OH YES, THE ARCHDIOCESE OF BALTIMORE IN THE LATE 1970’S, WHEN I WAS IN THE SEMINARY, ST. MARY’S SEMINARY AND UNIVERSITY AT ROLAND PARK, 1976-80!

 When I entered St. Mary’s Seminary in Baltimore’s swanky Roland Park suburb,, I was 22 years old.

I had never experienced progressive, or what was called then, liberal Catholicism, although I read about it in Our Sunday Visitor and National Catholic Register newspapers available in my home parish in Augusta, Georgia. That parish was a bulwark against liberalism, but embraced the new vernacular Mass, but kneeling for Holy Communion remained in place even when I went to the seminary in 1976–no Eucharistic ministers or standing for Holy Communion until the early 1980’s. 

1Peter5 has an article on the liberal/progressive decline in the Archdiocese of Baltimore. When I was there, we had the retired Cardinal Shehan but the liberal, quite liberal new Archbishop was Archbishop William Borders, a nice, gentle man but hell bent on the spirit of Vatican II and allowing all kinds of experimentations. 

What the article in 1Peter5 does not indicate nor the summary of a book on Baltimore they provide is the impact that Saint Mary Seminary and University had on the archdiocese and way beyond, like the Diocese of Savannah. 

It was there that I saw wild experimentation with the liturgy, priests celebrating the Mass their way and each having a particular style. One priest, a Biblical scholar, felt the Liturgy of the Word was the most important part of the Mass. So after the entrance song, he did not begin the Mass with the Sign of the Cross. He simply said “the Lord be with you” and then Let us Pray for the Collect and we sat down for the the Liturgy of the Word—it was a fast way to get to it, no?

But in many ways our seminary was heterodox and subversive in bringing to the Baltimore Archdiocese and beyond its particular version of Catholic Lite, heterodox Catholicism.

And poor old Pope Paul VI and then Pope John Paul II were excoriated for their vision of the Church and unwillingness to ordain women, promote inclusive language and embrace the sexual revolution and make homosexual sex and relationships on par with heterosexual ones. 

Our seminary saw liberal theologians there and elsewhere as a parallel magisterium and just as authoritative as anything the popes in Rome were teaching as backwards as they were. 

Today, Baltimore is a mere shadow of what it was even in the 1970’s. Many prospering parishes at that time, even with the liberal upheavals, are now closed, religious orders gone and many institutions shuttered too. Those Catholics who attend Mass and are faithful are a mere shadow of the number of Catholics who no longer attend Mass, have their children baptized, let alone get married in the Church and have Catholic funerals. There is no longer the old saying about cultural Catholics, being hatched, matched and dispatched! 

Press the 1Peter5 title for their full article—it gave me PTST:

Liturgical Reform Case Study: the Catholic City of Baltimore

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF ARCHBISHOP CORDILEONE’S APPOINTMENT TO THE SUPREME APOSTOLIC SIGNATURA!

One of the new subdeacons for the institute of Christ the King, Sovernign Priest, ordained by Archbishop Cordileone on July First in Florence, Italy, was at the High Mass I celebrated for the 9th Sunday after Pentecost with the commemoration of Saint Anne, Jesus’ Grandmother. The fresh subdeacon, visiting his parents in Savannah, is seated and wearing his beretta:

This is the ordination of six subdeacons and eight deacons by Archbishop Cordileone in Florence Italy on July 2:

The subdeacon at my Savannah’s TLM for the 9th Sunday after Pentecost is the third one from the right:

Press title from  THE CALIFORNIA CATHOLIC DAILY:

“What the Cordileone move to the Vatican highest court means”

The context turns the appointment into a gesture

MONEY-BYTE:

The renewal comes as the five-year term of the members appointed by Francis in June 2021 expires: Cardinals Müller, Tobin, Grech and Harvey thus conclude their mandate on the tribunal, in an ordinary transition that gives way to a new generation of canonists.

The appointment of the Archbishop of San Francisco is, by far, the one with the greatest ecclesial significance. Cordileone is no newcomer to the Palazzo della Cancelleria: a canonist by training, he worked as an official of the Apostolic Signatura itself in the 1990s, before his episcopate, so he knows from within the machinery of the tribunal to which he now returns as a judge.

But it is the context that turns the appointment into a gesture. Cordileone is one of the few diocesan ordinaries in the world who regularly celebrates the traditional Roman rite. On July 2, he conferred the subdiaconate and diaconate on fourteen seminarians of the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest in Gricigliano (in Florence, Italy), in ceremonies that were completed the following day by Cardinal Burke —former prefect of the same Signatura — with the ordination of four new priests.

