Thursday, April 19, 2018

SANDRO MAGISTER GIVES US REAL NEWS ON POPE OAUL'S EVENTUAL DISDAIN FOR THE CONTRIVED MASS HE APPROVED






Paul VI and the Liturgical Reform. He Approved It, But Didn't Like It Much



DiesIrae
“The pope wants it.” This is how Monsignor Annibale Bugnini (1912-1982), the author of the liturgical reform that followed Vatican Council II, silenced the experts every time they contested one or another of his most reckless innovations.
The pope was Paul VI, who in effect had entrusted to none other than Bugnini the role of secretary and factotum of the council for the reform of the liturgy, headed by Cardinal Giacomo Lercaro.
Bugnini had a terrible reputation among some of the members of the council. “Sinister and smarmy,” “schemer,” “as devoid of education as of honesty”: this is how he is described in the “Memoirs” of the great theologian and liturgist Louis Bouyer (1913-2004), highly esteemed by Paul VI.
Which pope, in the end, was on the point of making Bouyer a cardinal and punished Bugnini by exiling him as nuncio in Tehran, having realized the damage that he had done and the duplicity of that “The pope wants it” with which the reprobate shielded himself.
Over the subsequent decades, nevertheless, the heirs of Bugnini dominated the field. His personal secretary, Piero Marini, was from 1983 to 2007 the master of pontifical ceremonies. And recently books have been published on Bugnini, glorifying his role.
But getting back to Paul VI, how did he experience the unfolding of the liturgical reform? The defenders of the preconciliar liturgy point to him as the one ultimately responsible for all the innovations.
In reality, between Paul VI and the reform that was taking shape little by little there was not that affinity for which the critics rebuke him.
On the contrary, it was not unusual for Paul VI to suffer on account of what he saw taking place, which was the opposite of his liturgical culture, his sensibility, the spirit in which he himself celebrated.
There is a brief book published in recent days that sheds new light precisely on this personal suffering of pope Giovanni Battista Montini over of a liturgical reform that in many ways he did not condone:
“Paolo VI. Una storia minima,” edited by Leonardo Sapienza, Edizioni VivereIn, Monopoli, 2018.
 http://www.edizioniviverein.com/shop/pao...
In this book Monsignor Sapienza - who has been regent of the prefecture of the papal household since 2012 - collects various pages of the “Diaries” compiled by the master of pontifical celebrations under Paul VI, Virgilio Noè (1922-2011), who became a cardinal in 1991.
With these “Diaries,” Noè carried on a tradition that dates back to the “Liber Notarum” of the German Johannes Burckardt, master of ceremonies for Alexander VI. In his account of every celebration, Noè also recorded everything that Paul VI said to him before and after the ceremony, including his comments on some of the innovations of the liturgical reform that he had experienced for the first time on that occasion.
For example, on June 3, 1971, after the Mass for the commemoration of the death of John XXIII, Paul VI commented:
“How on earth in the liturgy for the dead should there be no more mention of sin and expiation? There is a complete absence of imploring the Lord’s mercy. This morning too, for the Mass celebrated in the [Vatican] tombs, although the texts were beautiful they were still lacking in the sense of sin and the sense of mercy. But we need this! And when my final hour comes, ask for mercy for me from the Lord, because I have such need of it!”
And again in 1975, after another Mass in memory of John XXIII:
“Of course, in this liturgy are absent the great themes of death, of judgment….”
The reference is not explicit, but Paul VI was here lamenting, among other things, the removal from the liturgy for the deceased of the grandiose sequence “Dies irae,” which in effect is no longer recited or sung in the Mass today, but survives only in concerts, as composed by Mozart, Verdi, and other musicians.
Another time, on April 10, 1971, at the end of the reformed Easter Vigil, Paul VI commented:
“Of course, the new liturgy has greatly streamlined the symbology. But the exaggerated simplification has removed elements that used to have quite a hold on the mindset of the faithful.”
And he asked his master of ceremonies: “Is this Easter Vigil liturgy definitive?”
To which Noè replied: “Yes, Holy Father, the liturgical books have already been printed.”
