Three things are amazing about Pope Francis’ clarification and making canonically correct the role of boss over the bishops that Cardinal Roche has as Prefect of the Dicastery of Divine Worship and micromanaging local bishops and parish bulletins.
The first is that a lowly layman who is a canonist, pointed out that Traditionis Custodes, as written, gave no canonical authority to Cardinal Roche to be the boss of bishops, priests or laymen.
The second is that the super ultramontane blog, “Where Peter Is” was upset with J.D. Flynn and the Pillar for pointing the facts out to other lowly laymen and women through the Pillar (and to bishops too!) and thus was able to ask Cardinal Roche, the boss, for his opinion of the article. Cardinal Roche, the boss, threw a hissy fit. But then he realized J. D. Flynn was right.
The third is related to the dismal treatment Pope Francis gave to the Dubia cardinals, but not to Fr. James Martin, SJ. Unlike the dubia cardinals, when Fr. Martin asked Pope Francis to clarify sloppy remarks he made about homosexuality being a sin, Pope Francis without hesitation and in record time made that clarification in a hand written note. How quaint.
Then, when Cardinal Roche stormed into Pope Francis’ humble home at the Vatican Motel 6 and pointed out that a lowly layman was correct in pointing out how sloppily written Traditionis Custodes was and that Pope Francis had to make canonically correct that Cardinal Roche is the boss of bishops when it comes to micromanaging their efforts at accompanying those who prefer the TLM and micromanaging bulletin content regarding the TLM.
Immediately, unlike with the dubia cardinals, the Pope clarified in a canonical way what he had written sloppily in TC. Cardinal Roche is the boss!
Thus, both Cardinal Roche, the liturgical boss of bishops, thanks to the lowly layman, J.D. Flynn, understood that Flynn was right and as sloppily written as TC was, he wasn’t really the boss. Cardinal Roche let the pope know that a lowly layman, J.D. Flynn was right and the pope needed to clarify in a proper canonical way that Cardinal Roche is the boss. And the pope did! He really did!
Compare this to what a Cardinal in Quebec recently said about priests and the synodal way:
“Well, our main role is to be pastors. We’re not managers, we’re not the boss: We’re pastors, shepherds.”
45 comments:
I have recently reread Peter Hebblethwaite’s “Paul VI - the First Modern Pope”.
The following is in chapter 37, Suspending an Archbishop:
Reflecting the whole affair (re Lefebvre) Paul concluded that although the argument was ostensibly about the liturgy, it was really about the nature of tradition and the place of the living magisterium. Paul defended his liturgical reforms: “Not only have we maintained everything of the past but we have rediscovered the most ancient and primitive tradition, the one closest to the origins. This tradition had been obscured in the course of centuries, particularly by the Council of Trent”.
Paul VI pointed out that the CANON of St Pius V had been retained and given the first place….and it is the CANON that shapes the meaning of the act of worship.
Paul VI then approached the key question:
“The difference between the Mass of Pius V and the liturgy of the Council…..is very small. Apparently the difference is a subtlety. But this so-called Mass of Pius V, as celebrated at Econe, has become the symbol of the condemnation of the Council. I will never accept that one should symbolically reject the Council. If this exception were allowed, the whole Council would be subverted and, with it, it’s apostolic authority.”
The “Mass of Pius V”, he remarked, has become like the white flag with the fleury-de-lis of the French monarchists: a symbol of defiance.
Paul had submitted himself to the “apostolic authority “ of the Council, and not unreasonably expected others to do the same…..
I wonder how many people over the past 10 to 15 years, since B16’s SP, have been consciously aware of any symbolic defiance and symbolic condemnation of Vatican II each time they attend the TLM?
There is a small group of traditionalists who reject Vatican II (and these are younger Catholics, btw) who have been radicalized by the blogs and moved way beyond what Pope Benedict envisioned. He did not reject Vatican II, but a Catholic in union with the pope and bishops can’t do that.
But Pope Benedict realized that there are some time-constrained elements of Vatican II that can be ignored today or not accepted as a matter of faith. These are mainly disciplinary issues, perhaps canonical and related to a style of ecumenism and religious Liberty. These are not doctrine or dogma, but theology and a pastoral direction for the Church.
If priests celebrated the Modern Mass as written and the GIRM wasn’t so lax in terms of options, I think Paul VI is correct about the continuity between the two forms. It is post Vatican II ideologies about reverence, piety, and even the doctrine of the Sacrificial aspect of the Mass verses the Meal aspect and questions about transubstantiation that corrupt the new Mass.
