Keeping the Faith… Telling the Truth
You are currently browsing the archive for the Traditional Mass category.
The Extraordinary Form? Sure, but one day it will again be the only form of the Roman Rite, and then perhaps the spirits of the early Traditionalists can rest in peace. You say EF, I say TLM; but if it hadn’t been for them we’d all be saying NOM. Click here to read more
I keep saying I’m not going to post another thread on the Mass – but this one I just couldn’t resist!
How sad to hear that plans to celebrate Mass in the Extraordinary Form in St Magnus Cathedral, Kirkwall – parts of which date back to 1137 – were recently blocked by the Catholic Bishop of Aberdeen, the Rt Rev Peter Moran. Sad but not surprising, since the Bishops of Scotland seem united in their determination to throw up as many obstacles as possible to the implementation of Summorum Pontificum.
The traditionalist group Una Voce Scotland had planned what would have been a historic and very beautiful celebration of the older form of the Roman Rite in the cathedral of the Orkneys (the most northerly in Britain), apparently with the permission of the Church of Scotland, which has occupied it for centuries. Una Voce has its own schola, so the plainchant would have been magnificent. Click here to read more and then tell us what you think. Remember, this is the same Bishop who publicly rebuked Cardinal Bertone for linking homosexuality to the abuse crisis in the Church, describing his comments as “stupid.”
Tags: scottish bishops, summorum pontificum, traditional latin mass
Pioneers of Traditionalism used to remark that God will not be mocked for long. They were right, of course, and are being proven so every day now. In a matter of months we have seen the mighty Spirit of Vatican II fundamentally exposed, the canonization of John Paul ‘the Great’ stall, the Traditional Mass come storming back, and the Holy Father obviously deliberating over when to leap from the leaky lifeboat of progressivism back onto the barge of holy Tradition.
Michael Davies used to say that the New Mass would simply consume itself over time, having nothing inherent apart from novelty to sustain it . That doesn’t seem so far fetched any more, especially since our Modernist friends, having grown as passé as hippies, their liturgy as stale as a bowl of Digger Stew, seem to have run out of new ideas.
This point was made recently in Dr. Robert Moynihan’s excellent report on the historic traditional Mass at the National Shrine in Washington, D.C. In an article entitled “Solemn Latin Mass in Washington stirs change in Catholic liturgy,” the editor of Inside the Vatican writes:
But at least one Vatican official I talked to, also in the past month, told me he believes the future is solely and exclusively in a return to the old rite. “The old rite is our past, and it will be our future,” he told me. “The new Mass is a passing phase. In 50 years, that will be entirely clear.”
Whatever the case may be, one thing is certain: The Church finds herself at historic crossroads at this moment. Contrary to media claims, Pope Benedict is not yet a traditionalist per se (though the yapping media jackals seem to be backing him rapidly into that corner), but serious Catholics know full well that the attempted lynching of our Holy Father is part of a global initiative to criminalize the traditional Catholicism he now represents, at least in the eyes of a world that understands few of the distinctions involved. Click here to read more
This thread is not meant to be a means of annoying modern Catholics who are happy with the new Mass. Allow me to say, in passing, that it is a matter of immense puzzlement to many of us that any Catholic can be satisfied with a Mass that was concocted by a priest/archbishop discovered to be a Freemason, actively supported by six Protestant ministers, the express aim being to remove anything and everything that is an obstacle to our separated brothers and sisters in various Protestant communities. In any event, this thread is not about “the Mass” per se, but about the overall state of the Church which now finds itself the focus of almost unceasing and unfriendly (to say the least) media attention following the child/young person abuse scandals. I think we can all agree, surely, that the Church is, indeed, at a crossroads, and a crossroads always presents us with a choice to be made.
We can continue on the same road, despite all the signposts along the way to indicate we’ve got it wrong. We can take another dodgy turn, unsure of whether or not it will take us to our destination. Or we can go back to where we started out, and take a fresh look at the whole journey. Tell us your thoughts – click on ‘comments’ now.
Tags: Novus Ordo, pope benedict xvi, second vatican council, Traditional Mass
Torkay, one of our American bloggers, has been on the mailing list of a new group calling itself RealCatholicTV.com. RCTV puts out internet videos exposing various points of clerical corruption, usually connected with the American bishops’ conference, the USCCB. A couple of weeks ago, RCTV did a week-long series about “progressives,” defining them and detailing the dangers they present to the Church. They were excellent – as RCTV’s productions usually are – but Torkay noticed a strange omission. Nowhere did these videos mention the role of “progressives” at Vatican II and afterward, including their masterminding and implementing of the radical changes in liturgy, theology and discipline that have so poisoned the Church ever since.
Torkay wrote in to express his concerns, and so began a brief but intense (and ultimately futile) discussion between himself and an official of RCTV, who shall remain nameless. In the thread below this one, you can read Part 1 of the conversation. This thread contains some additional excerpts from their exchange, in Part 2 of 2…
TORKAY: “Union between the SSPX and Rome have been and continue to be imperfect.” I believe the word Rome uses is “irregular,” and yes, I think this is a demonstration of the advanced nature of this crisis, the advanced state of penetration of the “smoke of Satan,” and the advanced nature of the “diabolical disorientation” within the hierarchy. That is, here we have a Catholic society whose position is unwavering fidelity to Tradition, but not in full union with Rome, who is the guardian of that Tradition, but who seems to have fallen victim to some very clever and unprecedented novelties since Vatican II. Only the enemy could think this one up. (Well, the novelties aren’t really unprecedented: many pre-Vatican II Popes warned us about them.)
“Not unlike what could be said about most Protestant denominations.” Actually, not an apt comparison, since the Protestants ARE in formal schism. They reject the authority of the Pope, of the Magisterium. The Orthodox Churches are also in schism: again, not an apt comparison (oops, I just noticed the end of your note, where you do state that they are in formal schism. Sorry.). Now, I hear you say, “But the SSPX also rejects the authority of the Pope!” Which leads me to ask: the SSPX, i.e. Abp. Lefebvre, disobeyed the Pope once. Yet everyone acts as though this disobedience is a permanent state of rejection of his authority. My understanding is that it is not. Does one act of disobedience make for a permanent rejection of Papal authority? Are you aware, for example, that the SSPX prays for the Pope and the Church continuously?
“All statements that I have read coming from SSPX leaders reject some teachings contained in the documents of the Second Vatican Council, most frequently the Declaration on Religious Liberty, but others as well.” I think “reject some teachings” is accurate, most specifically, as far as I can tell, certain statements on religious liberty, ecumenism, collegiality (I think I left one out), as well as the Novus Ordo. However, it is important to add one word: they reject NOVEL teachings, i.e. those which contradict tradition, i.e. those which contradict the Magisterium.
