Wednesday, June 12, 2013


Dr. Robert Moynihan has some astute comments about the Holy Father "Unplugged" and his off the cuff remarks several days ago that has caused a bit of a firestorm in the Church.

He writes:

"Pope Francis has, since his election on March 13, spoken bluntly, honestly, with simplicity and candor, on many occasions, but never until now has he ignited controversy throughout the Catholic world with his now-trademark unscripted remarks.

Pope Francis ignited a storm of commentary this week following the unexpected publication of private remarks he made on June 6, five days ago, during an hour-long meeting with a group of Latin American visitors, representatives of men and women religious, in Rome.

This incident may mark a sort of "transition" in the young history of this pontificate, from a "honeymoon" period, lasting about 90 days, in which the Pope's refreshingly direct words have been greeted with appreciation and generally without criticism, to a period in which those remarks have begun to elicit calls for greater clarity and theological precision in order to avoid perplexity and confusion among the faithful."

The press has given its greatest attention to the apparent acknowledgment by Pope Francis that a so-called "gay lobby" in the Roman Curia in fact exists.

Here are the Pope's reported remarks in this regard:

"In the Curia, there are also holy people, really, there are holy people. But there also is a stream of corruption, there is that as well, it is true... The 'gay lobby' is mentioned, and it is true, it is there... We need to see what we can do..."

Here, the Pope is speaking to Latin Americans about the Roman Curia in only the broadest of terms, almost as a sketch, a caricature.

He is speaking to Catholic religious who evidently perceive the Roman Curia as primarily a "cold bureaucracy" which attempts to impose an external form of Christian faith lacking in true inner fervor, in authentic belief.

And so Pope Francis emphasizes that this is a false understanding of the Curia.

That is his first point.

"There are also holy people, really," he says, as if counteracting an opinion that there are no holy people in the Curia.

And, in what seems almost a "stream of consciousness" way of speaking, he then qualifies what he has just said.

That is, even though there are holy men and women in the Curia, there are also those who fall short, who may be more like worldly bureaucrats than zealous saints.

This is the context of his mention of a "gay lobby."

The Pope uses this phrase because he knows it is familiar to his listeners as a sort of "catch-all" phrase summing up corruption in the Roman Curia and the leadership of the Church, especially because the phrase drew such press attention in February and March.

He uses this term less as a reference to a certain sexual inclination or behavior -- as some articles are now proclaiming -- than as an example of bureaucratic behavior in the Curia, of "currents" and "lobbies" more interested in the mutual reinforcement of their own authority and influence than in supporting the Pope, or Catholic faith and tradition.

What the Pope is fundamentally focused on is the need for all "currents" and "lobbies" in the Church, and especially in the Curia, to abandon a "lobby" mentality and to defend perennial, authentic, Catholic faith and practice.

The Pope then says he is not a "good administrator" and is relying on his group of eight cardinals to help him reform the Roman Curia.

And it must be noted that this entire process was set into motion by the courageous actions of now hidden Emeritus Pope Benedict XVI, who now lives in the Vatican gardens, praying for the Church, and his successor, Pope Francis.

MY COMMENTS: I too have enjoyed the Holy Father's candor and simplicity in his style of speaking and his homilies. But I have come to realize too that his words can be manipulated or interpreted in different ways by different people.

In his off the cuff remarks he seems to criticize those women religious groups which are many in this country, which are not getting any new vocations and have become old and stuck in a 1960's radical "renewal" that has led to their demise, but they still think they chose the right road because they collaborated about it and make a group decision and moved forward with their destruction.

Now they have lots of money in building and assets but no nuns and no real ministries that they themselves staff and in about 20 more years or less will be extinct. The classic definition of mental illness is thinking that if one does the same thing over and over again, they'll get a better result. These progressive groups of aging nuns and priests seem to fall in this category. Their experiment while not a malicious project at the beginning has failed dramatically and yet they are in denial about it and think if they can recapture the good old days of the post-Council fervor everything will be good again. Mental illness or senility?

