass “to endure to the end of the world.” His enactment took place because this codification of the Mass was perfect, and also because he saw that it was the only answer for Catholic “unity and purity of faith, worship, doctrine and morals”(3), after the revolts of Luther and Henry VIII. Note well the above words that the “characteristics of holiness and universality of the sacrifice are verified only in the Mass, and by Tradition.”
In his “reform” of the Mass, Archbishop Annibale Bugnini attempted against the Tridentine Mass as being the “only” legitimate form of Mass in the Latin Rite. He had the chance to knock out both “the Mass,” and “Tradition.” A great victory for those enemies whom St. Pius V wanted to avoid! Behold Bugnini’s words that the Novus Ordo is “a major conquest of the Catholic Church” 4
http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/a051ht_IdenityofMass_Arnold.htmAnd here’s a very interesting article exploring the dilemma of whether or not a Catholic should attend the novus ordo…
http://www.traditio.com/tradlib/faq03.txtAs Petrus points out, the saints instinctively understood that no pope could replace the Holy Mass of all time with a new Mass. Unthinkable. It completely eludes me how Benedict, asserting his devotion to the traditional Mass, can accommodate the new Mass, created with the stated intention of making it acceptable to Protestants. I just cannot comprehend it. A truly Catholic soul is reviled by such a de-formation of the Faith.
-
Benedict
Abbe de Nantes is a sedevacantist and so you have no right whatever to associate him with this blog. I urge all bloggers not to be mislead by Benedict’s attempted link to sedevacantism. Benedict, you know what you do is dishonest.
catherine
You ask the difference between “valid” and “licit” in respect to the NO? It’s really quite a simple answer.
The NO can be a valid rite of Mass provided the celebrant uses the correct matter (unleavened bread and grape wine) for consecration, the correct form (the words of consecration, e.g, “This is my body, this is my blood) and the correct intention (he intends when saying these words to do what the Church intends, e.g., to effect Transubstantiation. If all these elements are present then, yes, the NO is a valid Mass.
However, given that the true nature of the Mass, e.g., the sacrifice of Our Lord on Calvary, is greatly obscured in the New Mass, whose theology (e.g., the various prayers and actions surrounding the essential consecration) are borrowed from Protestantism and therefore incline one to believe the Mass to be more a meal than a sacrifice, it is not a fitting development of the Mass it replaced.
In other words, it is not an organic development of the liturgy. It’s an entirely new creation that was foisted on the Church without proper process by a Pope who exceeded his authority in the matter.
No Pope has the authority to place the faith of the people in harms way. Paul VI knew well that his New Mass was dangerous because a good number of eminent theologians and senior prelates warned him of it. Also, some of the Bishops of the Church initially rejected the New Mass (in 1967) and so Paul VI bypassed the judgment of the Bishops of the world completely and just promulgated on his own authority. He even admitted that he wanted a Mass that would please Protestants and help with ecumenical dialogue, which is condemned by his predecessors as religious indifference. Hence, Pope Paul VI acted illicitly when he promulgated the Novus Ordo Missae. His actions have caused millions to lose the faith.
So what’s the judgment on Paul VI? It’s not our place to judge a Pope, but there are many difficulties with his Pontificate that the Church will have to address in healthier times. Right now the best we can say is that he acted wrongly in this matter of the NO to the great detriment of the Catholic Faith. We cannot say he did this deliberately. In fact, it seems he did mean well but was very seriously in error.
I hope this answers the question clearly, catherine.
-
Athanasius
Absolutely correct in everything you say. I remember reading somewhere that Pope Paul VI once said, “Pray for me, because of my weakness the Church is badly governed”.
-
Petrus
Yes, Pope Paul VI was certainly an enigma. He gave the Papal crown away to be sold, it was later photographed on the head of a dancing socialite in New York, and he gave his Fisherman’s ring and crozier to Uh That, the non-Christian head of the UN.
At the height of its popularity in the Church amongst the faithful, Paul VI dismissed Our Lady’s Fatima request and instead addressed the United Nations as “The last hope of mankind for peace.” Very bizarre!