“Many express more than a mere preference for the Traditional Latin Mass, suggesting the invalidity of the Novus Ordo Mass and other sacraments.” As far as I know, the official position of the SSPX, derived from Abp. Lefebvre, is that the NO is valid, but a danger to the faith because of the Catholic theology that has been stripped from it (see: Ottaviani Intervention). I have never seen any SSPX statement to the contrary, or that suggests inherent invalidity (unless the conditions of validity are not met – which, as we agreed, is highly likely to occur). By the way, who is this “many” who are expressing “more than a mere preference”?
“The mere fact that the SSPX even feels the need for discussion of doctrinal issues with Rome is a sign that the leaders, and probably most members, do not feel they are in union with Rome.” I think the leaders are probably acutely aware of this lack of union, or irregularity, or whatever you want to call it. However, what is driving them, in my perception, is a zeal to restore the health of the Church, not any regrets about their own status. Now, what about the other side of the coin? Why does Rome feel the need for doctrinal discussions? Is that a sign that perhaps the Pope thinks the SSPX may be correct in its doctrinal analyses? If the SSPX is wrong, in other words, why invite them for discussions? Why not just reject their positions out of hand?
“SSPX sophistry etc.” I don’t pretend to understand the canon law argument, but I’ve been told that many canon lawyers do not consider the excommunications valid since Abp. Lefebvre correctly invoked Canon Law, which allows for what he did in cases of perceived necessity: i.e. a bishop is permitted to take whatever action he deems necessary to preserve the faith. My personal reaction, though, is that if Canon Law does indeed permit such cases, I think it gives the bishop too much power. But the whole argument is way over my bald head. Are you familiar enough with Canon Law to comment?
“You cannot claim conditional submission to the authority of Rome.” What if Rome contradicts tradition? Didn’t St. Robert Bellarmine write about this subject? (But don’t ask me where!) In that case, where is the authority? With the human being who contradicts tradition, or with tradition?
“You cannot, as the Protestants say, proclaim the infallibility and the inerrancy of Scripture and then qualify that statement with ‘rightly interpreted.’” But rightly interpreted, to a Catholic, means the authentic teaching of the Magisterium on Scripture, doesn’t it? I didn’t understand where you were going with this statement.
“I could be wrong, but my impression is that the SSPX believes not that they have separated themselves from Rome but that Rome has separated itself from the Tradition and that this Tradition is now under the protection of the SSPX.” I’d say your impression is correct, as far as I understand the situation, but I would use “preserved,” rather than “protect.”
“SSPX priests do not submit to the authority of the local Bishop and, therefore, cannot be said to be in union with Rome.” Aren’t there religious orders who are not under the authority of the local Bishop? Anyway, everyone already agrees, I think, that the SSPX is not in full union with Rome.
“Their only heresy, if there is any, is their rejection of the supreme authority of the Roman Pontiff as manifested in their rejection of authoritative teachings of the Church. I don’t understand how one can say “we are in union with Rome except” and be considered in full communion with Rome.” You’ve switched targets here: you’ve gone from “rejecting the authority of the Pope” to “rejecting the authoritative teachings of the Church.” Why? Also, you are incorrect in claiming that the SSPX rejects the authoritative teachings of the Church, for the following reasons: one, they embrace and defend the entire Magisterium; two, none of the documents of Vatican II are “authoritative teachings,” because both Council Popes declared the Council to be pastoral, not dogmatic (thus making the Council a historical aberration). Pope John XXIII did that because he knew that the “Progressives” were about to wreak havoc at the Council, and that was how he thought he could head them off. That means that Council documents are not binding on the faithful, despite two of the documents bearing the word “dogmatic,” thus disobeying the Pope.
[SIDEBAR: Uh-oh! Who gave those 2 documents those titles and disobeyed the Pope? And why didn’t they by their actions excommunicate themselves?] (Sorry, I couldn’t resist.)
The Council documents do repeat Magisterial teaching, in their vague, frequently inconsistent, and even self-contradictory way, but as stand-alone documents, they cannot be said to be part of the Magisterium. I’ve heard some prelates, by the way, try to sneak around this by proclaiming something called a “post-Conciliar Magisterium,” but that is a completely transparent and specious ploy. How can there be two Magisteria?
And the third reason why the SSPX has not rejected the authoritative teachings of the Church is that there is no such thing as a “new teaching,” such as those contained in various Council documents. The SSPX judges the Vatican II documents against the infallible yardstick of the Magisterium, as taught by all the Popes before Vatican II, and finds them wanting. That yardstick is not their personal yardstick, it is the yardstick of the Church! What else could we –or they – possibly have to rely on?
But, I hear you say: “You (like the SSPX) have imposed your personal interpretation on Vatican II and its documents! You are acting like a schismatic Protestant! You think you know better than the Church!” To which I would reply: “No, all I have done is to recite the facts. Pope John decreed that the Council was pastoral, not dogmatic, so that its modernist/liberal/progressive errors, which he clearly saw coming, would not be binding on the faithful. This status was affirmed by Paul VI. Therefore, no Vatican II document can be considered to be binding on the faithful. Therefore, none of them can be considered Magisterial. Q.E.D.”
“It may not be a formal sin to participate in the life the SSPX in any way. It is, in my opinion, to place oneself in a “near occasion of sin” because of a pervasive “culture of doubt” that accepts conditional submission to the authority of Rome. Even the most devout Traditionalist who rejects the authority of Rome plants a cancer of disobedience in their soul. If you think I’m exaggerating, just look at the history of the Protestant Reformation: once they rejected the authority of Rome, all manner of doctrinal aberrations became thinkable, then possible, then doable.” You have set up a straw man argument here. First of all, the Vatican has given express permission to attend SSPX Masses to fulfill our Sunday obligation, so where is this “near occasion of sin”? Then, you once again compare traditionalists to Protestants, which is not valid – you can compare sedevacantists to Protestants accurately, but not any traditionalist who is guided by the Magisterium (and if they are not guided solely by the Magisterium, then they are not traditionalists, and lay false claim to that label). Then, you once again unjustly compare the SSPX to schismatics, after you’ve already had to backtrack and admit that they are not schismatic! Sorry, but I think you got carried away with yourself, allowing one false assumption to lead you into an entire 3-story house of false assumptions. Are you aware that you did that?
“I reject the claim that Rome has abandoned the Tradition as inconsistent with the indefectibility of the Church.” In that case, the onus is on you to read the encyclicals of previous popes, to read Pope St. Pius X Pascendi, the Syllabus of Errors, and many more, and to then demonstrate how these are not contradicted by Vatican II. And as for the indefectibility of the Church, John XXIII’s decree making the Council pastoral has preserved that indefectibility, since the errors contained in the documents are not binding on the Church.