“But could a few things still be changed?” the pope insisted, evidently not satisfied.
Another time, on September 24, 1972, Paul VI replied to his personal secretary, Pasquale Macchi, who was complaining about how long it took to sing the “Credo”:
“But there must be some island on which everyone can be together: for example, the ‘Credo,’ the ‘Pater noster’ in Gregorian….”
On May 18, 1975, after noting more than once that during the distribution of communion, in the basilica or in Saint Peter’s Square, there were some who passed the consecrated host from hand to hand, Paul VI commented:
“The Eucharistic bread cannot be treated with such liberty! The faithful, in these cases, are behaving like.. infidels!”
Before every Mass, while he was putting on the sacred vestments, Paul VI continued to recite the prayers stipulated in the ancient missal “cum sacerdos induitur sacerdotalibus paramentis,” even after they had been abolished. And one day, September 24, 1972, he smiled and asked Noè: “Is it forbidden to recite these prayers while one puts on the vestments?”
“No, Holy Father, they may be recited, if desired,” the master of ceremonies replied.
And the pope: “But these prayers can no longer be found in any book: even in the sacristy the cards are no longer there… So they will be lost!”
They are brief remarks, but they express the liturgical sensibility of pope Montini and his discomfort with a reform that he saw growing out of proportion, as Noè himself noted in his “Diaries”:
“One gets the impression that the pope is not completely satisfied with what has been carried out in the liturgical reform. […] He does not always know all that has been done for the liturgical reform. Perhaps sometimes a few matters have escaped him, at the moment of preparation and approval.”
This too must be remembered about him, when next autumn Paul VI is proclaimed a saint.
*
By way of documentation, the following - in Latin and contemporary language - are the prayers that the priests used to recite while they were putting on the sacred vestments and that Paul VI continued to recite even after their removal from the current liturgical books.
Cum lavat manus, dicat:
As he washes his hands, he shall say:
Da, Domine, virtutem manibus meis ad abstergendam omnem maculam: ut sine pollutione mentis et corporis valeam tibi servire.
Grant, O Lord, that my hands may be clean from every stain: so that I may serve you with purity of mind and of body.
Ad amictum, dum ponitur super caput, dicat:
At the amice, as he puts it on his head, he shall say:
Impone, Domine, capiti meo galeam salutis, ad expugnandos diabolicos incursus.
Place, O Lord, on my head the helmet of salvation, to overcome the assaults of the devil.
Ad albam, cum ea induitur:
At the alb, as he puts it on:
Dealba me, Domine, et munda cor meum; ut, in sanguine Agni dealbatus, gaudiis perfruat sempiternis.
Purify me, O Lord, and cleanse my heart: so that, purified in the blood of the Lamb, I may enjoy eternal delights.
Ad cingulum, dum se cingit:
At the cincture, as he cinches it on:
Praecinge me, Domine, cingulo puritatis, et extingue in lumbis meis humorem libidinis; ut maneat in me virtus continentiae et castitatis.
Gird me, O Lord, with the cincture of purity, and extinguish in my loins the ardor of concupiscence; so that the virtue of continence and chastity may be preserved in me.
Ad manipulum, dum imponitur bracchio sinistro:
At the maniple, as he places it on his left arm:
Merear, Domine, portare manipulum fletus et doloris; ut cum exsultatione recipiam mercedem laboris.
May I be worthy, O Lord, to bear the maniple of grief and pain: so that I may receive with joy the recompense of my labor.
Ad stolam, dum imponitur collo:
At the stole, as he places it around his neck:
Redde mihi, Domine, stolam immortalitatis, quam perdidi in praevaricatione primi parentis: et, quamvis indignus accedo ad tuum sacrum mysterium, merear tamen gaudium sempiternum.
Restore to me, O Lord, the stole of immortality, lost through the prevarication of the forefather; and although I may approach unworthily your sacred mystery, grant that I may merit eternal joy.
Ad casulam, cum assumitur:
At the chasuble, as he puts it on:
Domine, qui dixisti: Iugum meum suave est, et onus meum leve: fac, ut istud portare sic valeam, quod consequar tuam gratiam. Amen.
O Lord, who said: My yoke is easy and my burden is light: grant that I may bear this in such a way as to attain your grace. So may it be.
(English translation by Matthew Sherry, Ballwin, Missouri, U.S.A.)