Then we get to music and hymnody and a lax approach to it and the use of heretical hymns and styles of music alien to our chant transition.
On top of that the Propers of the Mass, which are Scripture, and keep in mind the Council asked for a lavish use of Scripture not an elimination of what was already present in the TLM, became optional and could be substituted by any kind of hymn.
So in theory, yes the MRM is in continuity with the TLM but not in practice.
One of the failings we have as people seems to be that if someone opposes us in some manner, we like to "put him in a box" or "attempt to define" him. For instance, conservatives define the president as an opportunistic leftist/Democrats define Trump as a liar (or worse--show me a president who doesn't lie!)/Democrats in Congress define Tucker Carlson as a "Putin Sympathizer"/Mark Thomas defines any opposition to Pope Francis as "satanic"/TLM defines Fr. Kavanaugh as a traitor of some sort/Father Kavanaugh defines him as a "serial liar". Mark Thomas defines me as an "insult artist". I've defined him as "Captain Sanctimony". I've defined Father Kavanaugh as "The clueless Cleric". He has defined me as a "anti-intellectual conspiracy theorist"....and on and on it goes.
Actually none of us have "defined" anyone. We like to think we have, but by attempting to place people in boxes, we can reduce people into a comfortable spot where we can attack them and smugly have our little "so there!" moment. It's a pretty empty moment.
The only reason I am bringing all of this up is because A) I am tired of doing this and I am trying to stop and B) The attempts to "define" Traditionalists often miss the mark because, like many groups, they have a broad and diverse composition. I, for one, am not a Vatican II enthusiast, but I am not entirely convinced it's the biggest problem either. It appears to me as a failure and I have serious questions about parts of it, but that doesn't necessarily mean I want to throw the whole thing out either.
I doubt if anything I've said here will make much difference, but I think we all, myself included, miss the mark when we try to argue our points by defining our opponents. Maybe we should just stick to our points.
Thank you, Paul, for that reference. I need to read that book. It may tie together my questions about the view of the old Mass held by the Pope and the Council and at least on its surface give traditionalists some ease. I will push back on Fr McDonald, and by extension Mark Thomas and his faction on this blog. It is a diversion to constantly site “a small group” that rejects Vatican II and is as absurd as constantly asking the priests on this board to explain the sex crisis in Church as if they were supporters of the deviants.
Based on the passage quoted from the biography I wonder is the shoddy Masses suffered by the laity since 1968 are effective renditions of pre-Trent liturgy. The passage helps explain the suppression of the Old Form, but does explain why it was considered defective and how that can be blamed on Trent. That would help a lot. Then an explanation of how the lax execution of the Mass in the New Form is an improvement and more faithful to Christ.
Paul,
I would also point out that Paul VI bought into the poor lliturgical scholarship of the time. What they called more ancient practices, were fantasies of their proponents and did not have an historical or factual basis in most cases.
It is hubris of the most extraordinary kind that a Pope could overturn, sua sponte, a Rite that had developed over 1500 years. It was hubris combined with totalitarianism (definition of modern liberalism).
Pope Benedict had it right, after years of praying and introspection, that what was once regarded as holy is still holy and cannot be forbidden.
The Vatican is full of empty cassocks starting at the top. They are like spoiled children - since other children are attracted to something they despise,they will insist the other children cannot have it. Even my liberal Catholic friends are shocked at the illiberality and cruelty of Traditionis Custodes which will end up, like the Communist Manifesto, on the ashbin of history. This pontificate, hopefully, will become just a bad memory.
Father McDonald said..."...I think Paul VI is correct about the continuity between the two forms."
In 1998 A.D., then-Cardinal Ratzinger had noted:
"An average Christian without specialist liturgical formation would find it difficult to distinguish between a Mass sung in Latin according to the old Missal and a sung Latin Mass according to the new Missal."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
It is not the Traditionalist's (whatever that means) fault for equating V2, the Conciliar Church, the New Mass, etc. with modernism in general and rejecting it as such. The modern Church is built for modernists by modernists - and is already outdated in a post-modern world which always hated the Church to begin with. "Meeting people where they are" to lift them up is a good thing. Conforming to what people say that they want is foolish and destructive.
We have the advantage of 50 years of "progress" over the previous generation(s) and I think we can clearly see that this was not a labor of love. It was a labor of technocrats and experts who, although perhaps with good intentions, paved a road .
