Friday, April 10, 2015

ABUSE IN ANY FORM REQUIRES SACK CLOTH AND ASHES AS A PUBLIC SIGN OF REPENTANCE: THE LITURGY DOESN'T NEED A CARNIVAL LIKE ATMOSPHERE OR BALLOONS, WHITE OR BLACK, TO SYMOBLIZE JOY OR GRIEF!

This video needs a disclaimer! Sensitive viewers may not want to watch the liturgical abuse born of Vatican II's allowance for silly hymns in place of the Introit of any mass  and the spirit of Vatican II that enables some to abuse the liturgy as well as facilitate the subsequent abuse scandal! This is from the ordination of a priest to be a new bishop in Chile a few weeks back. My comments below the video:

Compare the above to another raucous procession of another bishop in this video and the clips of the Mass that follows:

Pope Francis seems to have made a terrible tactical decisions in promoting a controversial priest to be a bishop in Chile. If Pope Benedict had done this, well, you know what would have been reported in the press and obsessively so. Pope Benedict would have been crucified.

The newly appointed bishop has had a very close association with an infamous priest in Chile who was convicted of sexual abuse and later "defrocked". The new bishop is said to have known and witnessed some of this abuse from his very good friend.

The video below is from the procession of the Mass where this priest was ordained a bishop for his diocese in Chile. I'd say he isn't off to a very good start.

Of course sexual abuse of anyone is horrible. Let me say that first. And it is this sex abuse scandal in the Church coupled with the desacralization of the Liturgy that led to the horrible sacrilege you  witness in this video.

First of all one sees how post-Vatican II (spirit of Vatican II) liturgical change has created a sort of "festival" surrounding the ordination of a new bishop. The use of white balloons and a banal, repetitive, folk style ditty of a hymn, what some would call kitsch, adds to what is nothing more than a hyped, superficial carnival atmosphere to welcome the soon to be ordained bishop. This sort of carnival-like atmosphere at any liturgy, especially the ordination of a bishop, is absolutely absurd.  It creates a "cult" of the personality for the ordained and is the height of clericalism.

In the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, the Introit for ordination would have been in a more complex Gregorian Chant and very sober and the bishops and priests and ordinandi would have prepared for the solemn liturgy quietly during the chanting of the Introit with Prayers at the Foot of the Altar. There would have been no carnival atmosphere to welcome the clergy!

I should add that at an Ordinary Form Ordination, there is no reason not to chant the official Introit in whatever Gregorian Chant mode the choir is capable of chanting in place of a ditty of a hymn that is in the folk style and classified as kitsch

There would have been a piety of hushed reverence, not a carnival of activity to include balloons in the Extraordinary Form of Ordination and in the Ordinary form which does not foresee the use of balloons to welcome a priest who is to be ordained a bishop.

 The major problem with the Ordinary Form of any Mass, ordination of a bishop or not, is that one is allowed to substitute a banal hymn of some kind in place of the Introit and other antiphons of the Mass. This is a dreadful mistake and built into the GIRM of the Roman Missal. It needs to be corrected and quickly. Cardinal Sarah are you listening or reading?

But in the midst of all the jubilation is the protestation of numerous Catholics displeased with Pope Francis' choice of their new bishop.

Contempt not only for the chosen one to be their bishop because of accusations of what he knew about his priest-friend who was an abuser leads to contempt for the Holy of Holies which a Catholic Mass is suppose to celebrate in a humble, solemn and serious way. The protesters hold black balloons.

Then emotional riots  break out and it is shocking. Yes, this is a new form of "Prayers at the Foot of the Altar." What a disaster for the pope, for this diocese in Chile, for the liturgy and for the Church Universal. Sack cloth and ashes are required, not balloons!

Somehow, even with the abuse scandal, I don't think anyone would have disrupted the Mass if the Mass had remained what it is suppose to be and represented by the quiet, solemn piety and sobriety of the EF Mass. It is carnival like celebrations of the post-Vatican II Mass that has led to protesters, as righteous as they may be in their indignation, to do their protest during Mass and not outside!

13 comments:

Julian Barkin said...

Hello Father.

