THIS WAS ANTHONY’S RESPONSE TO MT’S COMMENT ON:
"PAPAL HIJINKS: A FAIR AND BALANCED EVALUATION"
He is also being disingenuous, along with Pope Francis, in equating the Council's desire to reform the Roman rite with its wholesale replacement. Rather, what the Council called for was a modification of the existing rite "where necessary." This was adequately addressed with the reform of 1965. There was no need for a completely new rite, nor is that what the Council called for.
What happened after the Council, however, was that the liturgical revolutionaries instrumentalized the Council to advance an agenda which they could not get approved in the Council hall. They have ever since then accused anyone who has taken reservations with this more radical reform of rejecting the Council. In truth, it is those who have gone beyond the limited reform envisioned by the Council who have actually rejected it. Indeed, they have even rejected the Novus Ordo itself by restricting those legitimate options that would allow for a traditional form of its celebration. The irony of this is that by equating objections to the new Mass with rejecting Vatican II, its is they who have created that rejection by the small number of radical traditionalists who do.
MT:
I find it a little strange that you would use a Vatican II denier to discredit the views of traditionalists who accept Vatican II. This is especially true since Louie of akaCatholic is being disingenuous about Pope Francis' remarks. He says that Pope Francis was not lying when he said he "considered the wishes expressed by the episcopate and having heard the opinion of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith." The impression that is given, as it was intended to do, was that the collective opinion of the episcopate, not that of a minority with it, and that of the Congregation was negative, and that is what impelled Pope Francis to act. But this was false, and deliberately so.He is also being disingenuous, along with Pope Francis, in equating the Council's desire to reform the Roman rite with its wholesale replacement. Rather, what the Council called for was a modification of the existing rite "where necessary." This was adequately addressed with the reform of 1965. There was no need for a completely new rite, nor is that what the Council called for.
What happened after the Council, however, was that the liturgical revolutionaries instrumentalized the Council to advance an agenda which they could not get approved in the Council hall. They have ever since then accused anyone who has taken reservations with this more radical reform of rejecting the Council. In truth, it is those who have gone beyond the limited reform envisioned by the Council who have actually rejected it. Indeed, they have even rejected the Novus Ordo itself by restricting those legitimate options that would allow for a traditional form of its celebration. The irony of this is that by equating objections to the new Mass with rejecting Vatican II, its is they who have created that rejection by the small number of radical traditionalists who do.
19 comments:
This is a good comment - one with which I agree.
Since the "implementation", and up to today including commenters on your humble blog, those who embraced what happened, not what was actually called for, will manipulate their comments and criticisms of those with which they disagree accusing them of any/all that is sinful, negative, questioning how manly one is, style, style and more style as a result.
I love being Catholic, I'm fascinated by its treasure chest of liturgies and rites, however, and as an Easterner, I'm oftentimes left speechless by some of what's said - what people choose to spend their time warring over, the temporal, as opposed to our own perfection leading towards eternal salvation. I participate in this on the traditional side as what's as obvious to me as the nose on my face is something went horribly wrong and the results have been catastrophic. If catastrophe wasn't the end result, diocese wouldn't be going bankrupt, parishes wouldn't be twinned, merging, closing with warehouses being loaded to the gills with their stripped beauty.
As an Easterner, I have to wonder what the reformers were truly after? Ideology, humanity, enlightened worldliness? Did they and do they even believe in Christ, his Church the sacraments so hell bent are they to reduce meaning to the meaningless, or a simple gathering for a meal?
Despite the efforts of these folks and their supporters (I'm not sure even they know what they are ultimately supporting), Christ's perfect Church will never succumb. It's withstood and will continue to withstand whatever headwinds imperfect mortal man can create to challenge it, its authority and its relevance.
Anthony said, "He (Louie) says that Pope Francis was not lying when he said he "considered the wishes expressed by the episcopate and having heard the opinion of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith."
"The impression that is given, as it was intended to do, was that the collective opinion of the episcopate, not that of a minority with it, and that of the Congregation was negative, and that is what impelled Pope Francis to act. But this was false, and deliberately so."
=======
Anthony, I disagree again with the above. As Louie noted, "Go back and scour Traditionis Custodes and the accompanying letter to bishops. Nowhere does Francis claim that “the world’s bishops demanded” the abrogation of Summorum Pontificum."