But then the Holy Father mocks those who sent him over 3000 rosaries, meaning, I believe, that 3000 people prayed the Rosary for him. How could he discount this to others and mock them? He's the pope! He should be above this and be very careful how he communicates to others who then gossip about what they heard.

Robert Moynihan's take on the Holy Father's words of "gay lobby" are refreshing too although not completely clear.But Moynihan's take is very much what is happening in Catholic academia and in some religious orders, where they become a lobby against traditional Catholic morality and doctrine and push for gay rights to the exclusion of traditional Catholic morality and our teachings on chastity that apply to everyone regardless of sexual orientation and disorders of sexual orientation.

For example there are religious orders usually in academia that are "currents" and "lobbies" more interested in the mutual reinforcement of their own authority and influence than in supporting the Pope, or Catholic faith and tradition. That the pope says this is striking.

But the problem is how the pope is saying this and not saying it with authority but in a "gossipy" sort of way that undermines the papacy eventually.

Perhaps a well thought out letter (or encyclical, but I don't think it needs to be that formal) needs to come from the pope setting out his agenda, clarifying his remarks and maybe apologizing for speaking to frankly not realizing that every word he utters goes viral and not always to his benefit or the benefit of Holy Mother Church or her papacy, which does not belong exclusively to Papa Bergoglio. Pope Benedict had to eat crow a few times and did so with grace.


ytc said...

I think that new media guy should go talk to the Pope, really.

Gene said...

If there is a rodeo of Crisco Cowboys in the curia, why has it simply not been purged? Admitting its existence and discussing it without dealing with it only gives it legitimacy.
There is a troubling lack of resolve and direction in Rome. We need a "mean" Pope, one who will do what is right and let the cards fall where they may. I would like to see a young, orthodox Pope with the energy and righteous outrage to really fix things. This trepidated, egg-walking, Hamlet act is agonizing.

Kitchener Waterloo Traditional Catholic said...

I offer a decade of my daily rosary for our Holy Father. After reading his mockery of the over 3,000 people my first reaction was to stop praying for him. That's not the Christian thing to do "as we forgive those..." so I'll continue.

However, the bloom is off the rose.

Pope Francis says he's not an administrator. Fine. He's obviously not a liturgist, that' ok to. Nor a theologian or philosopher, so why's he the pope then? He cleaned house when he became archbishop and he needs to do it now in Rome. Sweep the filth out of the curia and then do the same in his own order.

If that's his intentions then he needs our prayers. The wolves will not go quietly.

I'd like to see him stop all the grand gestures, the simple symbols, and take action. Just get things done - rebuild the Church.

Anonymous said...

Francis is pope because the Holy Spirit chose him. At least, that's what Catholics believe...

John Nolan said...

Assuming the Pope's words were reported accurately, and given the fact that they are in direct speech suggests they may have been surreptitiously recorded, there is cause for concern.

1. To tell the Latin American religious that they can ignore the CDF will surely have the LCWR dancing in the aisles. Well, shuffling at least.

2. He openly denigrates the discipline and practice of the pre-conciliar Church, and those groups who adhere to it, which would no doubt have gone down well with his casually-dressed interlocutors.

3. He implies that abortion is a by-product of capitalism (as opposed to secular materialism). He might care to look at the abortion rates in Soviet Russia.

4. Expressions like "the poor are the Gospel" are unadulterated piffle.

5. If there is a 'stream of corruption' in the Curia, then it needs to be dealt with. What good is a group of Cardinals who are not even resident in Rome? And why did the cardinals elect someone who on his own admission is not a good administrator?

In short, this will go down well with the Tablet and NCR. I don't like what passes for Catholicism in Latin America, and I don't trust most of the Jesuits, which is why I was dismayed when Bergoglio was elected. Already this pontificate is sending out some very mixed messages.