You do have valid points about reverence for liturgy and that Pope francis did a blunder in this. I have founded worries that he did this intentionally and ignored common knowledge and the blogs for this appointment. And yes, despite the good intention of the black balloners, the holy sacrifice of the Mass is NOT the time for protests. I can only pray and hope divine justice prevails and that our Lord will sort out this bishops tenure.

On that note, in due respect Father, it would have been better to say the "false spirit" of Vatican II and not "coming out of Vatican II." First that kind of direct phrasing Is highly Radically Misrepresening Traditional Catholics so to say. Secondly you seem to be one of the better bloggers out there NOt suffering from Such poison of the likes of Voris, Verecchio et al. And even yourself have made efforts to be honest about Vatican II and even deficiencies of pre-Vatican II times and liturgy. I do hope you might kindly rephrase your first or 2nd paragraph to include the false spirit content. We must all do out parts to shun The rhetoric and corrupt ideology of Radicals Misrepresenting Traditonalism, who only pose barriers to the New Evangelization and attracting young people to the Latin Mass. Thank you and have a good day. Pax.

Anonymous said...

"Pope Francis seems to have made a terrible tactical decisions in promoting a controversial priest to be a bishop in Chile."

You're making progress Father.

Anonymous said...

In the first place those bishops and priests who said Mass in that atmosphere was outrageous. If they wanted to celebrate the Mass that day they should have waited until those shouting people,were removed or held Mass in another location. The whole event was ridiculous.

Pope Francis has nothing to worry about. The NYT, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC etc will NEVER report on this story. So therefore it's not important....but let Cardinal Burke say one qord they don't like then they will destroy him.

And since becoming the pope, Francis has removed 5 bishops.....all of them traditionally minded. He removed the conservative "bishop of bling" who upheld the Church's teaching on marriage, for frivolous spending. Yet the extremely liberal Cardinal Marx who has spent untold millions in refurbishing the German bishops center and spent millions on his own private home in Rome, is going strong. There is an obvious pattern. Those people literally ripped the mitre off that bishops head and nothing is done. Amazing.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

JB, I've made some adjustments to my text to address your legitimate concerns.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

Julian - To suggest that Pope Francis knowingly chose a person who actively abetted child abuse is horrific.

You have NO factual basis for this accusation, other than to suggest that the pope should be reading blogs and listening to gossip.

This is a disrespectful and shameful accusation. And, Fr. McDonald, it is wrong for you to allow such baseless accusations on your blog.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

A little self-righteousness goes a long way. Pope Francis removed the Bishop of Bling and another bishop in South America. He had good reason to do so I suspect.

Pope Benedict was forced to rescind the call of a bishop when there was an uprising in a particular diocese from the clergy.

This case is a fascinating case and one where Cardinal Bergoglio was very well aware of all the controversies.

There is no disrespect shown to the Pope by either JB or me. You are misrepresenting things from your high clerical horse. Get down with us on level ground and your people too.

When Pope Francis' very own abuse commission has its members shaking their head in disbelief over the appointment of this particular bishop then we know and the Vatican press office offers a limp, terse statement about it, then we know that there is a problem.

I suspect Pope Francis will have to intervene and change the bishop has he has done so in the past, and good for him and just as Pope Benedict had to do for one of his appointments. THERE IS NOTHING IRRESPONSIBLE IN CALLING FOR THIS. I SHOCKED YOU ARE SO ULTRAMONTANE WHEN IT SUITS YOU!

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

A little self-righteousness goes a long way. Pope Francis removed the Bishop of Bling and another bishop in South America. He had good reason to do so I suspect.

Pope Benedict was forced to rescind the call of a bishop when there was an uprising in a particular diocese from the clergy.

This case is a fascinating case and one where Cardinal Bergoglio was very well aware of all the controversies.

There is no disrespect shown to the Pope by either JB or me. You are misrepresenting things from your high clerical horse. Get down with us on level ground and your people too.

When Pope Francis' very own abuse commission has its members shaking their head in disbelief over the appointment of this particular bishop then we know and the Vatican press office offers a limp, terse statement about it, then we know that there is a problem.

I suspect Pope Francis will have to intervene and change the bishop has he has done so in the past, and good for him and just as Pope Benedict had to do for one of his appointments. THERE IS NOTHING IRRESPONSIBLE IN CALLING FOR THIS. I SHOCKED YOU ARE SO ULTRAMONTANE WHEN IT SUITS YOU!