47 comments:

TJM said...

Archbishop Lefebvre should be the one being canonized, not his persecutor!

Tom said...

New Catholic at Rorate Caeli says otherwise:

"Don’t whitewash history: Paul VI was front and center the creator of the New Mass"

Sandro Magister, the great Vaticanist of our age, has an article today [Paul VI and the liturgical reform: He approved it but didn’t like it much] with important excerpts from a biography of Paul VI in which it is claimed that he was almost a victim of the liturgical revolution, a bystander who had almost no control over what Bugnini did at the Consilium for the application of the liturgical reform.

Sorry, we don’t buy that.

Saying Paul VI had little responsibility for the New Mass of Paul Vi is like saying Louis XIV had no responsibility for Versailles, since he was not a mason and didn’t actually build it with his hands…

Give us a break! Paul VI was the driving force of the liturgical reform. He was front and center the man responsible for it. Of course he was queasy about it: he was the executioner responsible for taking the traditional Roman liturgy to the scaffold, and even executioners feel queasy about doing their job.

All this whitewashing of history is taking place just because of the absurd canonization of Paul VI ...

To which I add: Nonetheless, the story of Abp. Bugnini’s deceitfulness (according to Fr. Louis Bouyer’s memoir that His Excellency would say to the Pope when he expressed reservations about some detail of the liturgical reform that the members of the Consilium wanted them, and vice-versa with the Consilium) is true. Also, His Holiness quibbled with Bugnini on other details and vetoed them – such as having no Sign of the Cross at the beginning or elsewhere during Mass except at the end – and suppressing the Roman Canon and replacing it with the so-called Canon of Hippolytus (which may not have been an actual eucharistic prayer and/or composed by the anti-Pope and later repented and martyred St, Hippolytus) to become the new Roman Canon (although at least one modern liturgist has said that it should be called the Canon of Paul VI)!

Victor said...

The more one discovers about the 20th century Liturgical Movement (LM) the more one realises that it was not the inspiration of the Holy Spirit as some claim, but, rather, the opposite. Composed of the same kind of Modernists that often post at PT, their pride was revealed in arrogance, worship of their scholarly "learning", intolerance, and as Bouyer has made us aware, deviousness in getting their way. For underlings to effect change in any organisation, you have to convince the people at the top, those with the real power, of the need for change. In the Church, the LM by hook or by crook had to convince the popes, and they were quite successful. The popes of the 20th century were not so-called liturgists, and they left it to those paper degree "experts" to advise them. But these were the Modernists who saw a need for change in the Church.
This philosophical Modernism worships the Zeitgeist by rejecting the immediate past to bring in the modern. By rejecting the immediate past a large void is created, so the modern view requires some sacred foundation, which for the LM was the early Church. Unfortunately, we know so little about the early Church that it is easy create an idyllic fantasy that supports ideological claims. Anyone reading Jungmann's history of the early liturgy cannot but notice that with so few facts his arrogant conclusions are mostly in the realm of opinion and conjecture. But he was the "expert", so was listened to. Like most of the LM on the subject of community and assembly of the early Church, cornerstones of the Novus Ordo, he fails to distinguish between practical necessity and ecclesiology, but imbibed the strong neo-Marxist influence of his time.
Sadly, when one reads today works by the LM, including Bouyer's "Liturgical Piety", one is struck about how detached the LM was from the faith and worship of the ordinary laity. Here you have the "experts" telling the popes and laity that in the evolution of the liturgy of the Church, the liturgy for the past 1,800 years was all wrong. If that is not demonic, I do not know what is. Pope Paul VI was as much a victim of the "fake" experts as was everyone else.

Mark Thomas said...

In regard to Tom's reference to Rorate Caeli:

As they despise Pope Francis, Rorate Caeli praised and promoted the hearsay trash that the book Dictator Pope employed to smear the Vicar of Christ, His Holiness Pope Francis.

Conversely, as they despise Pope Blessed Paul VI, Rorate has denounced the biography of Paul Blessed Paul VI that features the “Diaries” "compiled by the master of pontifical celebrations under Paul VI, Virgilio Noè (1922-2011), who became a cardinal in 1991."

"With these “Diaries,” Noè carried on a tradition that dates back to the “Liber Notarum” of the German Johannes Burckardt, master of ceremonies for Alexander VI. In his account of every celebration, Noè also recorded everything that Paul VI said to him before and after the ceremony, including his comments on some of the innovations of the liturgical reform that he had experienced for the first time on that occasion."
=========================================================================

Rorate denounces Cardinal Noè's powerful testimony...but accepts as unassailable hearsay trash from Dictator Pope.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

John Nolan said...

If Paul VI was so easily manipulated by his underlings (Casaroli, Villot, Bugnini) then he was a weak man who is unworthy of posthumous veneration.

On the other hand, if he was the driving force behind what amounted to the collapse of the Church, he is equally unworthy of posthumous veneration.

I would remind remind Mark Thomas that Rorate is an internet forum which has a number of contributors, one of whom is known to me personally, and is hardly an extremist.

I have not yet read 'The Dictator Pope' but do have a copy of Henry Sire's 'Phoenix from the Ashes'. One does not have to agree with all the author's conclusions, but he has done his research. He does not deal in 'trash'.

It's about time that Mark Thomas developed a measure of critical faculty. Perhaps by his eighteenth birthday?

Mark Thomas said...

Rorate Caeli concluded it's post with:

"It is Lefebvre who should be canonized, not his persecutor."

Pope Blessed Paul VI is a persecutor......but excommunicated Archbishop Lefebvre should be canonized. Nonsense.

Archbishop Lefebvre, 1986 A.D:

"Adopting the liberal religion of Protestantism and of the Revolution, the naturalistic principles of J.J. Rousseau, the atheistic liberties of the Declaration of the Rights of Man, the principle of human dignity no longer having any relation with truth and moral dignity, the Roman authorities turn their backs on their predecessors and break with the Catholic Church, and they put themselves at the service of the destroyers of Christianity and of the universal Kingdom of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

"The present acts of John Paul II and the national episcopates illustrates, year by year, this radical change in the conception of the Faith, the Church, the priesthood, the world, and salvation by grace.

"John Paul II encourages the false religions to pray to their false gods—an immeasurable, unprecedented scandal.

"The rupture does not come from us, but from Paul VI and John Paul II who break with their predecessors.