-
Athanasius,
He may be a sede now but not when he wrote that in April 1975 and that is why I chose the text.
Quote
Whether it is a matter of the centuries-old Mass, longstanding rites, or the New Mass, it is always the one Mass of Christ and of the Catholic Church, valid therefore and licit. God would not allow the appearances and the laws to be so deceptive, nor would He permit that a rite of divine institution codified by the ordinance of the Roman hierarchy should be neither valid nor licit. If that were the case, the Gates of Hell would have prevailed. There would be no more Church.
UnquoteThat he subsequently went off the rails is shameful and to his own detriment but at that time he was a loyal servant of the Church. So get of your high and mighty horse. But I won’t hold my breath for that.
-
Benedict
This man’s mind has clearly been troubled for many years. No one becomes a sedevacantist overnight.
You haven’t commented on St Josemaria and St Pio. Were they wrong? Surely the fact that Padre Pio was a mystic counts for a lot?
You haven’t responded with anything of substance, Benedict. The fact of the matter is that the Novus Ordo is appalling. It is truly b++++++++d rite, a dangerous interloper and a boil on the Body of Christ. It is Masonic and Protestant. In fact, it’s not Catholic!
-
Benedict
Could you give me the link for the website you got that Abbe de Nantes quote from?
By the way, I’m not so sure that he is actually sedevacantist. I thought he was an outright sedevacantist, but having read some of his works I’m not so certain now. I will have to study his case a bit deeper. It does seem that he has been a victim of some very grave injustices at the hands of senior Churchmen in Rome, although I would say that his choice of language has often been questionable in respect to the Pope.
-
CLARIFICATION ON NUMBER OF VISITORS TO THIS BLOG SITE…
Further to the posts above commenting on the high number of visitors to this blog site recorded on our site-counter, I thought you would be interested in this snippet.
This evening, I received a telephone call from a lady who wanted to know if the fact that she had, she said, paid lots of visits to the blog today alone (she said 100 but I take that to be an exaggeration) was affecting the count.
I said I’d check, since I can tell by location where visitors are coming from.
Well, although we had hits from all over the USA and various cities and corners of the UK, not to mention several European locations, there wasn’t a single visit recorded from this lady’s neck of the woods which is in the far reaches of Scotland.
So, it seems that our count is a minimum number – not the whole picture.
Therefore, to revise my previous statement, that, when I checked yesterday, we had had 21,500 visitors within approximately a six-weeks period, I can now tell you that, when I checked a short while ago, we have had a minimum of 21,922 visitors to this site… plus of course, our northern blogger…
Keep trying, folks, if you must. But be aware of this truth; the belief that one of these days somebody is sure to catch me out is just SO not true!
To return to the topic, let me ask you this, Benedict. If Pope Benedict decided that he doesn’t really like the new Mass any more and he wanted a newer Mass, and if he went ahead and appointed a committee to create that new Mass, would you be OK with that? Would it pose any problems for you at all? Let’s say the Pope wanted to develop, further, the idea of the community meal, to make it more acceptable, not just to Protestants (mission accomplished) but to make it more acceptable to Muslims, Jews and Hindus. Would you have no problem accepting such a “Mass” Benedict?
-
Aside from a few minor structural differences and alternatively-worded prayers, is there really all that much difference between this Anglican service and your local Novus Ordo?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOjLz-2VWhk
You will notice, however, if you fast-forward to about 7.30 mins, that this small Anglican congregation kneels to receive their Eucharist. Perhaps the only way to encourage kneeling in the N.O. is to let the Bishops know that we could achieve better “unity” with the Anglicans by doing so.
Archbishop Cranmer et al changed many elements of the Mass with the specific intention of destroying belief in the Real Presence and the sacrifical role of the priest. Isn’t is strange that a few centuries later Bugnini et al adopted the large majority of these things for the Mass of the entire Western Church!? How anyone can say that the new Mass is not Protestantised is beyond me.