The only good thing I see that has come out of that whole debacle is a renewed love and appreciation for the Church and its Sacred Liturgy as it was before the meddling and tinkering. The TLMs within the Diocese around the world ARE showing the renewal which everyone seems to say that they want. I think V2 deserves credit for that. Until TC, I thought that the Church leaders knew this but were just trying to save face. Who would want to admit to such a destructive act of hubris of epic proportions? But no, apparently it wasn't a mistake and "managed decline" of the Church is the agenda.
Mark Thomas,
I would expect honesty from you when you quote Father McDonald. Here is what he actually said:
"So in theory, yes the MRM is in continuity with the TLM but not in practice."
Big difference no?
MT, Ratzinger in that great talk spoke of deformations in the New Mass that caused it to be completely different from parish to parish in the same diocese.
But he added what you left out, the new Mass celebrated ad orientem. That is very important and kneeling for Holy Communion.
Donny Phister,
Well said. If the Church were a for-profit, publicly traded company, most bishops who instituted these "reforms" would have been fired for product failure. New Coke anyone?
Puttinng on a happy face and pretending we do not have a problem is a disastrous approach. Summorum Pontificum should have been allowed to play out. In my parish where the TLM is offered, the Novus Ordo Masses are celebrated in continuity and in spirit with the TLM. Roman Canon only on Sunday (occassionally said in Latin), sung Propers, etc. There has been no war in the parish and the parish actually grew during the pandemic. I guess the Pope and his Roche would be horrified by that because growth appears not to be their goal.
Father McDonald said..."There is a small group of traditionalists who reject Vatican II (and these are younger Catholics, btw) who have been radicalized by the blogs and moved way beyond what Pope Benedict envisioned."
Father McDonald, my experience for decades has been that more than a small amount of "traditionalists" reject Vatican II. But let us suppose that your above comment is valid.
We know that widespread rejection of Vatican II exists among leading trad bloggers/twitter folks.
Father McDonald, in that regard, why is there such an enormous gap between leading trad bloggers (and trads who post supportive comments to said blogs) who reject Vatican II, versus the supposed majority of trads who accept Vatican II?
Thank you.
Pax.
Funny that you mention "New Coke." I'm not sure if you knew this but New Coke was such a massive flop that it was speculated that New Coke was a marketing ploy - designed to fail and rekindle peoples appreciation of the original Coke.
I watched a number of my friends do this with Pope Francis. Many people were optimistic but not too long into the pontificate we could see the cracks. Even my very trad friends were still "New Coke-ing" it. "Well, maybe he's playing 4d chess?" "Maybe he (Francis) said that to appear heterodox to start a conversation and draw people closer to the faith?" No- as pollyannish as they were, at this point in time there is not a single one who believes in the 4D chess idea. The Church's "New Coke" was not a brilliant marketing ploy. It was a massive mistake and, as TC has shown, they are going to stay the course.
Mark quoted: "An average Christian without specialist liturgical formation would find it difficult to distinguish between a Mass sung in Latin according to the old Missal and a sung Latin Mass according to the new Missal."
Ok well here we go again. Then what is the point of it all? It's always the same thing with the modernist tinkerers. Something matters SO MUCH that we need a global wrecking crew to demolish 1,000 years of tradition - but also - it really doesn't matter at all and there is hardly any difference.
Mark,
Of course I am not Fr. McDonald but as a fellow reader, what do you mean by "Vatican II"?
Are you referring to the Modern Mass? Are you referring to the "Spirit of Vatican II"? You have to define what V2 means.
Mark Thomas,
Are you going to apologize to Father McDonald for misquoting him?
You should take Father Fox’s words to heart
Mark,
Even such online rad trads as Taylor Marshall, Tim Gordon (and even Michael Matt) almost certainly accept more and believe in a LOT more re what is doctrinally binding in the Vat 2 documents than the numerous “spirit of Vatican 2” clerics like Fr James Martin or Cardinal Cupich etc.
Father McDonald said..."MT, Ratzinger in that great talk spoke of deformations in the New Mass that caused it to be completely different from parish to parish in the same diocese."
Father McDonald I know that. I am aware that you were familiar with that..familiar with then-Cardinal Ratzinger's address. Everybody is aware that from parish to parish, even within a parish, that one Mass, as compared to another Mass, may differ in appearance.
I have seen your in which you have offered, in different fashions, the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI. Nevertheless, graces had flowed from said Masses
Anyway, I had noted simply, as well as correctly, that in 1998 A.D., then-Cardinal Ratzinger had noted:
"An average Christian without specialist liturgical formation would find it difficult to distinguish between a Mass sung in Latin according to the old Missal and a sung Latin Mass according to the new Missal."