Joe Potillor said...

Kyrie eleison

Julian Barkin said...

Father AJM, thank you for your understanding. I can only ask kindly.

As for you Fr Kavanaugh, Fr AJM has addressed you bluntly, but out of courtesy and because of your grievous statement, one that should have been more charitably rephrased as an Alter Christus, I will address you. Not to mention I see your frequent commenting here and have a general gist of where you stand on things (not always agreeing with Fr. AJM)

I stated exactly founded "worries" as yes, we can only for now go buy the obvious evidence out there. First, we can rightly assume Pope Francis is NOT naieve or foolish. He would be aware of appointing such an individual unless in the worst case scenario a cabal of those close to him conspired to hide ALL evidence. The Pope makes the elections of the bishops, not local level conferences. So HE IS directly responsible for the candidates, and he does get some sort of background on them. Can we not agree our pipes get dossiers or at least word of mouth info on the candidates submitted to Rome for possible promotion? You might even know the process yourself for promotion to bishop.

Second he or at least the Vatican IS monitoring the Internet INCLUDING bloggers so ignorance at some level cannot be feigned that easily. They do catch wind of things that spark international/blog attention, as per recent example of the Vox Cantoris vs Rosica incident. Vox himself in his posts has said he knows that the Vatican is coming to his site (which is true he knows as he uses the Google Analytics program). Back to this bishop, there is blog/Internet coverage at least of reports about this newly elect bishop, so it's out there, easily searchable.

Finally, if you are going to discount my statement and go as hominem on me, I did take consideration in my words, lest I sound like the rest of the dark corners of the Internet suggesting conspiracy theories to undermine the Church with a hostile takeover. Hence worries. Might I also add that I find Fr AJM's analysis highly respectible and Traditonal, not Rad Trad, and can be highly credible and relied upon, and respected. So yes well founded worries.

So thus, at the very least, we can say that Pope Francis, acting as Jorge Bergoglio in his appointment (as this is Not a direct faith and morals issue, thus not infallible), at the VERY least was informed enough about this bishop and succinctly made a decision willingly to hire, regardless of reports or maybe more charitably no "absolutely damming" evidence to not promote him. At the most, we can give Pope Francis some credit in his character, and decided to demonstrate his mercy pontificate. Regardless he did this, and barring a complete cabal purposely pulling wool over his eyes, he would have had SOME, if not FULL knowledge before making this decision.

That is what I will say to you father. I say what I do to acknowledge your priesthood. Good day, father.

Julian Barkin said...

Joe, short and sweet, to the point. Pax!

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

Allan, Julian accused the pope of appointing a man who has abetted child abuse to the office of Bishop. He did this without offering a single shred of evidence to support this horrific claim.

You should not post these kinds of disrespectful and damaging claims.

Julian - You said the pope knew he was appointing a seriously unworthy candidate to the office of Bishop. You stated, "I have founded worries that he did this intentionally and ignored common knowledge and the blogs for this appointment."

Now you say he may not have known the facts in the case because some cabal hid it from him. Or he may have had "some" knowledge.

Which is it?

Popes sign their names to the Bulls appointing men to the office of Bishop. They may, in rare cases, know the individual personally or have some knowledge of his background. Usually, they make appointments based on the recommendations of advisors they trust. This person might be a close, long-time advisor. More likely it is the local Metropolitan Archbishop or the nuncio in a given country.

Fifty-two bishops have been appointed so far this year. Do you really think the Holy Father has made himself fully aware of the contents of the dossiers presented to him for these appointments?

You assume that "the Vatican" is monitoring the internet and blogs. Undoubtedly individuals read blogs. But do you really think that 99.9999% of what is written on blogs is taken into account when appointing bishops?

Search for ANY newly appointed bishop and you will, I suspect, find ample "evidence" that he is unworthy of the office. And, in nearly every case that "evidence" will be based on innuendo, gossip, or the delusional anger of some blogger, often anonymous, who has an axe to grind with the Church for some imagined slight suffered in the last 50 years.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Former PI:

http://ncronline.org/news/accountability/vatican-abuse-commission-members-hope-meet-francis-about-chilean-bishop

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

http://www.cruxnow.com/church/2015/04/10/abuse-victims-upset-about-chilean-bishop-will-meet-with-cardinal-omalley/