Pope Francis is only 16 years older than me. However His Holiness is ordained a priest only 11 years longer than me.
His latter years in the seminary was a time of constant confusion, change and chaos. Combine this with a political culture in Argentina and South America which is constantly in flux and chaos and you get a person who thinks life is meant to be confused and in constant chaos.
However, it is also clear that Pope Francis drank the post-Vatican II "spirit of Vatican" koolaide and liked it and never looked back.
I can resonate with that because I drank the very same koolaide, was taught by the very same liberation theology theologians and had instilled in me that the spirit of Vatican II was a gift to the Church of the God of surprises! Yes, this term, the God of Suprises is a manipulation used by the revolutionaries of the spirit of Vatican II a faux infallibility or neo-infallibility to justify such an outrageous spirit.
I honestly thought that in the 1970's seminary I was living the Church of the future, the Church of the 2000's and that when I was ordained, my calling was to lead people forward to this Church of the Future, with women clergy, no patriarchy and a liturgy creatively designed by the local community which was and is the real Church. We would be a poor Church for the poor.
Pope Francis seems opposed to women priests, but who really knows. He doesn't strike me as a liturgical revolutionary either but he clearly has a disdain for the liturgy of the Church prior to Vatican II, a sort of self-hatred.
I don't agree with everything in this synopsis from 1 Peter 5, but so much of it is true!
6: RIP, Vatican II Catholicism (1962-2018)
In this piece, long-time 1P5 contributor Dr. Peter Kwasniewski argues that the Francis pontificate had “brought to a clarity past any reasonable (or unreasonable) doubt, one might even say has amplified to fever pitch, the utter bankruptcy of ‘Vatican II Catholicism,’ with its lightweight liturgy; its unserious opposition to the world, the flesh, and the devil; and its continual compromise with the reigning forces of liberalism.”
It’s a full-throated critique of everything that post-conciliar Catholicism has inflicted upon the Catholic faithful, from a diminished liturgy to stripped-down sacramental forms to the Church’s approach to the world and morality. Kwasniewski touches the third rail of post-conciliar polemics, saying that ALL the post-conciliar popes — not just the ones we don’t like — played a role in bringing us to the present moment of crisis by being liberals in “slow motion”. “Bergoglio,” writes Kwasniewski, “is the distillation of all the worst tendencies in Roncalli, Montini, Wojtyła, and Ratzinger, without any of their redeeming
qualities. Francis’s predecessors were conflicted and inconsistent progressives; he is a convicted modernist.”
qualities. Francis’s predecessors were conflicted and inconsistent progressives; he is a convicted modernist.”
I do not see any convincing evidence that anything is going to change. Humanism/secularism seems to have taken a pretty strong hold on the Church. The election of the next Pope will be an interesting sign of what is to come.
"Pope Francis is only 16 years older than me." "However His Holiness is ordained a priest only 11 years longer than me.
No, it is, "...than I." in both cases.
Me nos it!
The question which is often asked in politics, should be asked relative to Vatican II:
Is the Church better off now that it was prior to Vatican II?
The answer is a resounding NO!
However, the dim bulbs in the Vatican would never ask that question because it does not want to acknowledge the truth.
Mrs Portnoy aka P.E. Dant aka Anonymous aka Kavanaugh:
I'm surprised that you didn't notice the main error in the second sentence; the verb 'to be' should be in the perfect tense. 'However, His Holiness has been ordained a priest only eleven years longer than I.' Note also that the co-ordinating conjunction 'however' should be separated from the main clause by a comma, and when referring to small quantities figures should be written out.
Still, it's easier to pick holes in someone's grammar than it is to read Prof. Kwasniewski's article in full and offer a constructive criticism of it. No doubt Mark Thomas will dismiss it as 'garbage' since it appears on a website he doesn't like. Not that we expect more from him when it comes to intelligent analysis.
Kwasniewski is always a good read. He is a very thoughtful writer and a threat to the unsustainable status quo. Very few clerics today are his intellectual equal.
I think Mark Thomas is busy right now searching for rebuttal material because for the last several weeks I keep asking him when PF is going to do something about the Vatican clerics involved in the cocaine fueled gay sex orgies at the Vatican. I can't imagine him allowing me the last word on that subject.
When someone's grammar is as off kilter as the Blog Owner's often is, yes, it is easy to drive a tractor through the holes.
Let's look at #6 which is posted above.
First, the statement is made that anyone who disagrees with Kwasniewski's conclusions is summarily dismissed as unreasonable.
Why waste my time one Kwasniewski's musings after that?
A cursory review of his post gives us "Peronist pontiff, "time bombs" deliberately planted by participants at Vatican II, the Catechism's "glossed over" teaching on the headship of the husband in marriage, the frightening reference to the Koran (sic), lakes of Kool-Aid, Assisi meetings, Bergolio celebrating unnatural vice, the evils of female altar servers, and, (GASP!) female lectors.