"This denial of the whole past of the Church by these two Popes and the bishops who imitate them is an inconceivable impiety for those who remain Catholic in fidelity to twenty centuries of the same Faith.

"Thus we consider as null everything inspired by this spirit of denial of the past: all the post-conciliar reforms, and all the acts of Rome accomplished in this impiety."

Pax.

Mark Thomas

TJM said...

John Nolan,

You are infinitely patient with MT, but I now just ignore him and gloss over his posts because he really has nothing to say and his habit of posting scads of non sequiturs is quite annoying. I think he gets his jollies posting here, like Kavanaugh.

John Nolan said...

TJM

Ironically, the quotations from Abp Lefebvre provided by MT who seeks to condemn him, have the opposite effect. They are the plain unvarnished truth. If post-V2 developments are not in line with tradition, or deny the past, they are indeed null and void.

That Assisi One was a scandal is indisputable. Ratzinger more or less admitted it.

Compared with MJK, MT is small beer. Like MJK he will always dodge the main issue, but his naïveté militates against his being as serpentine as the clerical Artful Dodger himself!

Anonymous said...

More and more it appears to me that some very powerful force is behind all these changes that occurred. This is evident in that popes who could see that violence had been done to the liturgy did nothing to correct it. It was well within their power to do so. This powerful force understands the truth of Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi.

ByzRC said...

John Nolan -

I'm glad you pointed that out about MT's quote marathon. I read them and though (in addition to being glad there wasn't a landslide of Pope Francis references to cut through), "and so?" Abp Lefebvre seems to be making a fairly compelling case. Video of his homilies reinforces this. The Abp comes off, to me, like a loyal son that was stupefied by what was going on around him. Listening to his thoughts, extremist and radical are two words that would not come to mind.

TJM said...

PF isn't in the same league with Archbishop Lefebre who had a very distinguished career, both as a missionary and as the head of his religious order. A gifted man, PF, not so much

Mark Thomas said...

"That Assisi One was a scandal is indisputable. Ratzinger more or less admitted it."

Pope Benedict XVI/Cardinal Ratzinger rejected Archbishop Lefebvre's condemnation of Assisi I.

In 2002 A.D., Cardinal Ratzinger said that he was "very happy" with Pope Saint John Paul II's Assisi II.

In 2003 A.D., Cardinal Ratzinger stated that it is "indisputable that the Assisi meetings, especially in 1986, were misinterpreted by many people."

In 2011 A.D., Pope Benedict XVI gave us Assisi III. Pope Benedict XVI's Assisi III included a witch doctor who chanted a prayer to the witchdoctor's god.

Bishop Fellay, in line with Archbishop Lefebvre's 1986 A.D. condemnation of Assisi I, condemned Pope Benedict XVI's Assisi III as a grave scandal against God. Pope Benedict XVI rejected that condemnation.

Popes Saint John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis rejected Archbishop Lefebvre's and Bishop Fellay's condemnations of the Assisi gatherings in question.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...


John Nolan said..."Ironically, the quotations from Abp Lefebvre provided by MT who seeks to condemn him, have the opposite effect. They are the plain unvarnished truth. That Assisi One was a scandal is indisputable. Ratzinger more or less admitted it."

Popes Saint John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis disagree with you.

Example: In 2006 A.D., Pope Benedict XVI commemorated the 20th Anniversary of Assisi I.

https://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/letters/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20060902_xx-incontro-assisi.html

Pope Benedict XVI characterized as "prophetic" Pope Saint John Paul II's Assisi initiative.

Oh...in 1988 A.D., Cardinal Ratzinger described Archbishop Lefebvre's rejection of Pope Saint John Paul II's authority over him (Archbishop Lefebvre) as "the schism of Lefebvre."

Cardinal Ratzinger also noted that Archbishop Lefebvre possessed an incomplete understanding of the Catholic Church.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

It is sad that Archbishop Lefebvre, via his rants against Popes Blessed Paul VI, and Saint John Paul II...his rants against "the Conciliar Church"...his rants against "Modernist Rome", had clouded his mind against Holy Mother Church to the extent that he incurred the grave penalty of excommunication.

Archbishop Lefebvre accused Popes Blessed Paul VI and Saint John Paul II, as well as bishops who had submitted to said Popes, as having broken from the Church.

But in the end, the True Church declared Pope Paul VI "Blessed," and John Paul II a "Saint."

Pope Saint John Paul II noted that Archbishop Lefebvre possessed an "incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition."

Archbishop Lefebvre was excommunicated.

But in the face of Archbishop Lefebvre's horrific rants and actions against Holy Mother Church, as well as Blessed Pope Paul VI and Pope Saint John Paul II, Rorate Caeli declared:

"It is Lefebvre who should be canonized, not his persecutor."

Rorate Caeli (New Catholic) revealed his true colors.

But then Rorate Caeli's true colors were revealed years ago via their daily horrific attacks and lies against the Vicar of Christ, Pope Francis.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

TJM said...