But here’s a thought I had while typing the above paragraph: in a strange sense, you are correct in claiming that Rome has not abandoned Tradition, because, thanks to John XXIII, no Vatican II error is binding on the Church. Which means the problem really is this: Rome acts as though it has abandoned Tradition in several areas, by acting as though the false new ideas of Vatican II have legitimately replaced Magisterial teaching. So, if I have my Latin correct, it is a de facto abandonment, not a de jure abandonment. Example: remember Joseph Ratzinger’s “Countersyllabus,” a description of one of the VII documents (which one was it, Lumen Gentium?) he made when he was a young, and very progressive, peritus? So let’s see: the Syllabus is Magisterial. What then would a “Countersyllabus” be? Could it be…..ANATHEMA????? [accompanying image: Dana Carvey as the Church Lady on Saturday Night Live]
This reminds me of something else: I’ve read in a couple of places that the Novus Ordo was never really promulgated, and for two reasons: one, Paul VI’s apostolic letter (?) introducing it was deliberately mis-translated, and two, the Pope himself stated that he only intended to offer the Novus Ordo as an alternative. If this is true, we have the well-placed enemies of the Church acting as though, once again. The tragedy, and the heart of the crisis, therefore, is that acting as though, the sleight-of-hand of the progressives, has been made to obscure the truth.
RCTV: Before going much further, I want to invite you to visit this page in our online “Amazon Partner Store” and, whether you order the books from our site or not, purchase and read “More Catholic Than the Pope: An Inside Look at Extreme Traditionalism” (by Pete Vere and Patrick Madrid) and “I Am With You Always” (by Michael Davies). The first book, “More Catholic etc.” is co-authored by a former member of the SSPX and currently a Canon Lawyer. It addresses each and every SSPX argument from Canon Law and, to my mind, dismantles them as “selective articles taken out of context and without regard for the historical record.” The second book, “I Am With You Always” is written by the premier apologist and sympathizer of the SSPX and, again to my mind, successfully refutes all the standard SSPX arguments, both moderate and extreme, advancing what amounts to a charge of defectibility of the Church. If all you do is read the comments entered for each of these books, it will raise and answer a lot of questions.I have probably, already, spent over $100 of my own money seeking satisfactory answers to every issue you have raised. I have talked with a priest of the FSSP. I have spent considerable personal time thinking about “The Traditionalist Critique of the Contemporary Church” and all its implications: theological, philosophical, psychological and sociological. I have learned an enormous amount, been blessed plentifully by all this. My faith has been questioned and strengthened in the process. I am truly grateful that you have crossed my path as one obviously in love with the Church without an agenda. I will not begin to question the sincerity of your search for Truth and the integrity of your conscience: those are rare qualities in any man.Nonetheless, I must invite you to do more of the heavy lifting on your own behalf. You have found a “pearl of great price” that brings you joy, happiness and peace. It is extraordinarily difficult to engage in a serious, objective search for a Truth that risks robbing you of so much that brings you joy. “It can’t be wrong when it feels so right” can be sung about religious as well as romantic matters. When we are invested in a “pearl of great price,” only God can make us move to another investment which, if true, will bring us even more joy than we think possible from where we are. If our current investment is making us rich, it’s hard to believe that another could make us even richer or, if it could, why we would need more than we have.I am convinced from everything I have read that the SSPX is far more right than wrong. What it is wrong about, however, is more important than everything it is right about. The SSPX critique of the contemporary Catholic Church is in the finest traditions of the prophets. Where it strays is in the arena of action, where critiques demand that they be expressed concretely. Riddled throughout the SSPX “ideology” is the belief that, somehow, Rome has strayed from its divinely mandated role to protect the Tradition and SSPX is called to protect that Tradition. It absolutely violates all understandings of the indefectibility of the Church to hold that position. The Church is protected by God Himself from teaching errors of divinely revealed faith. It is not protected from bad management, ineffective articulation of the faith or poor pastoral decisions. Absolutely every apparent contradiction of the faith can and must be resolved in a way that maintains the Supremacy of the Petrine Office and the indefectibility of the Church.The Office of Peter is the “ultimate legislator,” the judge whose judgments are not subject to appeal, the one whose interpretations of Canon Law are final and definitive. The SSPX apologetic is, as I wrote earlier, self-serving casuistry and sophistry.There is no articulation of divine Truth that can ever be considered fully adequate. Transubstantiation, for example, is not an object of faith but an explanation of the Truth to which it points. No articulation of what we believe about the divine mystery of the Mass, the Eucharist, can ever be complete or perfect. But no attempt to better articulate that Truth can ever contradict it and be True.Transubstantiation, however, is of an order of Truth quite different from the Truths articulated in “The Declaration on Religious Liberty” where we wrestle with issues like “the human conscience,” “coercion” and “the right of a human being to be wrong.” These are issues which are truly subject to understandings heavily conditioned by historical realities that change over time. Pope Leo XIII, for example, may have said, very explicitly, that the divine Truth of the Catholic faith gives it certain prerogatives in the natural order by virtue of its divine origin. That may be true, and the examples he uses may be valid, but a growing understanding of the radical love of the Father for each of His children may lead to a “new Truth”: that our respect for human beings demands that we respect them as much as God, who never coerces, does. “Divine prerogatives in the natural order for the Catholic Church” may no longer be an adequate articulation of divine Truth. The “new Truth” may logically contradict some parts of the old, but it’s because we now have a better articulation of the Truth. It’s called “Development of Doctrine” and any such “development” will render some parts of earlier articulations wrong. Final example: Jesus is traditionally defined as the final, complete, self-revelation of God. Nothing more can be said, in human terms, about the nature of God that was not said in the Incarnation. This is why Catholics believe that there can be “no new divine revelation” because everything has already been said in the person of Jesus. However, we are also told, in Scripture, that Jesus will leave with us the Paraclete who will lead us into all Truth. That means Jesus knows that we will need the assistance of the Holy Spirit, over time, to come to the knowledge of Truth. We have the Holy Spirit to both protect and reveal the Truth of God, not Truth that at one time was false and now is true, but Truth proportionate to our ability to understand, Truth we are better able to grasp now than before. When we were children, we spoke and understood as children. It’s expected that we will grow and that our level of understanding and articulation will mature. Firm belief in the Supremacy of the Roman Pontiff and the Indefectibility of the Church are capable of providing the necessary guidance for addressing issues of disagreement with Rome. Any belief that suggests that the Holy Father may one day wake up and realize that the SSPX had it right all along is just not compatible with Supremacy and Indefectibility. I’m not going any further with you on this journey. I’ve learned a lot. I also know where I cannot go. It is my judgment that you ought to know where must go.