Anonymous said...

We had a pope who tried to steer the Church back on the path to sanity. We had a pope who listened to the Catholics that had kept the faith while being marginalized and mocked for 40 years. He offered us a chance to get something back that had been taken away from us: Our Church. He offered clear teachings. He offered consistent discipline. He offered us the chance to worship with the reverence that liturgists had declared "outdated". He offered us a papacy that would govern the Church instead of putting on an endless roadshow.

However, this pope had too much going against him. If 40 years of bad teaching, no teaching, mis-teaching and liturgical brainwashing was not overwhelming enough, this pope had to also contend with subversive bishops, a rebellious homosexualized curia and "Catholic" media outlets that never gave him a chance. They wore him down and rejoiced when he walked away from the fight.

Pope Benedict's pontificate could have been a renaissance for our Church, but the very people the Vatican gave authority to would have none of it. Again, he never had a chance

So now we have the pope that our lumbering, bureaucratic, mis-catechized, gay-embracing, left-wing, ruptured-from-its-roots, authority-hating Catholic "majority" wanted. The Church got the pope it deserves. The faithful will continue to be punished and suffer. The rest? God will permit them to persist in their blindness and arrogance, the surest sign of His wrath.

May God have mercy on us.

ytc said...

I do not believe the Holy Spirit chooses the Pope, nor am I aware of a Church teaching that says as much. I believe the Holy Spirit can, probably does, influence the Cardinals, but He does not choose the Pope.

Osto Picta said...

I, for one, do not understand what all the brouhaha is about. It is just the same old thing – over and over and over. And, in a few days time, the Vatican Press Office (through the intercession of the Secretariat of State) will “explain” all these comments away. Either the comments were “taken out of context” or, my personal favorite line, “the Holy Father never said such things.”

1.The[Homosexuals/Freemasons/Communists/Liberals/Conservatives] in the Roman Curia meddling about with [insert conspiracy here].
2. New wine – you know the rest, etc.

In the “Spirit” of the Second Vatican Council:

1. Give the extreme traditionalists what they want - and let them devour themselves over the minutest of things.
2. Give the extreme liberals what they want – and let them fade into oblivion.
3. And the rest of, God willing, go to Mass in peace without having to hear people criticize the celebrant for meddling with the Preface (or giving and “Extreme Homily” that takes Lord God at his word).

And here begins the Andrews Sisters singing “I Can Dream, Can’t I.”

DW said...

If Francis does not want me to pray for him, fine. I won't pray for him. I will continue to pray for Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. I will pray for the next pope, whom I hope will be Cardinal Ranjith.

Gene, I think he may be the pope you are hoping for, who will do what is right and let the chips fall where they may.

Despite occasionally saying some good things (specifically about the devil), I fear Francis is a product of the "spirit of Vatican II". Anyone who refers to Paul VI several times as "great", when he was in fact the worst pope of the 20th Century, says a lot.

Hammer of Fascists said...

I've long argued that VII was an anti-Trent: Trent found a Church in disarray, dealt with and cleaned up many abuses, and left it much more cohesive (and coherent). VII found a regimented Church with a coherent faith and allowed--even permitted--many of the pre-Trent abuses, and others, to come back in with a vengeance.

So if this is a valid model, then I suppose, now that the clock is running backwards, that as the Spirit of VII continues to permeate the Church, we may also see in the foreseeable future the sorts of popes that the High Middle Ages produced, ranging from the merely weak to the actively corrupt and destructive. The fact that Francis was elected by a college of cardinals largely selected by a very orthodox pope is foreboding; if this is what _they_ wanted, then we're in very serious trouble.

To be clear, I'm not alleging Pope Francis is corrupt; I have no reason to believe that. But as for weak and destructive, it's too early to tell, but a lot of the elements for a weak pontificate are present.

We must be prepared for the possibility that the papacy is poised to enter a Dark Age. We've had them before. The main danger now is that a great many "Catholics" will see the evils of a new Dark Age not as evils but as positive good.