LOL - MT took the bait and has tossed out dozens of non sequiturs!!!

ByzRC said...

If Abp Lefebvre said, "Don't jump off the bridge" but, Paul VI said "Jump off the bridge" and John Paul II reaffirmed this by saying, "Blessed are they that jump from the bridge", MT, would you then jump?

ByzRC said...

Of course, MT, NONE of them said this. No need to Google and, please, just stay at home.

Mark Thomas said...

Archbishop Lefebvre is the perfect example as to what becomes of those who rant and rave against the Vicar(s) of Christ. His rants against Popes Blessed Paul VI and Saint John Paul II, as well as bishops who submitted to Papal authority, had grown increasingly caustic...

...to the point that he placed himself above the True Church and Her Popes.

Unfortunately, Archbishop Lefebvre determined that the grave penalty of excommunication was fine with him.

He set back for decades the propagation of the TLM. Had he not revolted in 1988 A.D. against Holy Mother Church, the SSPX decades ago would have enjoyed Rome's protection and authority.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

ByzRC said...

MT, Abp Lefebvre repeated said that he was, at the time, being told that his past thirty years of ministry was wrong. He was merely standing up for what he always knew to be right. I can respect that level of bravery. I don't agree with your conclusion. Had the Church implemented the Council's mandates, the Church would not have set itself back decades.

Pax

John Nolan said...

Mark Thomas

You really do come out with some arrant nonsense. Rome succumbed to pressure from the French hierarchy and tried to suppress the SSPX more than a decade before '1988 A.D.' as you so quaintly put it. Jean-Marie Cardinal Villot dripped poison into the ear of Paul VI and used his position as Secretary of State to ensure that Achbishop Lefebvre was denied justice. When Lefebvre visited London in 1976 he had to celebrate Mass in the Great Western Hotel, Paddington, since he was suspended 'a divinis'. (I was privileged to be there.) This was despite the fact that when he set up his seminary at Econe he was careful to get the approval of the local bishop.

In the 1970s and indeed until Quatuor Abhinc Annos (1984) the TLM was effectively outlawed, except in England and Wales where it was permitted under the indult granted to Cardinal Heenan in 1971. Lefebvre had not consecrated any bishops, and it was his attachment to the older Rite which incurred the wrath of the ecclesiastical establishment.

Perhaps you might consider doing some basic research before regaling us with your half-baked opinions. Spewing out selective quotations and hyperlinks does not constitute research.

TJM said...

ByzRC,

Remember, you are dealing with eMT, with emphasis on the "e" as in empty suit

Mark Thomas said...

ByzRC said..."If Abp Lefebvre said, "Don't jump off the bridge" but, Paul VI said "Jump off the bridge" and John Paul II reaffirmed this by saying, "Blessed are they that jump from the bridge", MT, would you then jump?"

Did the Popes say that to Archbishop Lefebvre?

In 1976 A.D., Archbishop Lefebvre said the following in regard to Pope Blessed Paul VI:

"Why am I suspended a divinis? Because I ordained when I had been forbidden to do so. But I do not accept that sentence about ordinations precisely because I do not accept the judgment that was pronounced.

"But who was it who broke off normal relations? They were broken at the Council. It was at the Council that normal relations with the Church were broken, it was at the Council that the Church, separating Herself from Tradition, departing from Tradition, took up an abnormal attitude to Tradition."

"As I said to the Holy Father: "In so far as you deviate from your predecessors, we can no longer follow you." That is plain. It is not we who deviate from his predecessors."

"In so far as the new Church separates itself from the old Church we cannot follow it."

Certain folks have throw in with the Archbishop. He is the hero...Pope Blessed Paul VI is the villain.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

ByzRC said..."MT, Abp Lefebvre repeated said that he was, at the time, being told that his past thirty years of ministry was wrong."

Rome attempted to cooperate with him. He even signed the Protocol that, had he not taken back his word, would have granted unto him powerful protection to promote his work throughout the world.
==============================

ByzRC said..."I don't agree with your conclusion."

Okay. But Bishop Fellay has acknowledged that the SSPX's irregular status has kept many Catholics from attending SSPX chapels.

Archbishop Lefebvre's self-inflicted excommunication...and the SSPX's refusal to have entered into full-communion with Rome...set the SSPX back several decades.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

ByzRC said..."He was merely standing up for what he always knew to be right. I can respect that level of bravery."

Was it brave of Archbishop Lefebvre to have ranted and raved against Popes Blessed Paul VI and Saint John Paul II? To have declared that said Popes had separated from the Church?

Was it brave of Archbishop Lefebvre to have claimed that the "Conciliar Church," "New Church," and "Modernist Rome," under Pope Blessed Paul XVI's and Saint John Paul II's authority, were not Catholic?

Was it brave of Archbishop Lefebvre to have said that Pope Saint John Paul II had placed himself "at the service of the destroyers of Christianity and of the universal Kingdom of Our Lord Jesus Christ?"