TORKAY: I can’t say that I’m surprised at your decision to terminate this discussion without responding to any of my original points. Instead, you have raised one straw man after another and tried to turn this into a referendum on the SSPX. You apparently cannot face the fact that the crisis in the Church is the deliberate, planned creation of progressives, both at Vatican II and in its aftermath, from liturgy to theology to discipline, so you engage in evasive behavior. That’s a real shame. This would be the equivalent to our federal government warning us about Arab terrorists, but then carefully scrubbing from its warnings all references to the fact that 9-11 was perpetrated by….Arab terrorists.
It might interest you to know that I never even heard of the SSPX during my original phase of reading about Vatican II – though I did read about Abp. Lefebvre’s efforts to counter the liberal alliance that had taken over the Council, while the Council was still in session. My initial opinion of the Council was formed by Father Wiltgen, Dietrich von Hildebrand, and Michael Davies. This initial opinion was confirmed, later on, when I came across various SSPX articles, as well as Abp. Lefebvre’s book “Against the Heresies,” and other books.
Your thinking tends to be not only imprecise, but quite Modernist: orthodox one moment, heretical the next. Here is a classic example of the Modernist pattern from your post above:
“But no attempt to better articulate that Truth can ever contradict it and be True.” That’s the orthodox part. But then you say this:
“The “new Truth” may logically contradict some parts of the old, but it’s because we now have a better articulation of the Truth. It’s called “Development of Doctrine” and any such “development” will render some parts of earlier articulations wrong.” Not only do you contradict yourself, but you have produced sheer heresy. Your note contains several other contradictory statements.
I’m sorry that you cannot face the real cause of the crisis. That being the case, kindly remove me from your mailing list. However, should you ever decide to aim for the bull’s-eye, instead of flailing around on the outer circle, then you may once again send me your videos. END.
Tags: realcatholictv, sspx, vatican II
Torkay, one of our American bloggers, has been on the mailing list of a new group calling itself RealCatholicTV.com. RCTV puts out internet videos exposing various points of clerical corruption, usually connected with the American bishops’ conference, the USCCB. A couple of weeks ago, RCTV did a week-long series about “progressives,” defining them and detailing the dangers they present to the Church. They were excellent – as RCTV’s productions usually are – but Torkay noticed a strange omission. Nowhere did these videos mention the role of “progressives” at Vatican II and afterward, including their masterminding and implementing of the radical changes in liturgy, theology and discipline that have so poisoned the Church ever since.
Torkay wrote in to express his concerns, and so began a brief but intense (and ultimately futile) discussion between himself and an official of RCTV, who shall remain nameless. Below – in Part 1 of 2 – are some excerpts from their exchange:
TORKAY: Well done as far as it goes, but you have not gone far enough. On the subject of “Protestantizing the Liturgy,” I’m still waiting for you to address the elephant in the room: that the Novus Ordo is itself a Protestantizing of the Traditional Mass, and is therefore deadly to Catholics. What else would you expect from a rite designed by a man dismissed twice under the suspicion of Freemasonry, and approved by 6 Protestant advisers? You speak of abuses within the Novus Ordo, but not of its inherent radical abuses of our theology and the role of the priest! As far as I’m concerned, though you have accurately portrayed progressives as heretics, you have yet to address the real cause of the crisis, which is the suppression of tradition. The Novus Ordo is not “tradition,” but a progressive novelty, described by Cardinal Ratzinger as a “banal, on the spot product.”
RCTV: It will never happen at RealCatholicTV.com that we debate the relative merits of the Novus Ordo vs. the Traditional Latin Mass. That debate is well covered, within faithful and orthodox guidelines, in too many places to count. We are familiar with all the arguments. The bottom line is that the Novus Ordo when celebrated obediently, respectfully and reverently is not only a valid Mass but as spiritually enriching as the Traditional Latin Mass. I grant you that the Novus Ordo has been too often used as an instrument of propaganda, abused to the point of sacrilege, and deformed the faith of countless millions. That is less the fault of the form of the Novus Ordo Mass than the reprehensible conduct and lack of faith of too many celebrants.The Novus Ordo is incredibly easy to abuse. Even when it isn’t explicitly abused, the use of the vernacular language still makes all present dependent upon and responsive too the “mood” of the celebrant in a way that isn’t possible with the Traditional Latin Mass. The Traditional Latin Mass is much less vulnerable to abuse. John Zmirak recently wrote on this: “There’s something to be said for a liturgy whose very nature resists and defeats abuses. The Ordinary Form can be extraordinarily reverent when said by a holy priest. I’ve been to such liturgies hundreds of times, and I’m grateful for every one. On the other hand, the new liturgy, with all its Build-a-Bear options, is terribly easy to abuse. The old Mass reminds me of what they used to say about the Catholic Church and the U.S. Navy: “It’s a machine built by geniuses so it can be operated safely by idiots.” The old liturgy was crafted by saints, and can be said by schlubs without risk of sacrilege. The new rite was patched together by bureaucrats, and should only be safely celebrated by the saintly.”
(For your edification, you can read this and subsequent articles by John Zmirak on the same subject here, here and here.)Pope Benedict XVI, before he was Pope, said: “I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing today is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the liturgy.”
I think it is fair to say that reform of the liturgy is a critical piece in the process of renewal and restoration of the Church. Under Pope Benedict, it appears that this reform has begun. It is not likely to be completed in any of our life times, but that doesn’t mean we have no choice but to sin through disobedience or anger. Just as pain is a sign that something is wrong with our body, so anger can be a sign that something in our life needs to change. If the Mass in your parish is routinely an occasion of sin for you (as in “generating anger and hate”), it is imperative that you find a different place to live and pray your Catholic faith, such as another parish, no matter the perceived inconvenience. Think of this response as a variation of “If the eye be an occasion of sin for you, pluck it out.”There are Traditional Latin Mass parishes and settings that are in full union with the Church, such as parishes staffed by the FSSP and others. Under no circumstances should you allow your anguish over the liturgy to move you into schism, as is the case with SSPX parishes. No one ever disobeyed their way to holiness. The Holy Father is working hard to heal this schism with the SSPX and it should be the prayer of all of us that he is successful in these efforts.Regardless of your aesthetic preferences, you cannot mount theological arguments against the Novus Ordo and its validity and consider yourself one with the mind and heart of the Church. Even Archbishop LeFebvre acknowledged the validity of the Novus Ordo while still maintaining the overall superiority, in every way, of the Traditional Latin Mass. It is unfortunate that such a good, holy and learned man of God could not trust the Church enough to resist an act of explicit disobedience to the Holy Father.As for Freemasons and Communists, they make a lot of noise but the virtual apostasy of massive numbers of Catholics is a far more important reality. Evil people cannot eviscerate the faith of Catholics. That happens in the hearts and souls of individual Catholics. Freemasons and Communists may create situations of persecution, but they cannot eradicate the faith: only we can do that to ourselves (and it appears we’re doing quite a job of it!).Be at peace in all this. Pray for the Church. Find a “safe harbor” for your hungry and thirsty soul. Love the Church. God bless you.