Just days later, the archbishop publicly reacted to the episcopal consecrations of the Society of Saint Pius X in Écône, stating that they reflect “a growing lack of trust that has been building for a long time,” calling for “sincere and honest” dialogue between Rome and the Fraternity and requesting that access to the traditional Mass be facilitated “so that our faithful do not feel obliged to seek spiritual nourishment outside the family in communion with Rome.”

That Leo XIV incorporates him into the Church’s supreme tribunal three weeks after those statements admits few ambiguous readings: far from placing him outside the perimeter of pontifical trust, that discourse has not been an obstacle to entrusting him with a function of legal guarantee at the heart of the Curia. At the most delicate moment in the relationship between Rome and the traditional world since 1988, the Pope seats on the Signatura an archbishop who celebrates the ancient rite, ordains for an ex Ecclesia Dei institute and calls for a review of the liturgical status quo.

EVERY TIME CARDINAL GRECH OR ANY OF HIS COMMITTEE MEMBERS SPEAK ABOUT SYNODALITY, THEY GUARANTEE ITS DEMISE—WHAT THEY SAY IS KAMALA HARRIS-TYPE OF WORD SALAD OR WHAT SOME CALL A NOTHING BURGER!

Am I the only one when he reads Vatican News’ articles on synodality scratches his head and wonders what the hell are they talking about? These articles and those who are quoted have to be the most vapid people in all of Catholicism. It’s shocking, alarming and downright dispiriting! 

EWTN News hasn’t taken over Vatican News yet, but let us pray that when it does, through its COO, Ms. Maria Montserrat Alvarado, the soon to be new Prefect of the Vatican’s Discastery for Communication, effective November 1st, I predict we will see less nothing burgers and word salads from Vatican News! Do I hear an “AMEN!?”

Press titles for nothing burgers and word salads, à la Kamala Harris, on syndality:

Cardinal Grech looks at the synodal journey for the Church in Asia

Synod publishes ‘Recollecting’ resource for 2027 local Church assemblies

POPE LEO MAKES A VERY INTERESTING APPOINTMENT TO THE SUPREME TRIBUNAL OF THE APOSTOLIC SIGNATURA, ANY OTHER ONES IN THAT CROWD?

 Appointment of members of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura

The Holy Father has appointed the following as members of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura: Their Excellencies Archbishop Salvatore Joseph Cordileone of San Francisco, United States of America; Bishop Krzysztof Nitkiewicz of  Sandomierz, Poland; Bishop Juan Ignacio Arrieta Ochoa de Chinchetru, former Secretary of the DIcastery for Legislative Texts; Bishop Edward M. Lohse of Kalamazoo, United States of America; the Reverend Eduardo Baura de la Peña, full professor at the Faculty of Canon Law of the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross in Rome, Italy; the Reverend Gianpaolo Montini, full professor at the Faculty of Canon Law of the Collegium Maximum of the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome; and the Reverend Father Ulrich Rhode, S.J., full professor at the Faculty of Canon Law of the Collegium Maximum of the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome.

AT WHAT POINT DOES A SCHISM TRENDING BISHOP, WHO COULD ALSO BE A CARDINAL, OR A SCHISM TRENDING COUNTRY ANNOY THE POPE SO MUCH IN TERMS OF CANONICAL IRREGULARITIES IF NOT OUTRIGHT HERESY, GET EXCOMMUNICATED BY THE POPE FOR SCHISM?

While nothing that the SSPX has done has compromised its sacraments, except those which require canonical imprimaturs from the Church, the line in the sand they crossed that made them truly schismatic was the illicit, but valid, ordination of bishops. They, to His Holiness face, disobeyed what Pope Leo told them not to do. It was a bold act of schism, which in my most humble opinion, the FSSPX wanted and they enjoyed all the publicity surrounding their schism as a worldwide advertisement for their sect which they hope to grow. And it may be working!

We know that Pope Francis warned the Germans over and over again about their heretical and schismatic leanings. The Germans for their part, ignored Pope Francis or played the game with His Holiness recognizing the smokescreen offered to them by the then reigning pope.

Pope Leo seems to be a pope who doesn’t play games with the FSSPX or the schism, heresy leaning Germans. 

What will be the canonical line in the sand for Pope Leo when he will finally act toward German schismatics as he has acted toward the FSSPX schismatics?

I think there are two possibilities. 