Gene said...

YTC, I am not aware of any teaching that the "Holy Spirit chooses the Pope.' He may guide the Cardinals, certainly.
And, now, Anonymous (the snotty one), the Holy Spirit has judged the Church in the past by allowing her to choose bad Popes and suffer the consequences. God's judgements are mysterious and take many forms...they are also just. What was it about "...raising up an obedient generation from the stones of the earth..." if that is what it takes....Don't you have something to do over at Pray for Tail?

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Being the pope is new to Pope Francis and I think there is a learning curve. His life has drastically changed and he is now instantly recognized. He is drawing very, very large crowds at his Wednesday Audience and for the Angelus. I hope it doesn't go to his head.
I suspect that the Holy Father was burned by the release of a private conversation, which should tell him now that he is pope, that nothing he says is private. There was an apology issued to the Holy Father by the group in Latin America who met with the pope about their conversation being made public.
I personally hope the pope will stop being a populist and vague in what he says. He seems to be calling a spade and spade, but needs to do so more formally and unambiguously. He needs to set forth a modern syllabus of errors as he understands it as it regards traditionalists and post-Catholics and to be very precise in his doctrinal and philosophical language.

Maybe we are not interpreting what he said about 3500 Rosaries. Maybe he understood it differently than 3500 people saying their Rosary for them as I would take it.
The Holy Father himself lead a massive praying of the Holy Rosary a couple of weeks ago at St. Peter's Square. The Rosary itself is about counting the prayers by use of the beads. What are we missing here. Why would he complain about a group having 3500 Rosaries said for him--is there another meaning that I don't get?

John Nolan said...

Anon 5

Assuming the 'High Middle Ages' to be the 11th to the 14th centuries, this was an era which produced some outstanding pontiffs. In the 11th century we see the great reforming popes St Leo IX, Nicholas II, St Gregory VII and Urban II; the 13th century produced Innocent III and Innocent IV; and some of the 14th century Avignon popes were very able men.

The Church needs today someone like Innocent III (1198-1216), only 37 when elected, and the greatest pope of the High Middle Ages.

rcg said...

When I read the comment about the 'Pelagian' offer of 3500 Rosaries, I understood it as a comment on Christianity and specifically Catholicism of form over substance. We assume the comment was targeted at the conservatives and specifically the Traditionalists. This is fair. He could just as easily said the the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, but his intent, I believe, was directed to people like me who love the TLM and to want ME not allow it to drag me into Pelegian Heresy. I am honoured that he would do that. It applies, of course, equally to anyone who monkeys with the Liturgy, whether they are burning incense or using puppets. He is reminding us that the TLM is not an incantation, but is a proper form to reverently worship God. I think the Holy Father was letting us know that we are not more holy or important just because we have a TLM parish. His jab at the volume of Rosaries may end up being a malapropism, but only because we are maybe overly sensitive to his hyperbole, not because he disrespects 3500 Rosaries. FWIW, I could apply his statement by analogy to point out that banners of solidarity have fed, clothed, nor protected anyone. Personally, I relate more strongly to him now than before because of this statement.

Henry said...

"Why would he complain about a group having 3500 Rosaries said for him--is there another meaning that I don't get?"

Perhaps there is no deep meaning to any of these unfortunate remarks. Other than that the pope appears to have a visceral reaction against traditional Catholic expressions of devotion and piety, and (I fear) against traditional Catholics themselves.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

But that is the whole thing, he is not against popular piety and devotions and seems to promote these more than Pope Benedict. It is very confusing!

Fundamentally Oral Catholic said...

John Nolan:

If you want to discuss what we need in a pope, I'll throw in my two cents: We need a pope with the personal piety of St. John Vianney, the boldness of Venerable Fulton Sheen and the audacity of Donald Trump. We need a pope who can walk into a room full of bishops on their Ad Limina visits and announce, "You're Fired."