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

Had Archbishop Lefebvre not placed himself above Holy Mother Church, then Cardinal Burke could never have uttered the following:

"The fact of the matter is that the Priestly Society of St. Pius X is in schism since the late Abp. Marcel Lefebvre ordained four bishops without the mandate of the Roman Pontiff.

"And so it is not legitimate to attend Mass or to receive the sacraments in a church that's under the direction of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X."
=============================================================================

As Bishop Fellay has acknowledged, due to the Society's irregular status, many Catholics, who otherwise would have attended SSPX's chapels, have shunned the SSPX.

Archbishop Lefebvre hammered himself and the SSPX via his schismatic act against Pope Saint John Paul II.

Thanks to Archbishop Lefebvre's dreadful 1988 A.D. schismatic act, thirty years later, such prominent Churchmen as Cardinal Burke (as well as Cardinal Müller) do not hesitate to brand the SSPX "schismatic."

Again, thirty years ago, had he obeyed God and His True Church, Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX would ever since have enjoyed Rome's blessing and protection.

Archbishop Lefebvre set back the spread of the SSPX/TLM...a setback of decades. What a shame.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Anonymous said...

John Nolan suggests: "Perhaps you might consider doing some basic research before regaling us with your half-baked opinions."

One wonders what "research" underpins the less-than-half-baked opinion that, "Jean-Marie Cardinal Villot dripped poison into the ear of Paul VI and used his position as Secretary of State to ensure that Achbishop Lefebvre was denied justice."

Hmmm...?

TJM said...

Anonymous Kavanaugh,

Common knowledge among Vatican watchers. Villot was a left-wing loon, ergo, you would be his best bud

John Nolan said...

MT

I think you are ignoring the widespread hostility towards the Tridentine Rite in the 1970s on the part of the bishops (especially in France and Italy), and key players in the Vatican, not excluding Paul VI.

I have already mentioned Villot's role, and had the internet been around the true story would have emerged much earlier. As it was, all we had in the 1970s was the anodyne and non-critical Catholic press.

Then along came Michael Davies (1937-2004) who actually did his research. Lefebvre was stubborn and tenacious, but his enemies wielded the power and used it ruthlessly to discredit him and his movement, and to deny him natural justice (he was an archbishop after all).

But that was the way the Vatican operated in the last ten dismal years of the Pauline pontificate. Your precious TLM would have sunk without trace had Paul VI and Bugnini had their way. Can you imagine QAA, EDA, SP and UE happening without Lefebvre's heroic witness? Dream on.

John Nolan said...

Kavanaugh

Villot told Paul VI that Lefebvre's seminarians took an oath against the Pope. This was palpably untrue, but the 'Hamlet Pope' swallowed it.

Michael Davies's research, which was meticulous and thorough, documents the fact that Lefebvre was denied a fair hearing. I doubt you have read his 'Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre' and would probably dismiss it as partisan (which it is, although this does not negate the truth of his assertions which are based on concrete evidence). The fact that a biographer has come to admire his subject does not negate his conclusions. A discerning reader can cope with this.

A closed mind like yours, of course, cannot.

TJM said...

Anonymous Kavanaugh,

This supports John Nolan's view of Villot:

Lefebvre, former archbishop of Dakar and superior of the Holy Ghost Fathers, had founded, with Paul's approval, the Society of St. Pius X for the preservation of the traditional liturgical rites of the Church. In 1976, it became apparent that the archbishop would not use the new rites at all, so he was ordered by the local bishop (in Switzerland) to disband the SSPX. He was then told by the Vatican that if he ordained the current class he would be suspended. Lefebvre appealed to the Apostolic Signatura, but Cardinal Villot, the secretary of state, forbade the Signatura to hear the case. This was a violation of canon law."

Villot sounds like a really swell guy

John Nolan said...

TJM

Agreed, but it is not 'my view' of Villot, which would simply be an unsubstantiated opinion. It is a conclusion based on copious evidence from numerous sources.

TJM said...

John Nolan

Agreed but Kavanaugh, the inartful dodger, is busy working on a narrative to salvage his thesis on Villot! I actually read many years ago that Villot, although from a distinguished family, was a communist sympathizer, just what you would want in a papal secretary of stste ( if the goal was undermining the faith). Wasn’t Villot also involved in the Mindzenty betrayal?

Anonymous said...

"Villot told Paul VI that Lefebvre's seminarians took an oath against the Pope."

Davies was either present for the conversation or his source was. If Davies was not there his source who was present has a name. And that name is...?

Mark Thomas said...

To Mr. Nolan and those who promote the notion that we owe to Archbishop Lefebvre/SSPX the preservation and propagation of the TLM:

I offer the following tremendous comment posted to Father McDonald's great blog by DJR. In 2016 A.D., I has set aside for reference the post in question. DJR shattered the notion that the TLM owes its preservation to Archbishop Lefebvre/SSPX.