The first has to do with the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony and its formal corruption by same sex blessings in a formal liturgical way. Of course this extends to all of the LGBTQ+++ desires for inclusivity of their ideologies and ideologues in all aspects of the Church, not only the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, but Holy Orders too. 

Cardinal Marx seems to be one of the candidates heading for canonical censure if not downright excommunication. You can read about that HERE. 

The second, but related to the first is the illicit and also invalid ordination of women to the diaconate and possibly to the priesthood by one or more German bishops or others bishops from Germanic leaning countries. This has not happened yet, but in my most humble opinion, I think it is a very real possibility and perhaps in the near future. But I am not clairvoyant or am I? 

Obviously, these bishops and those invalidly ordained would incur automatic excommunication. But at what point does it affect an entire diocese or an entire nation of Catholics? That remains to be seen. 

WHERE PETER IS COMPLAINS BITTERLY ABOUT “CONSERVATIVE” CATHOLICS WHO BEGAN TO BE OVERLY CRITICAL OF POPE FRANCIS AND SOME OF HIS POLARIZING TEACHINGS AND POLICIES AND THE NATIONAL cATHOLIC REPORTER COMPLAINS ABOUT THE FSSPX GLORIFYING THEIR SCHISM, BUT NEITHER COMPLAIN ABOUT THE LIBERAL SCHISM IN THE CHURCH THAT BEGAN IMMEDIATELY AFTER VATICN II

 Should Roman Catholic Women Priests bishops be invited to certain Vatican Masses and Divine Office Liturgies. Are the FSSPX worse than Roman Catholic Women Priests Roman Catholic Parishes? I ask; you answer:

https://www.romancatholicwomenpriests.org/index.php/

And this article in the National catholic Reporter laments the horrors of the schismatic and gloating FSSPX parish in Boston along with their fiddleback vestments—such horrors! 

Since the FSSPX is in schism like the Eastern Orthodox Church, shouldn’t the NcR and others be more conciliatory towards the FSSPX as they are towards the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the Anglican Communion and others Protestant Sects.

Shouldn’t the FSSPX be invited by the Pope to certain Masses at St. Peter’s as Eastern Orthodox Prelates are on a regular basis?  Both now share in the glories of not being in full Communion with the Church but the Orthodox are invited to participate in papal liturgies and so have been the Anglicans and other Protestant clergy—is it time now for the FSSPX bishops to be invited? 

SSPX excommunication hasn't stopped Boston church from defying the Vatican

I don’t like using the terms “conservative and liberal” to describe Catholics and what they believe as these are political terms not religious. I prefer heterodox and orthodox.

Mike Lewis complains bitterly that “conservative” Catholics known for their ultramontanism prior to Pope Francis became like the “liberal” Catholics who denigrated Popes Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI for their “conservative” magisterial teachings and this disobedience and disrespect came from cardinals, other bishops, other clergy, the religious and laity in the Church. 

“Liberals” can be heterodox just as “conservatives” can be heterodox. 

I am not sure that when “conservative” Catholics turned on Pope Francis for what they perceived to be his polarizing, incoherent teachings and policies that that was heterodoxy although it may well have been mortal sins against charity in terms of how they did it. 

But I do think that when “liberal” Catholics demand that women or whatever gender or form of marriage an individual may have, they should be ordained to Holy Orders, celebrate their sexual relations with anyone or everyone as Holy Matrimony and that the Most Holy Eucharist should be distributed to everyone, everyone, everyone, no matter their religion or moral status before God. That is heterodoxy pure and simple and the greatest crisis facing the Church today.

It isn’t conservative’s heterodoxy or sins against charity that is the Church’s greatest crisis or the FSSPX schism. It is the liberal schism that is the greatest crisis in the Church today, but not acknowledged in the highest places of the Church. 

LITURGICAL INCULTURATION AND UNIVERSAL COMPREHENSIBILITY—CAN SOMEONE HELP ME TO UNDERSTAND THE PRAYERFUL, COMTEMPLATIVE AND WORSHIP ASPECT OF THIS AZTEC PROCESSION INTO MASS? I DON’T UNDERSTAND WHAT THE POINT OF THIS IS DURING THE CELEBRATION OF MASS—CERTAINLY THERE IS A CATHOLIC REASON FOR IT, OTHER THAN BEING A PHOTO OP FOR THE CONGREGATION AS THEY PASSIVELY WATCH THIS SPECTACLE, BEAUTIFUL AS IT IS—BUT I DON’T UNDERSTAND WHAT IT SIGNIFIES—SHOULDN’T CATHOLIC WORSHIP BE COMPREHENSIBLE SINCE THAT IS WHAT VATICAN II ASKED?