-
introibo, last time I saw an Anglican “Eucharist” on the TV the only two things that were different from the novus ordo Mass, were – as you pointed out above, the fact that the communicants knelt and the other thing was that the priestess said “For you and for many” – as opposed to “for you and for all”
I’ve known Catholic priests to be hauled before their bishop and reprimanded for “for you and for many”….
The Orthodox have also expressed concerns about the changes to the liturgy – they wouldn’t dream of tampering with theirs. Still, the pope and the bishops (and now, God help us, James MacMillan) insist on “reforming the reform”. Crackers.
It’s official: the lunatics are running the (ecumenical) asylum.
-
Benedict
I will have more in response to your very interesting Abbe de Nantes post when I get home, but for now let me say two things: one, he is not a sedevacantist, as far as I can determine, and two, the substance and tone of this article radically contradicts his other work, written both before and after it.
Well, I’ll make a liar out of myself and say THREE things: this article itself contains several internal contradictions.
More later.
-
Torkay
I await your Abbe de Nantes comments with interest. Hurry up now!
-
OK Benedict, I’ll have you know I’ve postponed my dinner just to take a crack at this….(Editor, shouldn’t there be a Blog Meal Service for such devoted followers?)
I’ll post some quotes and then comments after each one:
1. “I have explained in my Letter to His Holiness Pope Paul VI (CRC No 1-2, French edition) of 11 October 1967, how novelties show their true nature with the passing of time and how the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, only assimilates the purest and holiest contributions of each epoch and rejects the rest….Whatever comes from age-old Tradition is unassailable and legitimate; on the other hand whatever is new is uncertain and remains open to discussion. ”
COMMENT: He says that the new Mass is open to discussion on the one hand, but on the other hand, later, claims it is “always the one Mass of Christ,” This is not only inconsistent, but utterly illogical. If it were the one Mass of Christ, then why would it be open to discussion?
2. “On the other hand, the Mass of Paul VI is new. As a creation of the Church of today it is therefore licit, but it is by no means certain that it is good. Promulgated by the Pope and accepted by all the Bishops, its liceity is beyond dispute.”
COMMENT: Wrong. The Novus Ordo was rejected by the bishops, but promulgated anyway, despite their disapproval . Paul VI’s decision to promulgate was not in union with the College of Bishops, and is therefore illicit. But wait for it, de Nantes claims in another article that IT WAS NEVER PROMULGATED! (see below)
This doesn’t even consider the question of how a valid and licit rite can wreak such havoc among the faithful and among the priesthood.
3. “Whether it is a matter of the centuries-old Mass, longstanding rites, or the New Mass, it is always the one Mass of Christ and of the Catholic Church, valid therefore and licit. God would not allow the appearances and the laws to be so deceptive, nor would He permit that a rite of divine institution codified by the ordinance of the Roman hierarchy should be neither valid nor licit. If that were the case, the Gates of Hell would have prevailed. There would be no more Church.” (YOUR QUOTE OF 10:19, 5/20)
COMMENT: This statement is completely unproven and unprepared. It is an unsupported declaration, not based on any reasoning. And God DID allow a deceptive appearance: He allowed a new Mass which appears to be Catholic, but is not because it suppresses Catholic theology! Notice also that there is no definition of the Gates of Hell having prevailed – just his interpretation.
Now here are 2 other sites about de Nantes, from which you can clearly see that this article is completely out of character for him, a man who, from day one, insistently, militantly, and aggressively opposed the Vatican II revolution, even as it was being hatched in 1963 (that is, he didn’t “go off the deep end” later):
http://www.crc-internet.org/abbe.htm
http://freespace.virgin.net/crc.english/ftc/ftc1int.htm
4. This is a quote from the second link:
“Since then, he has continued to denounce this Reform, affirming that one can be perfectly Catholic while at the same time refusing to accept Vatican II’s novel acts and rejecting the papal teachings that derive from them. For, he explains, as neither one nor the other are invested with the character of infallibility, they are in fact fallible, and it is legitimate to reject them while continuing to insist that sovereign Authority pronounce itself infallibly on every point of controversy. It was in this same spirit that, on two separate occasions, he publicly accused the Pope – Paul VI in 1973 and John Paul II in 1983 – “of heresy, schism and scandal”. This action by a Catholic priest, who continues to remain a full member and obedient son of the Church of Rome, is totally without precedent in the Church’s history.”