I'm just thinkin' out loud.

Templar said...

The road to Hell isn't paved with good intentions, it's paved with the skulls of Bishops.

Henry said...

Perhaps not against popular piety and devotions, but against particularly traditional expressions of piety and devotion.

For instance, he obviously favors people saying the Rosary--a very popular devotion, indeed--but apparently against the very traditional practice of a group of people keeping track of the number of rosaries they've said for a particular intention or person, and then at some point pooling their individual counts into a single spiritual bouquet. Or (I wonder) even against a person individually collecting numbers of perhaps different prayers and devotions into a spiritual bouquet for a specific person or intention.

rcg said...

Maybe Pope Francis is a victim of expecting us to act like adults. He made a comment that I think he would make to family members, a little rough and direct, but still caring. I think we need to calm down and look hard at ourselves.

Anonymous 2 said...

Father McDonald and rcg:

Thank you both for your cautionary words of wisdom. I too did not immediately leap to the conclusion to which so many seem to be leaping. If we assume, instead, that the Holy Father is not some iconoclastic “progressive liberal” out to “destroy the Church” or engaging in “pre-senile babbling,” and if, instead, one actually tries to think through what he might mean and what merit there may be to it, we might get a lot further, I would suggest, too, the same approach towards the comments of people like Pater Ignotus/Father Kavanaugh.

That said, I do understand the defensive reaction to Pope Francis’s remarks. The re-introduction of the TLM and the bolstering of Catholic practices that were distinctive of the Church before Vatican II seem to be opposed by many. For the record again, then, I am not opposed to them. I believe, for example, that the TLM should be available as an option for those who want it and, once more widely available, it might attract many more. Of course, I also support the continuation of reverently conducted folk masses.

But what do I know? I am, after all, just an inadvertent “enemy of the Church” apparently.

Gene said...

What is a "reverently conducted folk Mass?"

Marc said...

This is the precise problem into which one runs when one this everything the Pope does is meant to be emulated or seen as a policy statement.

In short, this is the reason ultramontanism is unworkable and exemplifies why Vatican I was called.

Marc said...

A2, while you are addressing Gene's question, can you explain why people alums have options in the Liturgy when all of Catholic history goes against your position?

Marc said...

"Why people should have options..."

Stupid phone

rcg said...

Some the best advice I ever got was a punch in the mouth. I have had the good fortune to have several people share the same advice with me. It was the short version of, "Keep your eyes open, never assume you are safe." I sort see this the same way. My elders used to lovingly, but without any restraint, point out flaws in the way I see the world. I tend to look at our Popes as my extended family.

Hammer of Fascists said...

John Nolan: I didn't mean to deny that the High Middle Ages had any good popes. I instead intended to say that there's probably a higher proportion of incompetent, weak, or corrupt popes from that period than from any other.

rcg: I wish I could agree with your characterization of the statement. Perhaps you are in fact right. But the comment was bad, to my ears, on so many different levels that it's hard to dodge all of the criticisms effectively; even if one or two criticisms can be dodged or defended against, at least one seems bound to hit. Consider: a) The idea that prayers availeth nothing, which is different from an attack on pelagianism; b) a failure to appreciate the pure quantity of prayers offered, which a vague "we're praying for you" can't communicate properly (if 3500 people said a single Rosary, then that's offending 3500 people in addition to Our Lady); c) the expressed preference for a bland, ecumenical/indifferentist "we're praying for you" over an ancient and heavily Catholic tradition, which is simultaneously a criticism of Catholic culture (the Rosary) and theology (the BVM); d) an ungracious response to the offered prayers and best wishes of members of his flock because said members didn't offer him a formula he liked.

On reflection, rather than "POPE DISSES ROSARY," which is the headline I posited yesterday, the more accurate headline would be "POPE DISSES CATHOLICISM."