After more than 46 years of priestly ordination, I cannot explain to anyone some aspects of inculturation that certain bishops and other clergy promote and design. I don’t understand what is going on although I do know what the point of a procession is at Mass, but not this kind of procession—what is the Catholic significance of this—it isn’t obvious to me or even comprehensible. 

I would love to hear why certain cultures and organizations get to inculturate the Mass and what the purpose of that is within the context of the Mass.

The Aztec procession into the Cathedral of Los Angeles is a case in point. I am not sure what the point of this is; what its connection is to prayer and contemplation at Mass and why it is done. 

My uneducated eyes tell me this is a performance when you look at the laity seated in their pews, they seem to see it that way too—there is no aspect of prayer or worship coming from them. They are looking at a spectacle and are using their cameras to capture what is going on so entertaining this is. 

Should we ancestors of the immigrants from England who formed the original 13 colonies celebrate our culture at Mass by dressing as the English dressed at the time of colonization?

Should the redneck culture of the south be celebrated at Mass, along with the confederate flag, pickup trucks and all other vulgar aspects of that culture?

Should the cowboy and cowgirl culture of the USA be inculturated into Mass?

Should the country music culture of Nashville be inculturated into the Mass?

What in the Name of God and all is Holy is the purpose of inculturation at Mass, especially when no one seems to comprehend what the point of it is and if it is prayer and worship based upon Catholic conversion? Inculturation to me seems to celebrate cultures and not the One, Holy Sacrifice of Christ and the worship due to Christ alone during the Mass. 

I am asking a question, because when I look at the photo of the Aztec procession into the Los Angles Cathedral for Mass, I don’t understand what the point of it is.

CLUELESS ON HILTON HEAD ISLAND! 

MIKE LEWIS AT “WHERE PETER IS” AKA, “WHERE POPE FRANCIS WAS” IS REALLY, REALLY CONFUSED AS IS MASSIMO FAGGIOLI WHOM HE QUOTES

😂😢

 You can read Mike Lewis’ hilarious full commentary HERE. The following is just but one joke:

The alternate magisterium

This is the problem we founded Where Peter Is to address. As I wrote in 2022, our original concern was not primarily the Latin Mass or the SSPX. It was the transformation of mainstream conservative Catholicism following the release of Amoris Laetitia. The dubia, the attacks on Francis’s teaching on the death penalty, the resistance to Fiducia Supplicans, and the constant denunciations of synodality gradually created an alternate magisterium and effectively rendered the primacy of the successor of Peter as worthless. Catholics who had once defined orthodoxy as fidelity to John Paul II and Benedict XVI learned to treat open resistance to Francis as normal.

Mike Lewis has a very long, long, and very wrong, wrong commentary on traditional Catholics where he denigrates the synodal process of listening, especially to Cardinals Mueller and Burke and others who have a right to speak and with authority even if it questions some aspects of certain papacies. 

We saw that in plain daylight during the Vatican synodal meetings that not only were certain popes criticized but even the Deposit of Faith and Morals. 

The paragraph above shows Mike Lewis is quite wet behind the ears and with extreme naive youthfulness—he’s really a know nothing, to say the least.

Prior to Pope Francis, and beginning in 1968 with St. Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae, cardinals, other bishops, clergy and religious have questioned not only that but most other defined teachings of the Church to include obedience to the pope. The mantra was if you disagree with the pope follow your conscience and be an individual. 

Disobedience to the Pope was put on steroids with the election of St. Pope John Paul II and later Pope Benedict. There was real hatred for them both from the heterodox left. Most will remember the Sister of Mercy and many other religous at the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington when John Paul II visited there standing throughout his talk in protest of his magisterium and refusal to ordain women to Holy Orders.

Today, the greatest disobedience isn’t from those who question so many confusing and polarizing teachings of Pope Francis, like in Fiducia Supplicans and Amoris Laetitia, but those who reject outright Humanae Vitae, the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church that is clear that women can’t be ordained to Holy Orders, marriage can’t be redefined according the the LGBTQ+++ ideolgies in the Church and that any and all kinds of sexual relationships can be lived in God’s grace without repentance.

The Mike Lewis commentary would be a laughing stock if not so sad. 

Sadly, Mike Lewis doesn’t know how to use AI technology on the internet to fill in the gaps of his complete ignorance on post-Vatican II questioning of popes, especially St. Pope Paul VI.