I have read, as well as reread, Traditionis Custodes, as well as the letter in question. Anthony, I have not, in line with Louie's above comment, found where Pope Francis (requiescat in pace) had led anybody to believe that which you had claimed via your above statement.
As Louie had noted, Pope Francis' had made it clear that his (Pope Francis') great concern pertained to the attacks against the Council.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Anthony said..."He (Louie) is also being disingenuous, along with Pope Francis, in equating the Council's desire to reform the Roman rite with its wholesale replacement.
"Rather, what the Council called for was a modification of the existing rite "where necessary." This was adequately addressed with the reform of 1965. There was no need for a completely new rite, nor is that what the Council called for."
=======
Anthony, Holy Mother Church has confirmed repeatedly that Her post-Vatican II liturgical reform conformed to Vatican II's liturgical teachings.
Pope Saint John Paul II, for example, had taught the following:
"The reform of the rites and the liturgical books was undertaken immediately after the promulgation of the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium and was brought to an effective conclusion in a few years thanks to the considerable and self less work of a large number of experts and bishops from all parts of the world.
"This work was undertaken in accordance with the conciliar principles of fidelity to tradition and openness to legitimate development, and so it is possible to say that the reform of the Liturgy is strictly traditional and in accordance with the ancient usage of the holy Fathers".
"The task of promoting the renewal of the Liturgy pertains in the first place to the Apostolic See. Pope Paul VI instituted a Consilium. Later the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship, and they carried out the task entrusted to them with generosity, competence and promptness".
=======
Pope Benedict XVI declared:
"There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
I have also read Traditionis Custodes and the accompanying letter and cautiously agree with Mark Thomas, subject to what might be revealed by further evidence. Even if most of the bishops responding to the questionnaire did not call for the action taken by Pope Francis, how large a minority expressed the concerns that Francis says “preoccupies and saddens me, and persuades me of the need to intervene.”? 20%, 30%, 40% or even 49%? Do we know the answer? As I indicated in an earlier thread, it is suspicious that the purported document with the responses leaked by Diane Montagna mentions hardly any negative evaluations, only positive ones. Why present such a one-sided listing?
Moreover, we should not overlook the fact that Francis states in the letter that he is also “saddened by abuses in the celebration of the liturgy on all sides. In common with Benedict XVI, I deplore the fact that ‘in many places the prescriptions of the new Missal are not observed in celebration, but indeed come to be interpreted as an authorization for or even a requirement of creativity, which leads to almost unbearable distortions’” and asks the bishops “to be vigilant in ensuring that every liturgy be celebrated with decorum and fidelity to the liturgical books promulgated after Vatican Council II, without the eccentricities that can easily degenerate into abuses.”
Mark J.
We are going to have to disagree on this. I find no other reason for Pope Francis to mention the wishes of the episcopate than to give the impression that they wanted restrictions on the old Mass.
As for the attacks against the Council, these rose in response to the false premise that the Council called for the post conciliar liturgical revolution. It did not. Even the new Mass did not. The best way, then and now, to address the attacks against the Council is to acknowledge that Vatican II did not call for this revolution, and to welcome a more traditional interpretation of it. Suppressing the traditional Mass only reinforces the false view that it was the intention of the Council to suppress, rather than modify, the old Mass and replace it with a new one.
Mark Thomas,
You wrote: "Anthony, Holy Mother Church has confirmed repeatedly that Her post-Vatican II liturgical reform conformed to Vatican II's liturgical teachings."
True, but what is experienced in your typical parish is not the liturgical reform as approved by the Church and contained in the new Missal. This has provisions that would allow for a very traditional form of the new Mass. Unfortunately, this has been all but suppressed. Thus the faithful are left with a more radical reform than what was promulgated.
It is disingenuous to demand that faithful Catholics abandon the form of the Mass that was celebrated for over a thousand years and accept the new Mass when a legitimate traditional form of that very Mass is itself not accepted by those pushing for a reform. And this is the dishonesty of the liturgical revolutionaries. They insist not that we merely accept the new Mass, but the new Mass as they would have it celebrated; and that to object to this is to reject Vatican II. They are the ones who have set up the false dichotomy of radical reform or rejection of the Council. They are the ones who have created the situation where the only available option for a traditional form of worship is the old Mass. They too need to accept the reformed liturgy in its completeness, including those provisions for a thoroughly traditional form of it.
