Thursday, March 22, 2018



I am glad the CDF and Pope Francis have drawn our attention to the new Gnostics and Pelagians in the Church today.

It has helped many to understand that some of the theology of the modern liturgists since the new liturgical movement of the 20th century were both. I would say Bishop Bugnini and his cohorts were the preeminent ones imbued with a new gnosticism and Pelagianism.

Why is that, you may ask?

Think about the reforms of the Mass after Vatican II that didn't exactly follow what Vatican II actually suggested. The first ideology was to make the Mass more ecumenically pleasing to Protestants. Aren't they the Gnostics of the Reformation period? Aren't they the ones who did away with all the inspirational aspects of the liturgy and in fact did away with the sacraments? Aren't they the ones who insisted on comprehensibility, the Word as information more important than the mystical aspects of the Liturgy?   Didn't they have new insights as to what the Church should be hidden from the pope and bishops in union with him at the time?

Thus, if you couldn't understand the Mass (gnosis) and it wasn't comprehensible, (gnosis) and it was too mystical (no gnosis)  and if it was too physical, sacraments and signs, (Gnostic) and you weren't the one doing all the work to attain an salvation, (Pelegianism) then the elements of hocus pocus had to be eliminated because these implied that you didn't did need to use your mind and your body to be able to comprehend and assimilate on your own what you needed to know to experience God's grace. It wasn't up to you, but up to God and that had to be corrected by the Protestant reformers and the post-Vatican II reformers in cahoots with them.

Thus the revised Mass, more ecumenical and allowing for more gnosis and Pelagianism, became more cerebral so that each participant could understand otherwise they couldn't receive the graces because their understanding of things is what allowed them the graces. It was up to them to understand and if they couldn't no grace was there.

For example, there are some in the Ordinary Form who think a deaf and dumb person who is blind receives no graces from simply being at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass because they can't comprehend one single thing that takes place. No comprehension, no grace!

Of course that is balderdash! In the EF Mass, with its high Christology, mystical experiences, Latin language, silent Canon and the priest duplicating genuflections and Signs of the Cross all over the place, it isn't the cerebral (Gnosticism) or the Pelagianism, (I transform myself by my understanding and assimilation of the things that I understand).

Thus a return to the theology of the EF Mass is the sure and certain way to over come the new Gnosticism and Palegianism of the Ordinary Form of the Mass pseudo-theology.

And thus an astute commenter on another post unwittingly uncovered for us the theology of the new gnostics and Pelagians in the introduction to the Penitential Act of the Ordinary Form:

Brethren (brothers and sisters), let us acknowledge our sins, and so prepare ourselves to celebrate the sacred mysteries.  (NEO-Pelagian) no?

EF theology applied to an OF innovation:

Brethren (brothers and sisters), by the grace of God and His purifying love, may our sins be made known to us and imbued with the grace of sorrow, let us ask God to prepare us to celebrate the Sacred Mysteries.


TJM said...

yes, next question.

James Ignatius McAuley said...

Father, the problem is deeper than that. By confusing the need for proper catechesis with the reception of certain sacraments, the Roman church self creates the problem of Pelegianism and Gnosticism. Pius X's great document Sacra Tridentina allowed for the frequent and daily reception of Holy Communion. No age is mentioned, just the need for "careful preparation." My Grandfather, born 1905, thus received his Holy Communion at the Age of 7 in 1912, my father the same in 1945 and myself in 1976. NOTE THIS - Pius X did not say this, but at some point the decision was made (the practical interpretation of Pius X's order) that the reception of Holy Communion was made dependent on catechesis (that is how they interpreted "careful preparation") as well as the concept that the age of seven (second grade) was the age of reason and therefore a child could UNDERSTAND what they were doing at the reception of Holy Communion. We do not have this silliness of "understanding" or "age of reason" in the Byzantine Rite. You get your first communion after baptism and chrismation (confirmation) all on the same day as an infant.

Now, it has gotten worse. In the Diocese of Buffalo, Rochester, and Erie First Communion has been moved to Third Grade, the Age of eight. My poor nephew failed his exam by one point and was denied his First Communion until Fourth Grade. He has a learning disability, but for the Diocese of Erie, understanding and knowledge are the rule, not faith or love. I have witnessed this in other parishes. The justification for the delay is to allow for further "catechesis" and that the age of seven is no longer adequate as children are too intellectually immature at that age. In other words knowledge and understanding will be used to deny the faithful grace.

Confirmation should be by the age of 12 to give the child the graces necessary for all of the demons who start to hound them at puberty. When I was confirmed, there were individuals who were seniors (I was in 10th grade at the time) who were being confirmed. Three of my siblings were confirmed as seniors, and it was clear that the process was dragged out for the convenience of the Bishop's schedule, as well as the idea of trying to keep them in Church School/Church as long as possible.

Preparation for the sacrament of marriage should begin in High School, not when they go to receive the sacrament.

In any event, delay of confirmation and communion is often too late for much spiritual damage has been done that could be healed or prevented by the grace of the sacramennts.

Henry said...

How it was, before those "modern liturgists" did their hatchet job:

"You were born in 1938. You grew up in a parish where multiple Sunday Masses were packed with Catholics. Some of your earliest memories are of the hats and veils the ladies wore as the final touch on their Sunday best, the men’s dapper suits and polished shoes. You learned your catechism in Q&A form—and to the present you can recall whole sections of it. You fasted as best you could throughout Lent and always ate fish on Fridays. There was no question about going to communion without having gone to confession. Your time as an altar boy in the late forties taught you discipline, observation, and reverence. You felt a sense of humility mingled with pride in being able to enter the awesome sanctuary alongside the priest and watch him close up as he whispered the strange words of the Mass. You have striking memories of the quiet church early in the morning with sun streaming through the east window; you see the golden stitchwork on the chasuble, you feel the hard, smooth surface of the biretta that Father handed to you."

And then, in 1955, the meltdown began. Read on here, if you can stand to relive it.

Victor said...

The Pelagianism and Gnosticism is really the philosophical Modernism that characterised the 20th century liturgical reforms. This Modernism was based on the Enlightenment`s worship of the goddess Reason, which rejected the past in favour of future progress through Reason alone. The Liturgical Movement of the last century was through and through Modernist. You see its influence even in Sacrosanctum Concilium (SC), mainly a disciplinary document on the liturgy, in its praise of active participation through "understanding" for the reception of God's grace in the liturgy.
The PrayTellians may not think SC as disciplinary, but how else would you explain its contradictions with the liturgical anathemas of Trent, and moreover, placing the clamourous worshiping assembly rather than the individual worshiper's communion with God as the primary focus of the liturgy?

Gene said...