Henry and others: I think it's wrong to characterize this as a targeting of traditional Catholics. Orthodox Catholics is best. If we're to the point that only trads in FSSP and SSPX are saying the Rosary, then we have even worse problems than a problematical pope. This was an apparent (if not actual) blowing off of a mainstream, signature Catholic devotion, and that's far worse than dissing Trads. Even "Catholic" Joe Biden knows enough to equate the Rosary with Catholicism, even though he does so by threatening to shove his beads down someone's throat.

Marc: That's the same point I tried to make yesterday. Modern media shows the danger and futility of according casual papal statements some sort of doctrinal status. Less talk from popes; more action from them.

Marc said...

A5, Henry is making your point in the other thread: That there is an equivalency being made between the pious, the traditionalist, and the orthodox. All Catholics should be all of these things because they are all really the same thing, but it is currently only a small subset of Catholics who are living up to this calling. You are correct to point out that the Pope has dismissed all of them, regardless of whether they are a Traditionalist or simply a traditionalist.

And what of the word choice "restorationist"? An odd choice. That is probably more noteworthy than anything else. I've never heard that before, and it has an inherently negative ring to it. But that could just be me, I guess.

Gene said...

I thought a restorationist was someone who fixes up old houses...or maybe Stuart Monarch...

John Nolan said...

Restoration is usually positive, occasionally neutral, and only rarely negative (when you don't like the result).

Anonymous 2 said...

Gene: “What is a reverently conducted folk mass?”

In my thirty five years of experience as a Catholic attending many such masses, the phrase “reverently conducted folk mass” is not an oxymoron.

Marc: The short answer is: Because Vatican II allows it.

The longer answer is: Catholic liturgical history is a lot more complex and varied than your comment suggests:

The metaphysical answer is suggested in section 1201 of the CCC: “The mystery of Christ is so unfathomably rich that it cannot be exhausted by its expression in any single liturgical tradition.” Or, as I would put it: Don’t try to box God in. He is too big.

Anonymous 2 said...

BTW Marc: “can you explain why people alums have options in the Liturgy. . .”

Don’t blame your phone for Freudian slips, dear alum. =)

Anonymous 2 said...

BTW Marc: “can you explain why people alums have options in the Liturgy. . .”

Don’t blame your phone for Freudian slips, dear alum. =)

Marc said...

I know there is a varied liturgical tradition, including within the Roman Rite (Sarum Use, Gallican, Ambrosian,Carthusian, etc.). However, within the Rite, that variety ended (with some exceptions for ancient rites) with the promulgation of the Roman Missal after Trent.

The CCC paragraph you referenced is referring to the diversity amongst the Roman Rite and the Byzantine Rites, if I'm not mistaken. That isn't variety as those rites are particular to those churches and not the Latin, Roman Church. I'll concede they appear to be options here in the West where those particular churches exist in their own vacuums overlapping jurisdiction with Roman Ordinaries, but that is beside the point of this discussion.

I don't recall the Vatican II documents calling for options in the liturgy. Do you have a particular section in mind? (Seriously, it might be there and I don't remember it).

I've read quite a bit about the history of the Roman Rite. In so doing, I was convinced that uniformity always won the day over time. There was always a push toward that uniformity until the liturgical movement that culminated in usurping of power over the liturgy in the wake of and as a result of the shabbily drafted documents of Vatican II.

Anonymous said...

And I was wondering why alum, a chemical flocculant, was being used at all...

Anonymous 2 said...

Marc: I was simply invoking the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, which is the foundational Vatican II document used to justify development of the various forms of the liturgy of the Mass (and other liturgies) as to language, music, etc., I certainly agree, however, that those changes need to be anchored in legitimate interpretation of the document itself, not in some free-ranging “spirit of Vatican II.”

I realize that the CCC section is limited to the different rites. That is why I used the word “suggested” – the same idea, I think, applies to variations within a rite – and why I offered the colloquial paraphrase.