So I provide an AI summary for Mike Lewis:

When Pope Paul VI issued Humanae Vitae in 1968, it prompted unprecedented and open dissent from several cardinals and bishops. Rather than an outright rejection of the pope, many of the hierarchy protested by expressing extreme discomfort, urging tolerance for dissenters, or issuing statements that allowed Catholics to follow their consciences. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

The most notable figures and episcopal bodies involved in the protest included:

Cardinal Leo Jozef Suenens (Belgium): One of the most vocal critics among the hierarchy. He publicly questioned the encyclical and urged the pope to reconsider his position. [1, 2, 3, 4]
The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops: In September 1968, the Canadian bishops issued the famous Winnipeg Statement. While acknowledging the teaching, the bishops included a paragraph asserting that couples who sincerely tried but failed to follow the papal directives could still receive the sacraments in good conscience. [1, 2]
The Austrian Bishops' Conference: The Austrian bishops issued a declaration emphasizing the primacy of individual conscience, noting that Catholics could disagree with the document because it was not an infallible teaching. [, 2]
The Dutch Hierarchy (Netherlands): The Dutch bishops were among the most liberal in their response, openly criticizing the encyclical and defending the right of Catholics to follow their own formed consciences on the matter of birth control. [1, 2]
The French and Scandinavian Bishops: Several national conferences released pastoral letters that were seen as "minimalist," heavily softening the blow of the encyclical by focusing on the rights of conscience and pastoral leniency rather than enforcing the ban on contraception. [1, 2, 3]
Cardinal Patrick O'Boyle (Washington, D.C.): Interestingly, he was on the opposite end, acting as a strict enforcer of the encyclical. When 19 priests in his archdiocese publicly dissented from Humanae Vitae, Cardinal O'Boyle suspended them—a decision that was later contested by the Vatican. [1]
And this challenge from Sister Kane to JPII in 1979:
Sister Theresa Kane, a Sister of Mercy, famously challenged Pope John Paul II in 1979 during his visit to the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C., advocating for the inclusion of women in all church ministries.
Sister Theresa Kane's Challenge to the Pope
Sister Theresa Kane's bold address marked a significant moment in church history.
• Historical Context — On October 7, 1979, Sister Kane welcomed Pope John Paul II and urged him to allow women to serve in all church roles.
• Public Reaction — Her remarks received both praise and criticism, with some viewing her challenge as impertinent.
• Legacy — Kane's advocacy for women's ordination has inspired many within the Catholic community to continue pushing for gender equality.
• Role in the Church — As a prominent member of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, she represented a progressive voice within the Catholic Church.

OH THE NOSTALGIA!

 When I was in major seminary from 1976-1980, we didn’t have any outdoor Masses like this, I don’t recall, but we certainly had many indoor Masses just like this, except the priest below is wearing a stole! Kudos!

When I was in major seminary, only 6 years after the Bugnini Mass had been promulgated in 1970, the new and improved Mass was celebrated with great creativity and planning. 

Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, Mass was for the entire seminary community in our beautiful chapel (which has been spared renovations and wreckovations to this very day! God is merciful).

On Tuesdays and Thursdays we had small group Masses in the priest-faculty apartments in the seminary. These were casual affairs, as appears in the photo above, but inside. No vestments. Mass on the Floor! Everyone sitting “American Indian” style, made-up Eucharistic prayers. These were so meaningful and relevant! NOT!

One priest wore his clerical shirt but with the collar open, the plastic tab to the side and the stole laying near the floor on which the Mass was celebrated. There’s something sacred about floors, no? 

One priest-faculty member would pass the bread to us as we sat in a circle on the floor as he said the words of consecration, the same with the one chalice. I think I got the flu from that, a foretaste of the Covid 19 pandemic. 

More than likely that Mass was not valid in any way at all.

In fact, I wonder if any Masses in the time I was in the seminary, to include my deacon ordination Mass there, were valid.

Maybe you can help me.

We made our own homemade bread for the Eucharist as we called the Mass way back then.

That bread had whole wheat, brown sugar, leaven and honey in it. It was quite chewy. Seminarians called it “chewy Jesus”. But I don’t think so because the ingredients made it invalid, but I’m not sure—what do you think?

Oh, the nostalgia of it all, the glories of the 1970’s Church, the relevancy and meaningfulness and the glories of creativity. It was the very beginning of the new springtime for the Church, which synodality will now take over and create the best church in history.