COMMENT: Why would de Nantes on the one hand reject “Vatican II’s novel acts” and “the papal teachings that derive from them,” labeling them fallible, but on the other hand defend the Novus Ordo as both valid and licit?
Finally, look at this site, which I should warn everyone, appears to be sedevacantist. However, this article is nothing more than that which was written by de Nantes himself:
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/2002May/tgs31.htm
In this article, de Nantes claims that Paul VI’s Constitution Missale Romanum was deliberately mistranslated. Here is his key assertion:
“The Constitution Missale Romanum, in its authentic Latin text, does not impose an obligation. Paul VI does not impose an obligation to follow his Ordo Missae!”
In other words, Benedict, according to de Nantes, the Novus Ordo was never promulgated, only offered as an alternative! This confirms what I have read elsewhere concerning Paul VI’s statement, that his new Mass was only offered as an ecumenical alternative.
Now, it seems to me, if this is true, that the whole question of validity and liceity is moot, since this rite was never promulgated. But I leave that to Catholic minds better formed than mine….and besides, my dinner is still waiting….
-
Torkay
Excellent post. Yes, it seems that Abbe de Nantes does contradict himself, although I’m glad to find that he is not sedevacantist after all.
The heart of the matter, as you state, is that Paul VI did not promulgate the New Mass as a replacement for the old Mass. Others merely assumed that he did and this is why Pope Benedict had to clarify recently that the old Mass had not been abrogated by Paul VI. Now it seems to me that if the New Mass was a worthy successor of the old, then the old Mass would have been abrogated. Hence, Paul VI was introducing a Mass that pleased his ecumenical sensibilities.
He did so without consulting the bishops Conferences, and with the fore-knowledge that the Synod of 1967 had rejected the Missa Normativa. This makes his behaviour highly suspicious, which, together with the dubious nature of the New rite and obvious bad fruits it has produced in the Church, makes the rite illicit.
There is no way that such a rite as the Novus Ordo can claim to be licit given the destruction it has visited on the Church. It clearly deconstructed that “insurmountable barrier to heresy” which Trent had established through the codification of the Tridentine rite. Heresy is now rampant in the Church thanks to the ambiguous nature of the Novus Ordo.
-
Torkay, there’s fish & chips and a cream cake here for you anytime. It’s called the Blogger’s Special. Just try to get a plane that lands in Glasgow and not Preswick (the chips would be cold by the time we’d get back from Preswick…)
It seems self-evident that no pope has the authority to create a new Mass any more than he has the authority to create ATC (Another Ten Commandments) – not if the words in Pope Pius V’s Bull Quo primum, mean anything…
-
Editor
Does your offer of a Blogger’s Special make you a cafeteria Catholic? (Visions of sugar plums are dancing in my head…..btw, nowadays, they wouldn’t be called the Ten Commandments anymore. It would be the Ten Suggestions.)
Ath
The whole liceity argument seems as illogical as McEwan telling us about the authority of Vatican II.
-
Just listening to His Excellency Bishop Williamson who says the Abbe de Nantes is a very, very proud man. Pride is at the heart of the Modernist mind.
-
Torkay, your post up above is excellent. You wrote “Paul VI’s new Mass was only offered as an ecumenical alternative.”
That switched on the light for me. I have really struggled to understand all about the Mass debate and it was only after reading your post containing these words, that it all clicked into place.
I can’t thank you enough. I hope you are coming to the Conference in September so I can thank you personally! I’ll even treat you to dinner – I can outdo the editor because I’ll buy you a steak, not a miserable fish supper!
-
Shame on you Jacinta, trying to bribe Torkey over here to the conference with the promise of a steak! Shame on you – we all know that Torkey can’t resist a steak…
Torkey, fish is better for the brains. You stick with me.
-
I’ll have a steak, if it’s fillet!!! Any offers?
-
A plague on most of your houses!
McMillan’s romantic nonsense is fine but will always be a minority interest. The same for those who hanker after a liturgy that will always be marginal.