Yes, the history of liturgy is interesting and certainly you know much more about it than I do. However, as I understand the matter, it was the tendency towards rigid uniformity, especially of course since Trent, and the perceived ossification of the Mass that eventually resulted that Vatican II was trying to combat by recapturing an earlier tradition. Have there been abuses? -- To be sure (the infamous “clown masses, for example) -- but that is an issue to do with the proper interpretation of the Constitution.

Anonymous 2 said...

Anonymous: Hmmm. I had never thought of our alums as chemical flocculants before. I must ponder this analogy.

Marc said...

Right, A2, I understood you were referencing the Constitution on the Liturgy of Vatican II. I'm curious if you can point me to the section that addresses the need for options...? Again, it might be in there, but I don't recall seeing it.

I agree with the rest of your post, except with your assumption that the drafters of Sacrosanctum Concilium were legitimately trying to return to an earlier, ancient practice. This has been sufficiently disproven in my mind and goes against the warnings of Pope Pius XII from just a few years before the Council in his excellent document on the Liturgy.

Anonymous 2 said...

Marc: The entire document is relevant. Countless sections authorize variations, thus creating “options” where that authority is used, as it has been. If you just read it through again, you will see what I mean.

As to recapturing earlier traditions, the document specifically references that in section 50. Also, there are scholarly treatments of the restoration of ancient practices, such as receiving in the hand and the kiss of peace. Moreover, some of the original source documents from those times describing the practices in question are linked in my 9:48 p.m. post yesterday.

I hope this helps. But, as I said, I am no scholar of liturgical history, so please do point me to any relevant works including the document of Pope Pius XII you reference.

Anonymous 2 said...

Clarification: Some of the source documents are linked in the piece I linked yesterday.

Marc said...

A2, the pertinent document is Mediator Dei.

As for Communion in the Hand, like other things that came from Vatican II's usurpation, it is based on a false premise. I can't say it better than The Remnant, so I'll quote:

"[T]he Mystagogical Catecheses attributed to Saint Cyril of Jerusalem from around 350 A.D. [is supposed] as validation that Communion in the hand is an “ancient practice.” Unfortunately..., the text purported to be from St. Cyril also contains the following advice: “Do not cut yourselves off from Communion; nor deprive yourselves of these sacred and spiritual mysteries, not even if you are defiled by sins."

This reminds me of the false historical document upon which Eucharistic Prayer 2 was based.

As for the Sign of Peace, this has always had a place in the Roman Rite, but not in its current configuration.

My point is that those "scholarly treatments" on these supposedly ancient practices are oftentimes false. Thus, we have fallen into the precise archaeologism about which Ven. Pius XII warns.

I'll go back and scan Sacrosanctum Concilium when I have time to look for the implicit options. Even if that is true, that doesn't mean that advice should obtain. Clearly, the options have been disastrous as we now know that to which they lead -- clown masses and the like. So, while that pastoral advice may have seemed prudent at the time, experience has taught us otherwise. It is time for a new pastoral method.

Gene said...

Anonymous, Re: alum. You should gargle with some...LOL!

Anonymous 2 said...

Marc: Thanks for the reference. I will check it out. In the meantime, we seem to be consulting two different versions of the St, Cyril’s “On the Mysteries.” Here is the one in the link I posted

And here is what I believe is the relevant section:

23. Hold fast these traditions undefiled and, keep yourselves free from offence. Sever not yourselves from the Communion; deprive not yourselves, through the pollution of sins, of these Holy and Spiritual Mysteries. And the God of peace sanctify you wholly; and may your spirit, and soul, and body be preserved entire without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ(9):--To whom be glory and honour and might, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, now and ever, and world without end. Amen.

What is “The Remnant” you quote?

N.D. said...

The election of pope Francis is not valid because pope Francis condones same-sex sexual relationships that are private, do not involve children, and are not called marriage.
(See page 117 of his book On Heaven and Earth)