What's not to love in the good Professor's supercilious spleen emptying...
"Kwasniewski touches the third rail of post-conciliar polemics, saying that ALL the post-conciliar popes — not just the ones we don’t like — played a role in bringing us to the present moment of crisis by being liberals in “slow motion”. “Bergoglio,” writes Kwasniewski, “is the distillation of all the worst tendencies in Roncalli, Montini, Wojtyła, and Ratzinger, without any of their redeeming qualities."
Got it. Bottom line:
Each Pope in question, not just Pope Francis, was/is a disaster...has wrecked the Church.
In particular, I think of Pope Benedict XVI's unwavering defense and promotion of Vatican II as a monumental blessing to the Church.
At the end of his Pontificate, he praised Vatican II — the authentic Council, not the "Council of the media," — to the hilt.
He insisted that the true Vatican II, where implemented in line with Church teaching, has blessed the Church.
However, Pope Benedict XVI was clueless in regard to his praise of the Council. Oh, okay.
One question for Mr. Kwasniewski/critics of Vatican II/post-Vatican II Popes:
Why have the Novus Ordo/Vatican II, along with post-Vatican II Papal teaching, achieved booming holy success throughout the Church in Africa and Asia?
The Church in Africa and Asia is exploding with booming Mass attendance, conversions, and priestly/religious vocations.
Do not inform the booming Church in Africa and Asia that Vatican II, the Novus Ordo, and post-Vatican II Popes have produced rotten fruit.
I think also of the millions of "Vatican II/ Novus Ordo" holy Catholics outside Africa an Asia who love the Novus Ordo...and have loved and obeyed supposedly rotten post-Vatican II Popes.
Millions of holy Catholics have been served well by Vatican II, the Novus Ordo, and post-Vatican II Popes.
Jesus Christ built His Church upon a ROCK, not a marshmallow. I have been saying that for 45-years at least..
Are you ever going to let us know what PF has done to discipline the clerics engaged in a cocaine fueled gay sex orgy?
Fyi, 80% of American Catholics attended Sunday Mass prior to Vatican Disaster II and the liturgical "reforms." Now at best, about 25% of American Catholics attend Sunday Mass. How does this square with your cut and paste:
"Millions of holy Catholics have been served well by Vatican II, the Novus Ordo, and post-Vatican II Popes."
Sounds to me like many more millions were not well served by Vatican II, the Novus Ordo, and post-Vatican II Popes. Or don't you care about the tens of millions who walked away?
All I can say is I only got my spiritual feet on solid ground once I began reading religious works with a Nihil Obstat that was published before 1960, and preferably in the 1940's. Before that I was sinking in a morass of "God Is Love" without instruction on how to grow in virtue and become a disciple of Jesus Christ, like Our Lady or St. Peter or like many of the great Saints. Telling me God loves me helped me not at all when someone offered me cocaine at a party, or a guy I loved very much wanted to "do it."
This Vatican II theology does not one thing to help someone face the daily trials and temptations we all meet each day, and to make sure Our Lord is victorious - that we avoid vice and find a way to overcome vice in us, to the glory of God.
The New Catholic Church does the trick a lot of progressives in society do: they just don't enforce the law so that no one is a law breaker (except their enemies, of course. When facing those who hold the opposite position from theirs, they hold them strictly accountable to all the moral injunctions we all know exist. But other than that, they are merciful as the day is long, too the point of anything goes.) We see the same behavior in our liberal secular society with people who have entered this country illegally: they are allowed to work, buy property, send their children to school on the government, why, even get a driver's license! Any of those things should expose them as being here illegally and get them deported. Yet, civil leaders just don't enforce the law.
Same with the New Catholic Church: nothing's really a sin. Not homosexuality, not living together before marriage, not missing Mass on Sunday, not suicide. What IS a sin corresponds to a liberal socialist agenda: racism, letting people be poor, not agreeing with "climate change"...
And I agree with the author about Wojtyła and Ratzinger. I thought John Paul II was a very holy man, but not a few of his encyclicals and pronouncements caused me to raise an eyebrow. I was just growing up during the pontificates of Roncalli and Montini but even I could tell something was very wrong.
I for one believe in Jesus Christ and I BELIEVE Jesus Christ. The way I read the gospels, Jesus does not sound like a liberal modernist or progressive. He sounds like he nullified none of the Old Law that was authentically from God, only clarified and fulfilled it.
God bless and Happy New Year.
TJM - You ignore MT's comments about the growth of the Catholic Church in Africa and Asia.
From 2014 to 2015 the Catholic population in Africa increased 19.4%
"Asia too saw impressive Catholic growth. Catholicism started the century as 1.2 percent of the Asian population, according to World Christian Database, and ended the century at 3 percent, meaning that the Church more than doubled its “market share.” India’s Catholic population grew from under two million to over 17 million, and should be at least 26 million by mid-century."