This madcap retreat into the ghetto is self-indulgence.
Get real and engage with the gospel in the 21st century. The vernacular liturgy is the only way forward. You guys are ancient history, ….speak to the next generation.
-
Lambertini
Kind of you to start off your comments with a curse. I suppose that’s your interpretation of the Gospel in the 21st Century?
It just so happens that the Gospel does not alter to suit the times. Don’t believe for one moment that this is the only rebellious age the Church has lived through, although I grant you that it is by far the most universal expression of opposition to established religious belief and practice that the world has ever seen.
As regards being marginal, you may wish to reflect that until forty years ago it was the vernacular liturgy mob who were marginal. The Tridentine Mass has, for the first time in 2000 years, been marginalised, as has Catholic dogma and doctrine, by liberals who really are not religious at all, they’re basically just humanists using religion for their own secular ends.
Remember, when Our Lord walked this earth with His disciples He too was considered to be the leader of a marginalised group, and look what happened! The true faith will be restored to the Church in its entirety very soon. The days of the liberals are definitely numbered and its the younger generation of Catholics which is sounding the death knell.
Get with the programme, Lambertini, it’s modern Catholicism that will soon be ancient history. The sooner the better.
-
Who do you think is listening to you, – anyone under 80?
How freely you judge and condemn because you then need not deal with people who disagree with you. This solid Roman Catholic is no liberal, but I won’t find the church of today or the future in plain chant and the pre Vatican II liturgy. It is just sooooooooo irrelevant.
What is relevant is the proclamation of the Good News, the celebration of the sacraments, the works of mercy and passing on the faith in a living and vibrant community to our children and their children. I want a church, not an effete museum.
-
And what exactly is “the celebration of the sacraments” Lambertini, I’ve never heard of this in the Catholic Church. A worthy reception of the sacraments, yes, but a celebration of them? I think you got that from some Evangelical religion because it ain’t Catholic my friend.
Now, you mention “passing on the faith in a living and vibrant community.” I agree with you and that’s why I fight for a restoration of the faith handed down for two thousand years until Vatican II. The Post-Conciliar religion killed that living, vibrant faith. It killed the priesthood, shut most of the seminaries and religious houses, emptied the Church of millions of souls, and now many younger Catholics are as ignorant of their heritage as you appear to be.
You make statements, but like so many other modernist windbags, you can’t back them up with facts because you know nothing of the teachings of the Popes and Councils of the Church throughout history. I do wish you people would learn something about your holy religion before writing these idiotic posts.
-
The bile grows and exposes the real windbag.
You don’t like it but I have that faith, I was raised in it and practice it relentlessly.
You can bluster as much as you like but dont indulge in abuse!
Roman Catholic to the back teeth, and proud of it!
And so to bed….
-
Lambertini, I normally welcome newcomers to the blog when they first appear. I’m finding it difficult to welcome you because, from time to time, we get rather unpleasant characters coming on determined to be nasty. You appear to fall into this category, so I’ll reserve my welcome for a bit.
I do hope I’m wrong – I’d love to be. But to call anyone a “windbag” and to accuse Athanasius of “abuse” when he is clearly on the receiving end of your abuse, is rich indeed and doesn’t augur well for your future on this blog.
Your posts so far have been vacuous and nasty, Lambertini while Athanasius has been courteous and factual. Please take a look at the statement on the main blog site page, in which bloggers are asked to be respectful in debate. If you cannot conduct a respectful discussion, then please find another blog.
In answer to your question – does anyone under 80 listen to us; yes, Lambertini, a lot of under 18’s listen to us, let alone 80.
If you take some time to browse through various threads, you’ll soon realise that. The Question & Answer threads, for example, were launched in response to a request from a young 30 something mother of three who frequently tells me that she has learned more about her Catholic Faith from this blog and the Catholic Truth newsletter and website than she ever did at her Catholic schools.
We’ve had bloggers as young as 12 – Gemma – on here with their questions and comments.
Increasing numbers of the younger generation know, instinctively, that there has to be more to the Faith than the shallow “celebrations” on offer in the newer, if fewer, post-Vatican II Church.