Father McDonald, as, I believe, that you had noted yesterday, in positive fashion: As we move from the TLM, the above is the ideal for which we should strive.
Radtrads will never work to achieve that positive goal. The reason is that said folks will never embrace the supposed "Jewish-Masonic-Protestant-poisonous" Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI.
But perhaps more than a few "traditionalists" would embrace said positive goal. That, as compared to today's situation, would result among "traditionalists" in far greater liturgical peace.
Thank you.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
It will never happen, but I do like to imagine being a judge at a debate, and all this supposedly pro- and anti-Vatican II, older-vs-newer Mass, and related issues were all being vetted...
And my innovation would be that I got to throw a flag -- football-style -- on every invalid argument. I might even add an impression of the late John McLaughlin as I bellow, "WRONG!"
There are legitimate questions, but so much of what people think are sound arguments are WRONG! That is, without merit. Bogus. Totally off-point.
Mark, for example, alleges "widespread rejection of Vatican II exists among leading trad bloggers/twitter folks."
Well, first, that's rather like saying there's a huge trend among Vietnamese Amish; there aren't that many Amish, even fewer Vietnamese ones, so maybe the "huge" -- or, in Mark's case, the "widespread" -- is hyperbolic. "Leading trad bloggers/twitter folks"? Are you kidding me? That's a very small crowd.
I'd be happy to work out a bet. I'm willing to craft a deal along these lines. Mark and I will come up with a list of names of these folks, and then we can have volunteers show up at Sunday Masses in, say, ten locations around the U.S. and ask people after Mass: "Do you know who Taylor Marshall is? How about XXX? YYY?" And so forth. I'm willing to put down real money on the side of very few knowing who these people are; let alone agreeing with them in their more extreme expressions. I do know who Taylor Marshall is; I used to cite him and share his material from time to time...until, for whatever reason, he went off the deep end. I know ordinary Catholics who would say the same. So I aver that first you have a very small subset that even knows his name; then a much smaller subset that followed him off the cliff.
As I said, I'll put my money where my mouth is: I'll put up to $1,000 at risk on an experiment to demonstrate my point, which is that these very noisy bloggers or Twitterers are not representative of a significant share of Catholics; I invite Mark or anyone else who says otherwise to respond and help construct the experiment, and then we'll see.
See, I'm also willing to bet I've spent a lot more time with the sort of Catholics Mark has in mind. I've offered the TLM for many years now; I talk to these folks; I have a lot in common with them. They are not a zoo exhibit to me, as they are to many others.
But back to my main point: there are legit questions, but we never really get to them because of the forest of bogus arguments. I have a pocket full of red flags ready to throw.
Paul, thank you for your reply.
Paul, please list doctrines as contained within Vatican II documents that "Fr James Martin or Cardinal Cupich" have rejected.
Thank you.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
MT, the rad trad “rebellion” is so minuscule that compared to Germany’s apostasy and others being led by them, the trads look like an ant compared to an elephant that radical liberalism poses to Pope Francis and the harsh words that Bishop Baitzing has had for Pope Francis. The ficus on the disrespect for Christ first and the pope lastly by Germany is breathtaking!
Father Fox,
Notice how Mark Thomas will not apologize for misrepresenting Father McDonald’s statement. This is the kind of person you are trying to reason with - a thick, brick wall would be easier. Good try though.
Mark,
I’d hardly know where to start.
Fr James Martin SJ:
“Gospel: How often do you ask for the help of the Holy Spirit, the breath, the ‘ruah’ of God? Call on her in time of need. Count on her help.”
Fr Martin is often careful, but he has stated the catechism is wrong concerning homosexuality - homosexual people are merely differently ordered, not disordered in any way, he believes.
Mark,
I suggest you check out the Eccles is Saved blog. They believe Fr Martin would be ideal to create or at least draft a suitable new Catholic liturgy for blessing same sex relationships ……something even better than the Church of England, who have actually done better than liberal Catholics lately re dismantling the 10 commandments - see their upcoming blessing for thieves, adulterers and murderers :
“O God (He/She/They), who gave us Henry VIII (He/Him) as a model for our church, and thus inspired us to follow his path of adultery, theft and murder, we ask you now to bless ‘Casanova’ John, ‘Fingers’ Irene and ‘Slasher’ Maurice as they pursue their spiritual paths of lechery, shop-lifting and throat-cutting”.
English Catholics at Eccles is Saved blog believe Fr James Martin can improve on that blessing….
I wonder why?