How many times have complaints about abuses in the liturgy been made without actually naming what those abuses are or without doing anything about them? I remind you that Communion in the hand and altar girls were first introduced as abuses but never stopped, until they finally became accepted. And the major abuse that is never mentioned is the suppression of those options that allow for a traditional form of the reformed liturgy. Exhibit 1: the recent proposal by Bishop Martin of the Diocese of Charlotte. How many diocese are those very same restrictions present in an unwritten form?
MT Suit comes to the battle of the wits unarmed!
Mark J,
Pray tell what did Pope Francis do to curtail the abuses like the Italian priest celebrating “Mass” on a raft in the water, in his bathing suit? Rien!
This is an act that earns you a place in Hell and there is no excuse for this priest not being laicized along with the bishop whom he was subordinate too. Basta!
Anthony:
Many would not consider communion in the hand or even altar girls to be an “abuse” or, alternatively, certainly not an abuse remotely close to the sort of antics mentioned by TJM.
TJM:
The second paragraph of my post at 3:53 p.m. answers your question about what Francis did regarding the sorts of abuses you mention. But perhaps you will say that he should have issued a similar document to Traditionis Custodes to address such abuses. The distinction, however, is that the asserted problem addressed by TC is a narrow one, permitting a narrowly focused remedy. It is difficult to see how a similar document could address the wide range of abuses resulting from the sort of “creativity” Francis laments in the accompanying letter. Instead, such abuses are more effectively addressed by the local bishops applying a mandated standard ( “celebrat[ion] with decorum and fidelity to the liturgical books promulgated after Vatican Council II”), which is precisely what Francis asks them to do in that letter.
I will charitably assume you are not suggesting that priest is destined for Hell because of what he did; as you should well know, such an assertion is not at all orthodox.
Mark J.
Mark,
While you may have supported the introduction of of Communion in the hand and altar girl, at the the time of their introduction they were contrary to the liturgical norms and were thus, at the time, an abuse.
You claim that the abuses mentioned by Pope Francis are too wide ranging to be adequately addressed in a papal document and are better addressed by the local bishops. The former are treated with severity while the latter are indulged.
Again I remind you, Communion in the hand and altar girls were originally introduced contrary to liturgical norms. These abuses were ignored until they became accepted. Today, the proliferation of extraordinary ministers of Communion when they are not needed is contrary to liturgical norms. Yet this too is tolerated, if not outright celebrated.
You claim that these abuses should more properly be addressed by the local bishops. But what if he does not do so. I was once at an ordination Mass for deacons. There, with the bishop, were at least a dozen priests and a dozen deacons. There was clearly no need for extraordinary ministers, yet they were used in preference to the ordinary ministers of the priests and deacons. And this is not unusual.
And what if the bishop himself is the source of the abuse. Take the example of the norms proposed by Bishop Martin of Charlotte. While they were not promulgated, in how many dioceses are they de facto enforced? And how many good priests have been marginalized by their bishops because they wanted to utilize legitimate options for a more traditional from of the Mass?
For 60 years there have been pleas to halt abuses in the Mass, pleas that have been met with lip service. In the meantime legitimate options are mercilessly suppressed.
As for Pope Francis' stated purpose in issuing Traditionis Custodes, the abuse stated was not the celebration of the old Mass itself, but its use by some as a sign of the rejection of Vatican II. There is an old saying: abuse does not take away use. What should have been addressed was why some have come to reject the Council. This is not merely a desire or preference for the old Mass. There are plenty of faithful Catholics who accept Vatican II and still prefer the old Mass. Pope Benedict showed that the two are not in opposition to one another. Rather, this opposition arises from the false premise that Vatican II called for a liturgical revolution which would replace the old liturgy in its entirety, forcing Catholics to choose between Vatican II and traditional forms of worship. Suppressing the old Mass only reinforces this falsehood rather than addressing it. It is time to embrace traditional Catholics rather than driving them further away.
Anthony,
Excellent response. Clergy formed in “logic” at seminaries won’t understand your clear thinking.