TORKAY: By way of introduction, let me say that I am not interested in debating the merits of the TLM vs. the NO. That was not why I wrote to you (besides, I would probably lose the debate! 
since I’m not very learned in liturgical and theological matters). I wrote because I did not, and still don’t, understand why you spent a week exposing progressives, but failed to address the activities and schemes of these same progressives at Vatican II and in its aftermath. That is, you failed to address the heart of the crisis. That said, I’ll move on to some specific points.
1. “The Novus Ordo is as spiritually enriching as the TLM.” I suppose that depends on how you define spiritually enriching, but I’ve never attended one I would define that way, esp. after I attended my first TLM in 2002. If it was really spiritually enriching, then would it be so susceptible to abuse? If it was spiritually enriching, then would it have caused so many Catholics to stop going to Confession, stop believing in the Real Presence, stop living their Catholic identity (a point which Michael repeatedly raises in his videos)? If it was spiritually enriching, would it have caused so many priests to lose sight of their vocation as alter christus? If it was spiritually enriching, would its armor be so porous as to practically allow the arrows of the enemy free entry? And finally, if it is so spiritually enriching, then why is it constantly being revised and tinkered with?
(By the way, I don’t contest its validity – I contest its theology. Or lack thereof. That is, being a relatively ignorant layman, I trust the judgment of Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci: “…if we consider the innovations implied or taken for granted which may of course be evaluated in different ways, the Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent.” Here is the “Ottaviani Intervention,” in case you haven’t read it: http://www.fisheaters.com/ottavianiintervention.html
2. “Pope Benedict quote on the disintegration of the liturgy.” I believe there are two types of disintegration: one, the built-in disintegration of the rite itself, and two, the abuses to which it has been subject during celebration. However, when Cardinal Ratzinger described the Novus Ordo as a “banal, on-the-spot product,” he wasn’t speaking of it the way it was celebrated. He was speaking of it as it exists “on the books.” Now, I suppose you can celebrate a banal, on-the-spot product reverently, respectfully and obediently, but those qualities apparently failed, in the mind of Cardinal Ratzinger, to disguise or improve upon the essential nature of the rite. By the way, I would be very interested in your definition of “obediently.”
3. The elephant in the room. You didn’t address this in your note, but the inescapable fact is that the Novus Ordo is the creation of progressives – the very progressives about which RCTV warns us against with so much zeal. It was the progressives who hijacked the Council; it was the progressives who trashed the original schema of the Commissions; it was the progressives who re-populated the Commissions themselves with fellow progressives; it was the progressives who produced Council documents filled with vague and even heretical language; and it was the progressives who, after the Council, introduced the “spirit of Vatican II,” i.e. their progressive interpretation of their deliberately vague language, including the Novus Ordo. So, to my way of thinking, any expose of “progressives” should begin with these very things. Yet, your videos did not even touch on them. To me, it boils down to this non sequitur: progressives are poisoning the faith and the faithful, says RCTV rightfully, but the Novus Ordo they created is spiritually enriching! Sorry, that just doesn’t make sense.
What I’m asking is this: how you can expose the dangers of progressives without running smack into the brick wall of the progressives’ rite of Mass?
4. “The SSPX is in schism.” This is a common misunderstanding, which is simply not true. Cardinal Hoyos has affirmed as much: http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/mershon/070410
5. “It is unfortunate that such a good, holy and learned man of God could not trust the Church enough to resist an act of explicit disobedience to the Holy Father.” But “trust the Church” is exactly what Abp. Lefebvre did; that was the very basis of his rejection of the modernist novelties of Vatican II. He held to Tradition in the face of the Council’s rupture from it. His disobedience was in fact a tragedy – but have you ever wondered why, by his one action, he excommunicated himself, but the voluminous words and actions of the legion of heretics who have flourished over the past 40 years have not caused them to excommunicate themselves? For example, how about the goodly number of heretic presenters at Cardinal Mahony’s “Religious Education (sic) Congress”? Why haven’t they excommunicated themselves? Theirs is an act – actually, repeated acts – of explicit disobedience, after all – disobedience to the Magisterium, no?
6. “Evil people (i.e. Freemasons and Communists) cannot eviscerate the faith of Catholics.” But that is precisely what they did, by altering the faith in the liturgy, by suppressing and obscuring the Catholic theology of the Mass, by altering the role of the priest, by turning priests into peace ‘n justice social workers, by suppressing St. Thomas Aquinas….their accomplishments have created this apostasy, this crisis. And no, they did not do it by “persecution”: they did it by the manipulation of obedience, causing the clergy and the faithful to march willingly into this land of mystery-less, sacrifice-obscured, devotion-less, identity-less Protestantized Catholicism (except for the millions of laity and thousands of priests who left the Church, that is, rather than accept the new changes). And after 40 years in this wilderness, the orthodox still insist: there’s nothing wrong with the Novus Ordo, it’s spiritually enriching, it’s efficacious…as the Church continues to collapse around us. I just don’t get it.
No, I’ll take that back: there was and is persecution: persecution and marginalization and ridicule of those who attempt to cling to tradition, and the traditional Mass. Not only by the internal enemies of the Church, but by those who claim to be orthodox! (I’m not referring to you.)
7. “Freemasons and Communists make a lot of noise.” Well, they did a lot more than that: they infiltrated the Church and wreaked havoc! Have you not read the testimony of Bella Dodd? The deathbed confession of Cardinal Lienart?
Finally, and this may surprise you, I do understand the Holy Father’s “brick-by-brick” plan – but in terms of our discussion, all roads lead back to two questions: 1. If the Novus Ordo is spiritually enriching, then why must it be reformed? 2. If progressives are a danger to the faith, then why is the rite they created not a danger to the faith?