"please list doctrines as contained within Vatican II documents that "Fr James Martin or Cardinal Cupich" have rejected"
Again I draw a parallel between this current discussion and the discussion 40 years ago on Firing Line. Malachi Martin, acting as debate moderator, asked if Msgr. Champlin would make a distinction between Lefebvre's disobedience to the Holy See and Hans Kung's formal and heresy against the Church's teaching on faith and morals.
Much like Mark, Msgr. Champlin had much more contempt for Lefebvre than for Kung, which raises the question - who are we worshipping here? The "cLeRiCaLiSm!!" crowd sure seems more concerned with obedience to non-dogmas in V2 than obedience to the actual teachings of the Church on grave matters of faith and morals. In particular, it is the concern with their political rivals being obedient to their own destruction. Behind virtually all of this is person's secret agenda, whether known to them or not, to be rid of a Mass which shines a light where they do not want it shown.
"please list doctrines as contained within Vatican II documents that "Fr James Martin or Cardinal Cupich" have rejected"
Again I draw a parallel between this current discussion and the discussion 40 years ago on Firing Line. Malachi Martin, acting as debate moderator, asked if Msgr. Champlin would make a distinction between Lefebvre's disobedience to the Holy See and Hans Kung's formal heresy against the Church's teaching on faith and morals.
Much like Mark, Msgr. Champlin had much more contempt for Lefebvre than for Kung, which raises the question - who are we worshipping here? The "cLeRiCaLiSm!!" crowd sure seems more concerned with obedience to non-dogmas in V2 than obedience to the actual teachings of the Church on grave matters of faith and morals. In particular, it is the concern with their political rivals being obedient to their own destruction. Behind virtually all of this is person's secret agenda, whether known to them or not, to be rid of a Mass which shines a light where they do not want it shown.
Mark,
Some liberal priests very like Fr James Martin SJ were close friends of my parents in the 1970s and 1980s - when I was a teenager and young man.
For these lefty-liberal priests then it was totally irrelevant what the various lengthy documents and declarations actually stated- what was VERY important was how they regarded and interpreted Vatican II as an EVENT. Their interpretation of Vatican II as an event was that a LOT of Catholic beliefs and practices were now theologically outdated and or "legalistic, Jansenistic nonsense" or arose in an era that was, in their view, "theologically bankrupt" ....and so on...
It did not matter how often V2 actually said no such thing; that was how they interpreted the EVENT of Vatican 2.
Fr Fox,
Very interesting what you have written above.
For example, I occasionally look around at Mass and speculate how probably VERY very few, no more than 2 or 3?, perhaps even zero? regularly follow any Catholic YouTubers like Taylor Marshall or Michael Voris or Michael Matt,
I can agree with some of what the above claim, and I do respect them but I can only cope with them in very small occasional doses.
Fr. Fox,
As someone who has been in the "tradisphere" in GA for 15 years and has traveled extensively to different parishes, I concur with your statement.
The "liberals," (and of course we know that ideology is driving the aversion to the EF) would be ashamed of themselves if they knew how much they have let their "radtrad bogeyman" pervert the reality. We all know what "radtrad" they are referring to and nobody likes that type. If anything, it just gets old. We've all heard the Bergoglio thing and whether he was a Mason or not doesn't help anything. We all just want to move on and live in peace. The good will, ecological concern, growing families, assisting each other, small farming, charity, support for family programs and subsidies, subsidiarity, inclusion, etc are what you find in TLM communities. It's everything the liberal wing says that they want - yet they hate it here. Interesting.
Father McDonald said..."MT, the rad trad “rebellion” is so minuscule that compared to Germany’s apostasy and others being led by them, the trads look like an ant compared to an elephant.."
Father McDonald, I am uncertain as to how that has answered the following:
"Father McDonald, in that regard, why is there such an enormous gap between leading trad bloggers (and trads who post supportive comments to said blogs) who reject Vatican II, versus the supposed majority of trads who accept Vatican II?"
Anyway, Father McDonald, thank you for your reply.
====================================================================================
Father McDonald, in regard to your above comment:
I believe that the trad rebellion is not limited, as you believe, to a "small group" with the trad community. But let us place that aside.
The amount of trads within the Church is microscopic.
The amount of Catholics in Germany, as compared to the amount of "traditionalists," who may fall from the True Church, is far greater.
Nevertheless, a rebellion against Holy Mother Church, regardless as to the amount of folks involved, exists within the "traditional" Catholic community.
Pope Francis has worked to maintain Church unity in regard to the two problems in question.
Each soul is precious to God.