You say that you “were raised in (the Church) and practice it relentlessly”
Part One of that sentence indicates that you are of the older generation. It’s over, Lambertini, the Modernist Revolution, the Humanism with Hymns that passes for Catholicism in a parish near you – over. Live with it.As for Part Two of your sentence – “I practice it relentlessly” – I can only imagine that you mean you give money to SCIAF and/or join the demonstrations against Trident at every daft opportunity. That isn’t practising the Catholic religion. That’s practising to be an MP (and we all know what they’re like…)
I do hope I can soon welcome you to our blog, Lambertini but right now, all I can really say is, wisen up and remember your manners.
Luv ‘n stuff!
-
Well now, Lambertini, Roman Catholic to the back teeth you say? Are these your own teeth or false ones? It’s sometimes difficult to tell the real thing from the phoney. Let me put it another way, will you be taking a mug of water with a disolving Sterident to bed with you?
-
Athanasius, I don’t think our newcomer has much of a sense of humour, so be prepared for another verbal assault. Indeed, I’m tempted to say be prepared for much gnashing and grinding of teeth…
But I hate to be predictable, so I won’t.
-
Yes editor, I agree with you. It was quite obvious from the outset that this person who practices his/her Catholic Faith “relentlessly” came on here for a bit of nasty sport. Hardly what one would call practicing the Faith relentlessly. This kind of attitude is typical of the uninformed liberal. There is nothing remotely Catholic about the man or woman who gets pleasure from raising others to anger.
Wasn’t it St. James who was read out in Church on the feast of the Ascension, who said: “Any man who thinks himself religious, not bridling his own tongue, that man’s religion is vain.”
-
Well put, Athanasius. It makes me very sad to see the divisions within the Church which simply did not exist before what Gerald Warner describes so eloquently as The Second Vatican Catastrophe.
And WHAT a catastrophe that was. To think that Lambertini (and others like him) regards himself as a Catholic, while speaking of the Mass that the saints and martyrs died for, in such Protestant terms. And to be so defiant of the Holy Father who has made it clear that he wants the traditional Mass in every parish. Shocking, Lambertini.
Shame on you.
-
Do you two get no sleep?
Athanasius raised the subject of windbags. I’m just amused you have spent so much time agreeing with each other. A true dialogue indeed.
To be serious:- The liturgy for the 21st Century must be of the age. The old rite will always be for a small minority, and they should be catered for on a pro rata basis. If your claim that the pope wants it in every parish is true then what example is he giving! How frequently does he celebrate Mass publically using the old rite? Did he use his recent pilgrimages to Africa and the Holy Land to show the world what should be happening in every parish? Has he ordered the celebration of the old rite in every parish every week in his own diocese? I don’t think so, and actions speak louder……
-
Lambertini, you are absolutely correct to point out that the Pope should be setting the example by offering a traditional Mass in public. Spot on. He does offer the traditional Mass in private.
But here’s a fact that might explain the discrepancy and make all modern Catholics who like to blubber on about following the Pope at all times, more aware of the reality on the ground in the Vatican.
The Pope, when he announced the lifting of the SSPX excommunications, told no-one. Not a single person in the Vatican knew what he was about to do. It was kept totally under wraps – why? Because he knew that his many, many enemies in the Vatican would do everything they could to prevent it.
Similarly, we don’t know what conversations have taken place about the Pope’s public Masses. We can draw reasonable conclusions in that he now insists that anyone receiving Communion from him at his public Masses must do so kneeling and on the tongue.
Nevertheless, bullied by the likes of Cardinal Bertone et al or not, you are quite right. The Pope SHOULD insist on offering a public traditional Mass. No question about it.
It saddens me, however, to find Catholics like yourself savaging the traditional Mass and saying all the things about it that Protestants used to say. We were taught at school how to defend the use of Latin etc. against such Protestant attacks so it is incomprehensible to me to hear any Catholic say the same things that my Protestant friends used to say. Very sad indeed.