RCTV: I have, in response to everything you have written (which I both admire and respect without qualification), visited a number of sources, including the SSPX site itself, in an attempt to better understand the issues which prevent an understanding of full unity between the SSPX and Rome. I am convinced by my own reading that the priests and faithful who live their lives within SSPX loyalties have never been considered excommunicated or schismatic. The word “schismatic” and the latae sententiae excommunications were attached to the acts of episcopal ordination affecting six people. There has not, to my knowledge, ever been a formal declaration of schism applied to the SSPX as such, only latae sententiae excommunications of its episcopal leaders.This means, at best, that the SSPX is in an imperfect union with Rome not unlike what could be said about most Protestant denominations. The SSPX certainly has more in common with the Roman Catholic Church than any Protestant denomination, but its union with Rome is still imperfect due to, if nothing else, its rejection of Papal authority. The Orthodox churches are also in imperfect union with Rome, even though they, just as the SSPX, have valid sacramental ministers and sacraments: they, too, reject Papal authority and jurisdiction.All statements that I have read coming from SSPX leaders reject some teachings contained in the documents of the Second Vatican Council, most frequently the Declaration on Religious Liberty, but others as well. Many express more than a mere preference for the Traditional Latin Mass, suggesting the invalidity of the Novus Ordo Mass and other sacraments. The mere fact that the SSPX even feels the need for discussion of doctrinal issues with Rome is a sign that the leaders, and probably most members, do not feel they are in union with Rome.There’s a considerable amount of self-justifying sophistry and casuistry contained in the SSPX responses to “frequently asked questions” on their site. For example, they reject the excommunications which followed the disobedient episcopal consecrations as misapplied canon law because sentences against disobedience are not valid when the disobedience was “for the good of the faith,” which they believe the episcopal consecrations were. What is overlooked, a true “elephant in the room,” is that in this act of disobedience they have set themselves in the position of judge of the Church, in a sense “more Catholic than the Pope.” You cannot claim conditional submission to the authority of Rome. You cannot, as the Protestants say, proclaim the infallibility and the inerrancy of Scripture and then qualify that statement with “rightly interpreted.” No matter how you slice and dice it, individuals making statements like sola scriptura Protestants or apologists for the SSPX are setting themselves up as judges of the authority they proclaim exists outside themselves.I could be wrong, but my impression is that the SSPX believes not that they have separated themselves from Rome but that Rome has separated itself from the Tradition and that this Tradition is now under the protection of the SSPX.The FSSP, offspring of the SSPX at the time of the excommunications, are in full, conscious union with Rome. They exist as a “society” in almost every way resembling the SSPX except (and this is important) all their priests serve under the authority of the Ordinary of the diocese in which they minister as priests. They do not have Bishops independent of local Ordinaries. They do not, currently, have any Bishops at all. SSPX priests do not submit to the authority of the local Bishop and, therefore, cannot be said to be in union with Rome.The Orthodox churches are in formal schism with Rome. The SSPX is not. Still, the SSPX is not in union with Rome. Their only heresy, if there is any, is their rejection of the supreme authority of the Roman Pontiff as manifested in their rejection of authoritative teachings of the Church. I don’t understand how one can say “we are in union with Rome except” and be considered in full communion with Rome.It may not be a formal sin to participate in the life the SSPX in any way. It is, in my opinion, to place oneself in a “near occasion of sin” because of a pervasive “culture of doubt” that accepts conditional submission to the authority of Rome. Even the most devout Traditionalist who rejects the authority of Rome plants a cancer of disobedience in their soul. If you think I’m exaggerating, just look at the history of the Protestant Reformation: once they rejected the authority of Rome, all manner of doctrinal aberrations became thinkable, then possible, then doable. And do them they have. Or consider the Orthodox: they have successfully resisted severe doctrinal problems, but they have no way to deal with new contemporary moral issues in any binding way and their resistance to Rome has stiffened over time. Given time, the distance between those not in union with Rome and Rome becomes ever greater. No schism in Christian history has EVER been healed.I know there are specific issues that you addressed in your wonderful communication and I want to respond coherently. I just decided that I needed to address the confusing issue of “schism” first since that’s a rather important issue to be clear about. I, like many, heard that the SSPX was “schismatic,” it sounded plausible, and I never investigated it further. I am satisfied that it is a highly distracting and misleading characterization of the SSPX, one that stops most productive discussion in its tracks. That doesn’t mean, however, that there are no issues of substance that need to be addressed, and it appears that the SSPX and Rome are addressing them. I reject the claim that Rome has abandoned the Tradition as inconsistent with the indefectibility of the Church.So that I don’t leave you with only my words, here are some links to intelligent discussions of the SSPX situation:http://www.catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=60279
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2009/01/lifted/
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2009/01/some-thoughts-about-the-sspx-rome-and-unity/
http://suburbanbanshee.wordpress.com/2009/01/24/excommunications-lifted-media-ignorance-descends/
Tags: archbishop lefebvre, Novus Ordo, sspx, traditional latin mass, vatican II
The Archdiocese of Chicago’s Office for Racial Justice has announced that Fr. Michael Pfleger, the notoriously controversial priest who has been a prominent supporter of pro-abortion politicians, including President Barack Obama, will be honored at the office’s anniversary event in April. Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, who is president of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, has approved of the honor and will preside at the event.
Fr. Michael Pfleger, the pastor of Saint Sabina Catholic Church in Chicago, was listed as a planned recipient of the Racial Justice Lifetime Achievement award at an event celebrating the Office for Racial Justice’s 10th anniversary and honoring Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. on April 7th.
Pfleger gained notoriety as a former member of the Catholics for Obama Committee, a voluntary advisory committee to the Obama campaign, and for having called Obama “the best thing to come across the political scene since Bobby Kennedy.”
Pfleger has also drawn criticism from the Archdiocese of Chicago for hosting and supporting various pro-abortion figures, including Rev. Al Sharpton. In 2003, Pfleger violated archdiocesan rules forbidding pro-abortion individuals to speak at the pulpit by inviting singer Harry Belafonte to speak at Sunday Mass at St. Sabina. Belafonte used the opportunity to criticize President George W. Bush for threatening a “woman’s right to abortion” with his pro-life policies. Click here to read more and then here to see this unfaithful priest offering Mass – Eucharist Prayer Number Zero…
Should “Mass” in the previous sentence be in inverted commas? And is it the clear duty of every baptised Catholic to seek a traditional Mass at the earliest opportunity? The new flexi-Mass is much too risky, surely? Click on ‘comments’ with your views now.
Tags: Cardinal, dissenter, novus ordo Mass, priest, traditional latin mass
“Cardinal Lienart is known to us as having been directly involved in the coup d’état on Oct. 13 1962, perpetrated at the initial session of Vatican II, to allow the Rhine countries (aka the liberal alliance) to dominate the run of the Council. This Cardinal asked Canon Descomets to hear his deathbed confession. The moribund Cardinal asked his confessor that his reputation be justly tarnished by making public his true hidden life, and so asked to bypass the seal of confession. But, careful to avoid a Church scandal, careful for his position and the privilege of keeping the old Mass, the Canon preferred to state a plain message:
‘You know, on his death bed, Cardinal Lienart said that, for him, humanly speaking, the Church was lost.’