Therefore, Pope Francis has responded, if you will, in manner "X" to the German situation.
Pope Francis has responded, if you will, in manner "Y" to the trad situation.
To borrow/apply to the trad rebellion that which Pope Benedict XVI had said in regard to the SSPX:
"Should we casually let them drift farther from the Church?"
That is, should Pope Francis, due to the "microscopic" amount, speaking relatively, of trads, ignore the trad rebellion? Should he permit the mutineers in question to "drift farther from the Church?"
Therefore, Pope Francis, as he is a loving spiritual Father, a true holy Shepherd, has responded to the trad situation (as well as German situation).
Father McDonald, thank you.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark Thomas still has not apologized to Father McDonald for misrepresenting Father McDonald’s statement. That tells you a great deal about his Catholic bona fides and the content of his character. An adult man would apologize rather than ignoring it like a kindergartner
While I may not agree with every opinion I read here, I am growing in my appreciation of blogger. At least everyone has a voice.
I am referring to a recent article I read at America magazine about this issue that was extremely one-sided. The comments read like a meeting of Cardinal Mahony's annual congress on steroids. I sent in several rebuttals and they decided not to print any of them, regardless of how restrained the language was.
I find it utterly cowardly, but certainly a sign of our times, that publications so devoted to "openness" under a pope who proclaims the same ideals, in fact, stifles any debate and promotes a lockstep mentality and removing any chance of challenging ideas.
Keep it up Father. You're not America. Thank God.
Paul,
You are really striking at the heart of the matter with your post.
I hate to do it but it's the same starry eyed and, frankly, effeminate way they view "Socialism." They are like little girls imagining their perfect life and writing their crushes last name in their diaries. A lot of cracked eggs, to the tune of 100 million people, went into that ghastly and putrid omelette of International Socialism. But still it persists as "it hasn't been implemented yet."
How many suppressions, lost vocations, disaffected Catholics, clear misrepresentations, etc. is it going to take? How many more years of "V2 hasn't really been implemented yet" are we going to have to suffer through before people smell the coffee and deal with this like adults?
As far as the Catholic media is concerned, I wouldn't understate it that much. In a parish of 150 TLM goers there are going to be quite a few who follow some kind of media which the apparatus views as "subversive." Everything "right" of Fr. Barron is subversive to them. There are trads that are into some pretty heavy stuff but that's better than what you'll find elsewhere. A "Catholic" politician publicly dared his priest to deny him communion for supporting unfettered baby-murder and not a word was said by the Church. I think we can stop apologizing for "subversive" media watchers in our communities.
Scratch a liberal, find a fascist as they say. Modern day liberals are not very bright nor open to other points of view as manifested in the media and academia.
Therefore instead of constructing a credible counter argument they screech: racist, homophobe, and other such drivel to shut down rebate. The modern Vatican does that too screeching: rigid, backward , restorationists and other such drivel.
We are blessed to have at least two priests like Fathers Fox and McDonald who have taken off the rose-colored glasses and are honest in pointing out the Emperor has no clothes. Sadly, a remnant will remain and restore Holy Mother the Church and it won’t be the likes of Pope Francis or the Father Martins LGBTSJ of this world.
Paul said..."Mark, Some liberal priests very like Fr James Martin SJ were close friends of my parents in the 1970s and 1980s - when I was a teenager and young man. For these lefty-liberal priests then it was totally irrelevant what the various lengthy documents and declarations actually stated- what was VERY important was how they regarded and interpreted Vatican II as an EVENT. Their interpretation of Vatican II as an event was that a LOT of Catholic beliefs and practices were now theologically outdated and or "legalistic, Jansenistic nonsense" or arose in an era that was, in their view, "theologically bankrupt" ....and so on...it did not matter how often V2 actually said no such thing; that was how they interpreted the EVENT of Vatican 2."
Paul, there were/are priests who trampled the Council's teachings as presented by our holy Popes.
Paul, you are correct.
Thank you for your reply.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark Thomas
Why can’t you find the humility to apologize to Father McDonald?
Mark,
Thanks for your reply above. I think it important to remember that Archbishop Lefebvre signed (I am fairly sure) all the V2 documents.
I think in the 10 to 15 years following the Council, there was a real arrogance among many lefty- liberal priests. They really believed that suddenly we were in this wonderful, new era where they (very excited having completed a crash course on a combination of Hegel, Kant, Freud and 19th century Protestant, German scripture scholars) were going to lead poor ignorant lay Catholics out of their ghettos to be more mature, enlightened believers - yes, to be more grown up, even more fully human….