And please, Lambertini, stop talking about “the liturgy for the 21st Century” – the traditional Mass is traditionally termed “the Mass of the Ages” – it is perennially young. The Mass is about theology not sociology or anthropology or even philosophy… it is the Sacrifice of Calvary which, in the new “rite” has been reduced to a birthday party (in one parish in England where I attended Mass, they used to sing a “hymn” which was called / had the chorus “Welcome to the Birthday Party” – crackers.
And, almost finally, of course Athanasius and I agreed with each other about your posts – you made it very easy for us to do so, you talked such baloney. Let’s put it down to the initial shock that any modernist would experience when confronted by real traditional Catholics.
At least now, having read a valid point of view in your post above, I can now officially welcome you to our blog and say, in keeping with our cherished custom – assuming you will continue to offer respectful and perfectly valid views such as your “actions speak louder…” comment above – keep blogging, Lambertini!
-
Lambertini
A liturgy for the 21st Century? You either work for the Scottish Government or the Church of Scotland. Only a true Modernist could come away with something like that. What do you think Pope St. Pius V would say about a “liturgy for the 21st Century”? I’ll tell you, he would call down the wrath of Blessed Peter and Paul on you.
Just for the record, I am 27 and my wife is 24. We both love the Traditional Liturgy and recognise the Novus Ordo as being a true liturgical b*****d. Oh, and my wee son loves the Traditional Mass….he is 14 months. In fact, I am teaching him to LOGIN so he can join the blog……..watch this space!
-
Pride is truly at the heart of each and every Modernist.
“Oh the Church was so entrenched before Vatican II. We will set it free. We need a modern liturgy. We know best. It doesn’t matter about 2000 years of history, we are the most enlightened and only we know the truth. We are so intelligent. The Church is so lucky to have us. Forget St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas; they are from the Dark Ages and their teachings are not for today. We knowso much better.”
If it wasn’t so serious and tragic it would be hilarious.
-
Petrus
Absloutely spot on! What troubles me about people like Lambertini, and angers me too, is that they are so flippant about matters that pertain to their very salvation.
They come on here and make generalised, usually nasty, comments and you just know that they have never seriously studied the matter in any depth. It beggars belief that anyone who claims to truly know and love the Catholic Faith can treat of the present crisis in such a superficial way.
This is something unique to liberals, they talk of dialogue with all and sundry but have only utter contempt for those who stand up for the sacred traditions of the Church. These poor souls are seriously blinded to supernatural realities. Their religion is purely natural and hence it is that they speak of 21st century liturgies. There’s nothing timeless in the Faith for Modernists, as St. Pius X warned.
editor
If Lambertini has any genuine interest in the Faith then you have certain provided much food for thought. We’ll see!
-
Lambertini, it seems, has joined our other critics, out there somewhere in thin air! At least, as you say, Athanasius, he won’t starve!
-
Vatican II was never implemented properly – it never brought in any new teaching and the traditional Mass should never have gone out.
Many are now discovering its riches for the first time – A generation of mass goers has been failed.
We have traditional masses at Cardigan and Newcastle Emlyn.
Feel free to view our Mass Times
-
Thanks for your post, TomSharpling. I don’t know if you have posted before, if not, then welcome to our blog. The Editor is busy just now with family business or else she would have welcomed you herself.
I agree with you about Vatican II. It was a pastoral council that is not binding on the faithful. Some of the documents, however, are seriously flawed and very, very dangerous.
You are right about the Traditional Mass. As you will probably know Pope St. Pius V codified the Mass so it was a very serious mistake to mess around with it. The chickens have come home to roost though, with falling numbers in the priesthood (due to oriests losing their faith and a lack of ordinations), dismal Mass attendance and a generation who are totally ignorant of the faith.
Thank goodness for those who are bringing about this wonderful revival – which will ultimately lead to the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
-
Petrus, thank you for welcoming our new blogger in my absence: TomSharpling you are, of course, very welcome indeed.
I had a quick look at your website – very interesting. I’ll take a more detailed look asap. Right now I need to hit the hay after a heavy day.
A renewed welcome, TomSharpling – keep blogging!
Comments are now closed.
156 comments