By the way, should we wish to pretend that one man was responsible for the TLM's preservation, then Father Gommar DePauw must be mentioned in that conservation.

Long before the SSPX existed, Father DePauw was, by far, and on an international level, the TLM's greatest ally.
============================================================================

Now, to DJR's post:

"Regarding Campos, I was speaking of the priests who were ordained by Bishop de Castro Mayer prior to 1991. For several decades after the council, he was ordaining priests, and those priests were offering the old Mass, with absolutely no need for the SSPX.

"The people of Campos were attending the old Mass for decades without the SSPX and presumably would continue to do so without them, so those people don't fit into your statement.

"France has several monasteries where the old Mass is offered, with absolutely no input from the SSPX, nor did they ever need it. And laymen can assist at Masses in those places.

"There are also other places in Europe where the old Mass had been maintained by priests who resisted the changes but who were not affiliated with the SSPX, and I am not talking about sedevacantists.

"Another exception is China. There are Catholics in China who have not switched to the Novus Ordo Missae. They kept the old Mass, yet they have never had the SSPX.

"People who, for decades, have attended Masses offered by Father Yves Normandin of Canada could do so without the SSPX. He's still alive.

"Father Gommar DePauw publicly offered the old Mass until his death without any need for the SSPX.

"Father Carley and Father Roach in Ohio offered the old Mass publicly in their chapels without any need for the SSPX.

"Other names would be Fathers Snyder, Sullivan, Marchosky, Miceli, Houghton, Crane, Pulvermacher, Monsignor Hodges, LeBlanc, Father Stemper, SJ.

"Father Gruner offered the old Mass until he passed away; he had no need of the SSPX in order to do so.

"These were diocesan priests, Jesuits, et cetera, who resisted the changes, and older Traditionalists would recognize their names.

"Father Wathen offered the old Mass until he died in 2006. He didn't need the SSPX.

"Bishop Mendez of Arecibo, Puerto Rico, maintained the old Mass and obviously did not need the SSPX to do so.

"Benedictine Father Leonard Giardina publicly offered the old Mass at Christ the King Abbey in Alabama for many, many years, and the faithful continue to have access to the old Mass there, with approval of the local ordinary and without any need for the SSPX (although he did at one time think of affiliating with them but never did). And he was not a sedevacantist.

"There are other examples.

"The SSPX certainly did much of the legwork for many people, but the idea that everyone, anywhere in the world, owes attendance at the Latin Mass to the SSPX is just not true, and never has been."

DJR
April 27, 2016 at 11:52 PM
============================================================

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

Mr. Nolan, your comments in regard to Pope Blessed Paul VI are wrong. Pope Blessed Paul VI desired to cooperate with Archbishop Lefebvre to allow the SSPX to prosper.

However, in 1974 A.D., Archbishop Lefebvre issued an horrific declaration against the Church and Pope.

Archbishop Lefebvre said:

"Because of this adherence [to Eternal Rome] we refuse and have always refused to follow the Rome of neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies such as were clearly manifested during the Second Vatican Council, and after the Council in all the resulting reforms.

"No authority, even the very highest in the hierarchy, can constrain us to abandon or diminish our Catholic Faith such as it has been clearly expressed and professed by the Church's Magisterium for nineteen centuries."
======================================================================

As to big, bad Cardinal Villot having "dripped poison into the ear of Paul VI and used his position as Secretary of State to ensure that Achbishop Lefebvre was denied justice."

Okay. Let us pretend that that's the case.

-- Archbishop Lefevbre, prior to, and following, his 1976 A.D. suspension a divinis, defied and launched vicious verbal attacks against the Church and Pope. He made it clear that Rome's authority over him was to be ignored by him.

-- Pope Saint John Paul II's reign began on October 16, 1978 A.D.. On November 18, 1978 A.D., Pope Saint John Paul II received in audience Archbishop Lefebvre.

Pope Saint John Paul II made it clear that he would cooperate with Archbishop Lefebvre to ensure the SSPX's holy success.

Big, bad Cardinal Villot was Secretary of State. Nevertheless, Pope Saint John Paul II made it clear that he, not Cardinal Villot, called the shots in regard to Archbishop Lefebvre's case.

Besides, Cardinal Villot was out of the picture in March 1979 A.D., as he had fallen asleep in the Lord.

-- At the beginning of Pope Saint John Paul II's Pontificate, Archbishop Lefebvre had the golden opportunity to have been placed under the Pope's protection. The SSPX was poised to flourish in holy fashion.

Unfortunately, Archbishop Lefebvre squandered the golden opportunity in question. He squandered the mercy and protection that he could have received from Pope Saint John Paul II.

Following his warm 1978 A.D. audience with Pope Saint John Paul II, Archbishop Lefebvre worked his way to the grave penalty of excommunication.

The Archbishop mishandled himself and the SSPX...on a big-time scale.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Anonymous said...

"I actually read many years ago that Villot, although from a distinguished family, was a communist sympathizer,...