The Canon also revealed the objectives of the Cardinal and his friends:
The first objective was to produce a rupture with the Mass which, without being truly invalid in its new form, could become so by defect of intention of the celebrant. The objective was easy to reach in that they had planned the dissolution of the priestly studies. Before long, the priests would finally cease to believe in the propitiatory value of the Holy Sacrifice, seeing in it only a ‘memorial’ or a ‘sacred meal.’
The second objective was to produce the rupture of the apostolic succession by modifying the rite of the Episcopal consecration. The power of jurisdiction was to be kept integral so as to keep the Church structure but not so with the power of Orders. So they produced the same maneuver as for the celebration of the Mass. [In fact, latest studies on the rite of the Episcopacy indicate beyond doubt the certain validity of the rite, which existed in the first centuries of the Church) - Ed: i.e. the second objective failed.
The third objective was to obtain the corruption of the entire body of the Bishops. Forced by conformism, by peer pressure, by political pressure, to accomplish acts contrary to their conscience, they would be deprived of God’s grace…their ministry would be sterile before long.
Let us not forget that this satanic plan had been concocted by authentic theologians, who knew exactly the vital strength of the Catholic Church. It is on Oct. 11, 1962 that John XXIII pronounced the opening discourse of the Council. But it was on Oct. 13 that Cardinal Lienart provoked the incident which led the Council into the path of rupture with Tradition. Oct. 13 is obviously the anniversary date of the great miracle of Fatima and of the fall of the sun – rather symbolic!” (Ed: the above extract taken from the bulletin of an SSPX USA church – thanks to Torkay for sending it).
Click here to read more about Vatican II
Now for some news- not unconnected with the above revelations. Roman Catholic Faithful (RCF), led by Stephen Brady, is, or rather was, an American lay group, so militant that they made the Catholic Truth team seem positively tame. Tame and, of course, therefore, likeable. Yip, they were that militant. Unlike Catholic Truth, RCF didn’t wait for information to be handed to them on a plate, they put adverts on their website, for information about this or that bishop; this or that priest… All to uncover the extent of the homosexual lifestyle within the USA Church. It was really thanks to the work of RCF, that much of the child abuse in the States came to light.
Now, however, they’re shutting up shop. Click here to read the letter explaining why, from Stephen Brady. Then click on ‘comments’ to tell us what you think. Has Stephen Brady reached the only possible conclusion for a Catholic living through this crisis in the Church?
Tags: cardinal lienart, roman catholic faithful, stephen brady, vatican II
Below is an extract from an article, ironically entitled Call for a return to Faith and spiritual obedience published in today’s Scottish Catholic Observer, penned by the eminently disobedient, Bishop Philip Tartaglia. The SCO has yet to move into the 21st century; they do not publish all articles online (they struggle with sales in parishes, obviously) and so only the introduction to Bishop Tartaglia’s article is published on the SCO website, with an instruction to buy the hard copy if you want to read the rest. Don’t bother. Here’s (most of) the rest…
Bishop Tartaglia in his own – quite shocking – words…
“… Media coverage of the Pope’s visit has chosen to highlight liturgical issues, as if to suggest that preparation for the Pope’s visit will be marred by damaging splits in the Catholic community over the liturgy… The truth is that priests are not breaking down bishops’ doors to ask for training to celebrate Mass in the extraordinary form nor are many of them freely choosing to celebrate Mass in that form, as they might do, if they wished. Chatting to one of my younger priests about this matter, he said to me that he had no inclination to say Mass in the old form, even if he respected it for what it had been to many generations of Catholics. He said that he got his Faith and vocation to the priesthood from his experience of the Mass as it is, and he was happy with that. (Ed: now there’s a very sensible priest. He knows the mind of his bishop! If I thought for a second that priests were career-minded, I’d say “there goes a potentially very successful career priest!” The fact is that the bishop is supposed to be a leader: wherever he leads, the clergy will follow. Bishop Tartaglia has made his views known on the old rite Mass. Goodness, given how open he has been with lay correspondents, revealing his dislike, to put it mildly, of the TLM, one can only imagine what he says to his priests on the topic…)
It also has to be said that there is little spontaneous demand from Catholics for Mass in the extraordinary form. Such provision as there is, some of it long-standing, centrally located and prime-timed on a Sunday morning, is vastly under-used. Why would bishops put pressure on priests to celebrate a form of Mass they do not want to celebrate and for tiny numbers of the faithful too, when most parishes only have one priest who is fully occupied on Sundays and holy days providing Mass in the ordinary form? It just does not seem to make pastoral sense. (Ed: well the bishops thought nothing of making priests say a Mass that nobody had asked for, a Mass, moreover, concocted by a Freemason priest with the help of 6 Protestant Ministers. Nobody asked for that, if I recall. I remember clearly being one of those faithful who was open mouthed when the fact that we were getting a “new Mass” was announced. I also remember being open mouthed when priests who felt they could not abandon the old rite were persecuted and punished for their trouble. So, don’t gimme, “can’t force my priests to say the old Mass”. You forced plenty to say the new).
In my experience as a bishop, the case for Mass in the extraordinary form in Scotland is seriously weakened by militant ultra-traditional groupings (Ed: plural? really? Who are they?) who propagate the false doctrine that the Mass in the ordinary form and Mass in the extraordinary form are not one and the same Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and that Mass in the extraordinary form is superior to the ordinary form, which should be suppressed. They explicitly deny the teaching of the Second Vatican Council on ecumenism and on religious freedom. (Ed: these “teachings” are not binding on the faithful. They are novelties condemned, consistently, by previous popes).They also frequently and egregiously disrespect the memory of Pope John XXIII, Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II, and have the nerve to express huge reservations about the person and ministry of Pope Benedict XVI. (Ed: only if and when we attack the Petrine Ministry, may you criticise us. We are entitled to express, as robustly as we wish, our concerns about these Vatican II popes who have introduced errors into the Church. Thankfully, none of these errors have been pronounced binding on the faithful, so we remain loyal to the papacy and always will, for Christ will not abandon His Church – despite unfaithful popes and bishops.) What bishop would seriously want this kind of influence around his diocese? What bishop would want one of his priests or one of his parish churches associated with such a group? (Ed: what bishop would not alert his people to unsavoury groups working within the Church? Who are these “militant, ultra-traditional groups”? I’d like to know to warn my friends in Paisley to have nothing to do with them. It would be, clearly, a charity to name these groups, not to say, an important episcopal duty to protect the faithful.)