The articles they wrote at the time! They could be like 18 or 19 year olds, completing first year philosophy at a secular university, excited about being introduced to some ideas of Hegel, Marx and Nietzsche for the first time -, for example, rewriting a large part of Catholicism based on a simplistic grasp re what Hegel and Marx etc wrote re :
that all ideas and concepts must be regarded historically, as embedded in ways of life; as never timeless or unchanging - but embodied in societies and institutions, ie in historical realities that change…..and so on…..(btw young Catholic “scholars” at Patheos.com still do this…)
There was often a silliness to all this….I recall one young priest in the 70s who was fascinated with discovering Freud - seemingly unaware that in secular universities scholars in psychology had largely moved on from Freud to Carl Rogers and Albert Ellis……..and for others to be unaware that in secular academia, often Kant and Hegel were losing out to Foucault’s and Derrida’s new ideas and insights. And as for many scriptures scholars in the 70s and 80s, they had a greater dogmatic certainty for the claims of 19th century German Lutheran scripture scholars than any pre Vat 2 Catholic scholar had for Aquinas’ Summa….
I think with many bishops and priests since the Council it is similar to a politician who sends or votes to send young soldiers to fight and die in some conflict overseas - a politician would later find it hard to admit he was wrong, that certain decisions were mistakes, to admit young soldiers died needlessly. Likewise, how hard would it be for any liberal bishop or priest to admit that 50 years of attempted renewal was often a failure - and souls were lost.
For most of my Cold War life, I could not help but notice that the Democratic leaders in Congress and elsewhere always mocked and derided any concerns about Communism and, any suspicions about Russia--at that time the U.S.S.R.. About the only pushback I can recall was watching the hapless President Carter announce a boycott of the Moscow Olympiad in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. But after a few decades of Putin, suddenly the Democrats are finding Russian influence under every rock! They wasted four years investigating a president because they were just CERTAIN that they could prove he was a tool of the Russians. And now they have dispensed with common sense and seem to want nothing less than to inflame the leader of the world's second largest nuclear arsenal, insisting publicly that he MUST go! Now everyone knows Putin is a former KGB man and certainly a man of many contradictions, but I can't help but wonder...could it have ANYTHING to do with his utter rejection of "woke" ideas? Could it possibly be because of his rejection of the homosexual agenda? Could it have even the slightest relationship to Putin's nationalism and rejection of globalism?
And again, likewise in our Church, I have grown up with an increasingly dissenting hierarchy of bishops and priests who took papal decrees of varying gravity and ignored them. Humanae Vitae was "Dead On Arrival" and all but ignored by most of the priests I knew. Our national bishops conference used Machiavellian artifice and deception to wrangle an indult for Communion in the hand, and then, ignoring its terms, treated the indult as the norm and imposed it nationwide in most parishes. Without even bothering to ask, the broke canon law and imposed altar girls upon us, only inflaming the low-information Catholics' insistence that female ordination was inevitable. Scores of documents prohibited homosexuals from pursuing priestly ordination and our dioceses have become havens for disordered men because or bishops ignored such directives and appointed vocations directors and seminary staff that excluded men with normal inclinations and welcomed the deviant. I could go on, but dissent has been the order of the day as long as I can remember. Yet now, suddenly, for the first time, the same voices who called John Paul II a dinosaur and chanted to us that Benedict was merely "God's Rottweiler" have suddenly found a newfound "respect" for papal authority! They insist on the most fastidious compliance with every desire uttered by Pope Bergoglio and his lieutenants. People who have never read Quo Primum or Mortalium Animos are now shouting from the rooftops that Tradition has no place and we must adhere to the new dogma that everything is changeable and we must be open to all new things and shut our minds and hearts to all that came before!
And the smell of it all: pitch, raw sewage and decay.
The apostates in Rome aren't fooling anyone.
Paul said..."I think it important to remember that Archbishop Lefebvre signed (I am fairly sure) all the V2 documents."
Yes.
Unfortunately, he insisted later that Vatican II, a sacred Council that the Holy Ghost had guided, was an error-filled, modernistic monstrosity, filled with spiritual poison that had wrecked the Church.
Compare that, for example, to Pope Benedict XVI's declarations that the Holy Ghost had guided the Council...that Vatican II has blessed the Church...and just a few months ago, as Emeritus, declared that Vatican II had “proved to be not only meaningful, but necessary.”