I actually read, not 5 minutes ago, that Catholics worship and adore the Blessed Virgin Mary as co-equal with God.

And that the Jesuits were responsible for the assassination of Abraham Lincoln as part of the Catholic church's plan to overthrow the US government.

And that there are tunnels that connect convents and rectories and that the tunnels are used for the burial of the illegitimate children conceived by trysting nuns and priests.

I actually read these things!!!

TJM said...

Kavanaugh,

LOL - you did not address the fact that Villot denied Archbishop Lefebvre his rights under canon law, you old inartful dodger you. When are you going to tell us if you have implemented SC at your parish and that you have taught your congregation to sing the parts of the Mass, proper to them, in Latin?

Anonymous said...

Oh, I read years ago that Villot did not deny Lefebvre his rights. Didn't you read that article? I think I found it on the internet, so it must be true.....

TJM said...

Kavanaugh,

LOL - now you're lying and priests shouldn't lie. But WHEN are you going to implement SC in your parish and teach your folks how to chant the parts of the Mass, proper to them, in Latin? I need to make a report to the Vatican, so I need to know.

Mark Thomas said...

Folks who pretend that Archbishop Lefebvre was in the right in having placed himself above God and His Church...that the Archbishop's rights were trampled...that he was the great savior of the Church, surrounded by big, bad Churchmen...

...run into one monumental difficulty: Pope Saint John Paul II.

One month after he was elected Pope, Saint John Paul II received Archbishop Lefebvre warmly.

Had he submitted to Pope Saint John Paul II's authority, Archbishop Lefebvre would not have inflicted excommunication upon himself. The Archbishop would not have inflicted tremendous damage to the SSPX.

Pope Saint John Paul II offered to the SSPX everything that was necessary to permit the SSPX required to have thrived throughout the Church.

Bottom line: Archbishop Lefebvre botched everything during Pope Saint John Paul II's Pontificate. Archbishop Lefebvre inflicted excommunication upon himself. He damaged greatly the SSPX.

Pope Saint John Paul II displayed tremendous mercy to and pastoral concern for Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX.

Unfortunately, Archbishop Lefebvre rejected Pope Saint John Paul II's filial love, concern, and mercy.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

John Nolan said...

Kavanaugh

Lefebvre, when finally granted an audience with Paul VI in September 1976, was astonished to find that Paul believed his seminarians took an oath against the Pope. Who do you think was feeding him disinformation, if not his Secretary of State? Given Villot's animosity towards the SSPX, as evidenced in his public letters and comments, not to mention his actions, one would be hard put apportion the blame to anyone else.

TJM said...

John Nolan,

Kavanaugh is a slightly brighter version of MT, so I cannot imagine him connecting the dots!

Anonymous said...

One, you specifically, make all sorts of allegations based on nothing but your phantastical imagination.

Who do I think was feeding Pope Paul disinformation? I have no evidence that anyone was.

John Nolan said...

Anonymous, you have no evidence because you have not looked for any, and have not the slightest inclination to do so, since you have little interest in the subject in question. You are simply content to play the role of internet troll.

Mark Thomas, on the other hand, deserves a reply since he feels strongly about the subject, has taken the trouble to ascertain at least some of the facts, although his interpretation is skewed because he takes the Manichean position that everything emanating from the Vatican must be right, and anyone criticizing a pope (any pope) or his henchmen must be wrong.

The situation is far more nuanced. I suspect little could have been achieved until Paul VI was out of the way, since he had made up his mind that Lefebvre's stance constituted an affront to him personally, to the Petrine office, and to post-Conciliar developments which, for better or worse, he had nailed his colours to.

JP II might have been more accommodating - he received the Archbishop cordially, and certainly wanted to move the Church in a more traditional direction. But he had more pressing concerns in 1978-1980, and left the negotiations to Cardinal Seper, the CDF prefect until 1981, whose ability he overrated and who (to put it mildly) bungled them.

In fact neither side emerges with much credit, and when there was a real chance of reconciliation in 1988 Lefebvre overplayed his hand and the deal appeared to founder on his intransigence, to the dismay of many who sympathized with him.

Mark Thomas also ignores the fact that those implacably opposed to the Old Mass occupied powerful positions. EDA was less liberal in its provisions than Ratzinger would have liked, and it was another 19 years before his will prevailed. And SP was greatly resented in some quarters.

TJM said...

John Nolan,

That "internet troll" is none other than Kavanaugh!!

John Nolan said...

TJM

I have a great amount of contempt for those who are prepared to contribute under their own identity but hit the 'anonymous' button when they want to troll. If MJK fits the bill then I am truly sorry for him. He has important and cogent points to make, yet wrecks his argument by ignorant trolling.

Mind you, I would steer clear of his 'liturgies'!

TJM said...

John Nolan,

The only way I would go to a Kavanaugh Liturgy is if he celebrated ad orientem so I wouldn't have to gaze upon his "liberal" smug face!