These groups sometimes contend that the problems in the Church come from the liturgy and that all will be well if we go back to an earlier form of the liturgy. This is an erroneous and somewhat simplistic analysis. (Ed: phew! That lets us off the hook. We hold to no such simplistic analysis. We know that the restoration of the Mass is but one part of the solution to this terrible Church crisis – see our threads on Professor Groome, re-ordering of sanctuaries, priesthood etc. Phew! For a minute I thought he was having a go at Catholic Truth…)
The problems in the Church today do not come from the liturgy; they come from a lack of Faith and a spirit of disobedience. (Ed: hear hear. But that disobedience includes the liturgy. Bishop Tartaglia knows perfectly well that there is extensive and illicit use of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion at novus ordo Masses. That is blatant disobedience, never mind the hostile attitude towards the TLM).
And these are the result of hostile philosophical trends which originated in the 18th and 19th centuries, and which came to fruition in the 20th century. (Ed: Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion? Really?)
These trends developed while we were celebrating Mass in an older form. (Ed: Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion? Really?) Mass in the older form did not cause these trends nor prevent them developing. Similarly, Mass in the newer form did not cause the problems in today’s Church, even if the liturgy has sometimes focused these problems. (Ed: what does that mean?) Mass in whatever form nourishes the Faith of those who participate (Ed: I disagree. Didn’t nourish my faith at all, Quite the reverse) but may not prevent evil things from undermining the Church. Faith and holiness are the antidotes to the Church’s problems, not a wholesale return to an earlier form of the Mass. (Ed: the two things, “faith and holiness” are integral to the old rite Mass).
Of course, none of that is to contradict or gainsay the rightness or the wisdom of the Pope’s Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum in which the Holy Father gives a very generous permission for the celebration of Mass in the extraordinary form. And where priests wish to celebrate Mass in that form, they may freely do so both privately and publicly. But, as I read the Pope’s words, permission stops short of promotion. (Ed: then please read it again, Bishop and put it together with the interview from Monsignor Guido Pozzo that I sent you in my letter dated 30 November, 2009, where it is made clear that the Pope wants the old rite Mass in every parish).
The Pope’s document places no obligation on bishops to promote Mass in the extraordinary form. Mass in the ordinary form must remain the norm for our liturgies. (Ed: we’ll see…) When he issued his Motu Proprio in July 2007, the Holy Father promised a review after three years. The time for that review must be soon. If it takes place, one of the things I would hope to see clarified is precisely this point about permission, provision and promotion.
In the meantime, I, as a bishop, would certainly not attempt to dissuade one of my priests who on his own initiative chose to introduce that form of the Mass into public worship of his parish. (Ed: that, frankly, I do not believe. Having read Bishop Tartaglia’s letters to two separate, unconnected individuals, telling them, in words of one syllable, what he thinks of the old rite Mass and their request for it in the diocese, I simply do not believe him. Let any Paisley priest come forward and prove me wrong. Give me concrete details of arrangements to learn the TLM and a date for your first TLM – I’ll make a point of attending it myself. I repeat, I do not believe, for a second, that Bishop Tartaglia would not seek to dissuade any priest of his, who wished to offer the TLM on a regular basis, in his parish). But so far none has, and I can see why; they don’t sense any personal spiritual need to do it and they do not recognise any compelling pastoral need to do so. But if that should change, I will be the first to take due cognizance of that fact.
This is not to say that there are no problems with liturgical practice in Scotland, a point well made by some commentators…At the same time, I distance myself from the allegation reported in the media coverage that Mass is commonly celebrated by Scottish priests in a casual or sloppy way. Priests do not routinely deny the Church’s Faith in their homilies. Priests do not routinely set up unworthy liturgies. My experience of priests in my own diocese and elsewhere is that they try to offer worship which is celebrated according to liturgical norms, which is devout, which communicates the mysteries of the Catholic Faith, which is accessible and participative, and which includes the best music they have in their parish resources. In my experience, priests want to bring Christ to their people in the liturgy and in their pastoral activity.The liturgy remains a work-in-progress (emphasis added) but, in the main, priests celebrate it well. (Ed: oh well, then, that’s OK – who cares if God is worshipped shabbily as long as “in the main” he is not thus insulted…) That’s why the people are not generally clamouring for something else. (Ed: they’re not clamouring for something else because they don’t know what else is available – since the bishops have made sure that Summorum Pontificum has been kept well away from parish bulletins, announcements, church websites etc.)
So, when the Pope comes, everyone can be certain that any liturgy that the Holy Father celebrates in Scotland will include the best music, the best ceremonial, and the best liturgical practice that we can manage. But above all, the Pope’s Mass will make the living Christ present o his people.
I was alerted to Damien Thompson’s blog on the Church in Scotland and, neither he nor James MacMillan whom he is quoting, appear to have heard of Catholic Truth. Apart from the gaffe of the century – naming Cardinal O’Brien, Archbishop Conti and Bishop Tartaglia as (possibly) “impeccably orthodox” when, for the past ten years, we have demonstrated that they are very far from being orthodox, impeccably or otherwise - there is also the ’revelation’ (not) that Scots priests are afraid to speak out about the failure of the bishops to encourage the implementation of Summorum Pontificum. In fact, Scots priests are afraid to speak out, period.
We’ve covered all these issues ad nauseum and while we believe that the bishops should be providing training in Latin and in the rubric of the traditional Mass, that does not excuse the clergy at large from taking the initiative. That’s why the Pope by-passed the bishops via Summorum Pontificum, for goodness sake. So, no more excuses, whether from priests themselves or via James MacMillan.
Click here to read it all for yourself and then click on ’comments’ to tell us why on earth the clergy are such weak characters. Oh and you might want to ask yourself why James MacMillan and Damien Thompson, internet-experienced as they are, don’t seem to know about Catholic Truth and our exposition of the true state of the Church in Scotland for the past ten years - with a sackful of evidence to demonstrate the schismatic mentality of our bishops. There are even a couple of quotes permanently on our website from Cardinal O’Brien and Archbishop Conti – see Edinburgh/Glasgow sections of our site, respectively. Yet Damien Thompson does not correct the false belief that they (and the TLM-hating Bishop Tartaglia) are “impeccably orthodox”. Curious, don’t you think? Note: this thread is not really about the Mass or the bishops or the clergy; it is about the unwillingness of certain laity, especially those with influence, those who command columns in newspapers, for example, to admit the truth about the Scottish bishops: that they have lost the Catholic faith, that they display a schismatic mentality. THAT is the real topic here.
Tags: archbishop conti, bishop tartaglia, cardinal o'brien, orthodoxy