Thank you.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
For those who find some sort of contradiction in Msgr. Lefebvre's actions during the Second Vatican Council, especially those who would use his signatures as a "club" to prove some sort of alleged hypocrisy or inconsistency, I would suggest reading this:
http://www.archbishoplefebvre.com/the-archbishop-and-religious-liberty.html
Not every explanation can be summarized in bumper-sticker length.
Mark Thomas still can’t apologize. He needs to go to confession for misrepresenting Father McDonald’s words
Vatican II has “blessed” the Church with institutional confusion and the loss of tens of millions of Catholics forthose who are not too blind to see
TJM,
The only people I have every told that they needed to go to Confession have been my children.
I'm sorry, but I'm not very comfortable setting myself up as an authority to make that kind of judgment about other people--especially those I only know thorough their comments here.
The fact is WE ALL NEED TO GO TO CONFESSION. FREQUENTLY.
Jerome Merwick,
Mark Thomas lied about Father McDonald and will not apologize for his lie. Christian charity requires a Christian to implore a fellow Christian to confess their sins!
What has amazed me over many years is how seemingly intelligent people, in positions of authority (in the Church or secular world) can at times so lack wisdom and common sense, especially as regards human nature.
In the early Vatican 2 era especially (and it continues today too) how could so many people in leadership positions in the Church not see that a sudden tsunami of changes in the Church was not going to cause problems. It is interesting that Alvin Toffler published his “Future Shock” in 1970 - he brilliantly, in detail, describes what happens to a society (and communities and individuals) when too much change happens too quickly, how great confusion, even serious chaos, can result in groups and communities; and individuals can become stressed and even disoriented…….a couple examples: there are a number of dissertations waiting to be written on the consequences in Catholic seminaries after the Council on the very sudden abandonment of the “old oppressive discipline” in personal formation - even liberal priests have spoken of great chaos, especially c. 1970-1985, in seminaries; and regarding sudden BIG changes in convent life after the Council - a dissertation is waiting to be written NOT on all the nuns who left to marry, and why, or the ones who became feminist activists etc but the large numbers of Catholic nuns who had complete nervous breakdowns in the 1970s.
This can happen in any institution. Many regard Bill W (Bill Wilson) as a genius, but he was so naive to think that in early AA he could overnight replace early AA’s 6 Step program with his new 12 Step program…..and not expect MANY in AA at that time to be upset, confused and even angry at what he was doing and the way he was doing it.
There are more important historical examples - Protestant scholars are aware that a BIG reason for Luther’s success in the 16th century was that he, Luther, recognised the need to often move slowly (especially with liturgical change) and recognised the need to persuade and educate, rather than upset and coerce and the necessity of only making vital changes and avoiding the danger of change for its own sake…
I don’t want to be too critical of liberal priests in that 70s era. I can recall one young priest who was a close friend of my parents who came back to his parish VERY excited and enthusiastic after 2 weeks of learning the latest re Karl Rahner’s new profound insights and the great new ideas in liturgy being taught by Rembert Weakland, only to be saddened that almost all his parishioners did not share his enthusiasm at all. This priest was and is a kind man, who meant well, but I think he lacked an understanding of human nature to be saddened and surprised that almost all his parishioners were not interested - what surprised him the most was that parishioners who were college educated professionals also wanted to hang on to saying the rosary, and having benediction of the Blessed Sacrament etc and were not at all eager to embrace the latest novelties…
Jerome,
It is not only Putin and Russia. In Hungary recently their political leadership has driven Brussels and Berlin mad with not wanting to solve the problem of low fertility by allowing tens of thousands of military age men from Africa and the Middle East to flood their nation but instead do things like strongly secure their borders, and encourage Hungarian couples to have large families….I was reading yesterday that Hungarian couples who have 5 or more children pay almost no tax.
Also, while many in the USA and some other western nations are happy for children aged 5 to 10 to learn about what it means to be non binary, gender queer, gender fluid and pan sexual etc Hungary is doing its best to keep modern Gender Theory out of all educational institutions - even colleges and universities.
I think today is close to the anniversary of Russia attacking Ukraine. The Biden administration seems willing to spend billions, and risk WW3 to both foolishly push NATO to Russia’s very border and prop up Europe’s most corrupt regime.
Paul,
My parish associate pastor in 1965 told me that the breadth and speed of the liturgical changes were too much, too fast. It would harm belief. I guess he was prophetic!
Why can’t Mark Thomas apologize for lying about Father McDonald’s comment?
Is he a member of a fake news organization that routinely misrepresents a person’s statements? Is Mark related to “fake but accurate” Dan Rather? Real men own up to their mistakes! Be a man Mark!
Post a Comment