Mark J,
That priest committed unspeakable sacrilege and the act he committed constitutes mortal sin and if he does not confess he will be seeing Satan in the afterlife
For those posting here who suffer from TDS, this article is written by a prominent Democrat praising President Trump's triumphs and casting him as a centrist. This is so contra narrative of the leftwing MSM:
https://nypost.com/2025/07/05/opinion/how-donald-trump-became-washingtons-unlikeliest-centrist/
This reminds me of an observation that if Trump found the cure for cancer, the Left would find some way to be critical of that development. Not bad work for an "alleged" narcissist
Each bishop in the USCCB should be forced at gunpoint to read this article where Mexicans are unhappy about Americans moving to Mexico. They sound positively xenophobic. I suspect the New York Times will NOT carry this story because only Americans exhibit these issues!
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/07/oh-irony-mexicans-lose-their-minds-as-americans/
Anthony:
I agree with TJM that your comment was very well reasoned. And I am all for restoring peace within the Church. However, to do so requires mutual tolerance and acceptance, within appropriate limits. Personally, I have no problem at all with permitting the regular celebration of the EF within parishes, alongside the OF. Similarly, I have no problem with permitting communion in the hand or with altar girls as part of the OF (although I do wish kneeling for communion was the norm). But in both cases genuine abuse must be avoided, including instrumental use of either form for ideological reasons as well as a lack of proper reverence in the OF (such as the kinds of abuses TJM mentions).
Sadly, however, I have seen evidence of a lack of the necessary tolerance and acceptance. Perhaps TC is such evidence too—I keep an open mind on this point, but it troubles me that critics of Pope Francis such as Diane Montagna resort to disingenuous tactics in advocating their positions. Perhaps you can explain why her collection of responses from the bishops was so one-sided. In the absence of satisfactory explanation, I am compelled to conclude it is an example of deceptive manipulation—the very thing she accuses Pope Francis of! And in my early years on this Blog, I encountered several commentators who clearly did reject Vatican II—and not because they misperceived its true nature. This said, not all of them have remained in the Church but have left for other (in their minds) more acceptable alternatives. How many of those who remain and champion the EF similarly reject Vatican II itself or have other ideological motivations, I do not know. Presumably there was sufficient cause for concern to lead Francis to issue TC. It would be good to have some reliable empirical data rather than assertions, anecdotes, and one-sided accounts. I would like to think that all EF communities were like the ones at Father McDonald’s former parish in Macon, of which I was myself a member (although I rarely attended the EF), but I honestly just don’t know.
Mark J.
TJM:
Mortal sin requires more than an objectively sinful act, as you should know. Specifically, we need to know more about that priest’s mental, psychological, and emotional state before concluding he committed a mortal sin.
As for Julian Epstein’s piece in the New York Post, I am the first to agree that the Democratic Party is in disarray and in serious need of reform. That is why I am an Independent. But some of what Epstein writes about Trump I just cannot take seriously. To take just one example—balanced budget. This has to be a joke! Not only might DOGE have cost more than it saved, but Musk now sees the need to form a new party precisely because Trump’s big, beautiful bill has blown a balanced budget to smithereens. And most of the rest of what Epstein writes requires significant qualification and contextualization. So, what is his motivation for this apparent, significantly inaccurate lauding of President Trump?
According to Key Wiki, Epstein is Public Affairs and Communications Counselor of LawMedia Group Inc., about which we are told:
“Even by Washington standards, the LawMedia Group is highly secretive. Until recently, nearly all pages on its Web site were password-protected. No clients are listed. Perhaps the oddest aspect is that not one employee's name--not even the identity of its founder or principals--is publicly disclosed.
LMG was founded by Julian Epstein, a ‘former high-ranking House Democratic aide and party donor’ whom The Washington Post once called a ‘dashing bachelor, a hip-hop aficionado who drives a soft-top Jeep Sahara and lives in an Adams-Morgan loft he designed himself.’ In an advertisement on the Democratic Party's Web site, LMG describes itself as providing ‘grassroots lobbying’ and ‘issue/initiative’ management. It also has filed disclosure reports with the U.S. Senate for outsourced lobbying. (LMG has told us that it prefers to be called a ‘public affairs firm.’)”
Without engaging in unwarranted innuendo, and although the thought might be entirely off base, this affiliation does at least raise some questions about a potential desire to curry favor with the Trump Administration and MAGA Republicans in Congress, no?
Source: https://keywiki.org/Julian_Epstein
And the jury is still out on whether Trump will lurch toward authoritarianism.
Mark J.
Mark,
It is very good that you would accept the regular celebration of the old Mass. You, however, say that you a lack of evidence for the necessary tolerance and acceptance. First I must say that you are focusing on a limited number of vocal critics who deny the validity of Vatican II. The vast majority of those who to are attracted to the old Mass just want to be left alone and be allowed to celebrate as their ancestors have for over a thousand years. They are not as visible because, by their very nature, they are not vocal and just want to live their lives in peace.
I must also say that I find your remarks to be an example of noticing the splinter in one's bother's eye while ignoring the beam in your own (I speaking here of factions within the Church and not you personally). While there are, unfortunately, those who have turned to the old Mass as a statement of rejecting Vatican II, a much greater problem is the institutional lack of tolerance and acceptance towards traditionally minded Catholics for the last 60 year. For while there are those who complain about the new Mass, they have not suppressed it; it remains the norm. The old Mass, on the other hand, was for a long time completely suppressed, and when it was finally grudgingly allowed, it was done so in a very restricted manner. Then came Traditionis Custodes. Nor was this intolerance directed only at the old Mass; it was also directed at any traditional from of the new Mass, and at those who sought it.
You also have reversed the course of events. The old Mass was completely suppressed with the introduction of the new, not as a result of the rejection of Vatican II by some. Indeed, the mere desire for the old Mass, or even the new Mass in Latin, was portrayed as a rejection of the Council. It is this intolerance that created the subsequent rejection of Vatican II by some.
I remind you of the history of SSPX. It was not initially Archbishop Lefebvre's intention to set up a parallel church. A number of seminarians had come to him because they were not welcomed in their diocesan seminaries. The original plan was to start a new seminary and then send its graduates back to their home dioceses, but they were not welcomed. It was only then that they started to found their own chapels. How much turmoil in the church could have been avoided if they had only been accepted? If you want to promote mutual tolerance, then there needs to be an unequivocal statement that Vatican II is not at war with Tradition and the old Mass, and traditionalist Catholics must be welcomed integrated as full members of the Church, not merely tolerated and pushed to the margins. Putting restrictions on the old Mass just reinforces what has led some to reject Vatican II in the first place.
Anthony:
I have not reversed the course of events. You must not have read, or you do not recall, my statement on an earlier thread that “I generally support the availability of the two Forms and could never quite understand why the EF was suppressed in the first place instead of being permitted alongside the OF.” Moreover, even in the very comment to which you are responding I stated that “[p]erhaps TC is such evidence” of a lack of the necessary intolerance and acceptance, although I added that I kept an open mind on the point. I added, further, that “it troubles me that critics of Pope Francis such as Diane Montagna resort to disingenuous tactics in advocating their positions” and invited you to “explain why her collection of responses from the bishops was so one-sided.” So far you have not done so. That’s fine, I suppose, but in the absence of such an explanation, it still leaves me with the impression that “it is an example of deceptive manipulation—the very thing she accuses Pope Francis of.”
Whatever the history of the suppression of the EF may be, the current motivations and attitudes of those attacking TC are analytically a separate question and, therefore, so are the reasons behind TC. Speaking for myself, I am what you might term “a liturgical pluralist.” I accept fully that the EF responds wonderfully to those with a certain sensibility. And I accept fully that the OF (altar girls and communion in the hand included, as well as, pace Father McDonald, folk Masses) responds wonderfully to others with a different sensibility, and that for some both forms are very meaningful and spiritually fulfilling. I suspect that almost all parishioners who prefer the OF would have no problem at all with a parallel offering of the EF. And I would like to think that the converse is also true, but I don’t know. Are you able to you speak to that point?
Mark J.
Editing corrections to my last post:
“lack of the necessary tolerance and acceptance,” not “lack of the necessary INtolerance and acceptance” in the third line of the first paragraph.
Elimination of the second “you” in the final sentence of the second paragraph.
Mark J.
Post a Comment