The answer is that the declines in the West are not due to Vatican II. If Vatican II caused declines, why do we not see them in Africa and Asia?
The answer is that the declines in the West are not due to Vatican II, but to other, powerful societal factors. In the estimation of not a few, the culprit in the West has been wealth/materialism.
Father McDonald, I saw this article weeks ago.
I don't understand as to why you pointed to Pope Francis. The article is a hit-piece, in particular, against Popes Saint John Paul II and Benedict XVI. In paragraph upon paragraph, Dr. Kwasniewski trashed Popes Saint John Paul II, and Benedict XVI.
The highlight of the article is a list of 28 of the most horrific (supposedly), Church-destroying (supposedly), bishops imaginable.
Dr. Peter Kwasniewski noted that 21 of said bishops were "created by" Pope Saint John Paul II...4 by Pope Benedict XVI...2 by Pope Saint Paul VI...1 by Pope Francis.
Of the 28 "horrific" bishops, 21 were elevated to the rank of Cardinal.
7 of the Cardinals in question were created by Pope Saint John Paul II...8 by Pope Benedict XVI...6 by Pope Francis.
Dr. Kwasniewski, although he trashed Pope Francis, said that Pope Francis is "grimly reaping" that which Popes Saint John Paul II and Benedict XVI had "sown."
Dr. Kwasniewski: "The last five years are not a sudden catastrophe that came from nowhere; they are the orange juice concentrate of the past fifty years, the last act in a tragedy that has been escalating to this point.
"Bergoglio is the distillation of all the worst tendencies in Roncalli, Montini, Wojtyła, and Ratzinger, without any of their redeeming qualities."
Dr. Kwasniewsk's article is filled with hateful nonsense.
But then, that is what flows from right-wing, "traditional" Catholics.
Kavanaugh , the Anonymous wonder, I wouldn’t get too excited about the African or Asian stats. Ever hear the term “rice Christian?”
The decline following Vatican Diaster II was breathtaking in scope and was self-inflicted. I am materially well off and still practice my Faith. Are you suggesting the well off are Godless? The heirarchy, aided and abetted by folks like you, are the culprits, not the Faithful
Father McDonald-permitting, I would like to support my declaration that Dr. Kwasniewski's article in question traffics in hateful nonsense.
"Let us not forget that John Paul II and Benedict XVI were both involved in the Assisi meetings; that they never questioned the rightness of the “razing of the bastions,” the “turn toward the world” and the embrace of modernity that was the hallmark of Vatican II; that they encouraged feminism with one hand while trying to restrain it with the other; and that, above all, they appointed and promoted so many of the terrible bishops and cardinals under whom we are suffering today, as this chart shows:"
If anything, the final sentence of the article has demonstrated the nonsense that flowed from the article.
Dr. Kwasniewski contended that Popes Saint John Paul II and Benedict XVI "appointed and promoted so many of the terrible bishops and cardinals under whom we are suffering today..."
That demonstrates supposedly that Popes Saint John Paul II and Benedict XVI were horrific, Church-wrecking Popes.
Dr. Kwasniewski's wants us to believe that we must return to supposed pre-Vatican II, Golden Age, TLM Catholicism, to repair the damage that Popes Saint John Paul II and Benedict XVI unleashed supposedly upon the Church.
Hmmm...but what about the "modernists" who populated Vatican II supposedly? Who appointed one "horrific" immediate pre-Vatican II Cardinal and bishop?
To play the game that trads play — blame "bad" bishops and Cardinals upon the Popes who appointed said Churchmen —
-- "Church-wrecking" Pope Saint John Paul II was created bishop by Pope Venerable Pius XII.
-- "Church-wrecking" Pope Saint John XXIII was created Cardinal by Pope Venerable Pius XII.
-- "Church-wrecking" Pope Saint Pope Paul VI was appointed Archbishop by Pope Venerable Pius XII.
-- For that matter, "Church-wrecking" Monsignor Bugnini was empowered by Pope Venerable Pius XII to help construct radical liturgical reforms.
Here is a Kwasniewski-like hit-piece against Pope Venerable Pius XII that "proves" that Venerable Pius XII empowered "modernists."
Here is a
Oh...our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ appointed Judas bishop.
Anybody can be spun in unfavorable terms via the game that Dr. Kwasniewski played to "prove" that Popes Saint John Paul II and Benedict XVI were horrific, church-wrecking men.
Dr. Kwasniewski's article trashed Popes Saint John Paul II an Benedict XVI as follows...what a sorry, nasty way to talk about the Vicars of Christ:
"In the end, there are only two reasons we had a conclave of cardinals who voted for Bergoglio: Wojtyła and Ratzinger.
"More generally, they are the reason we have a worldwide episcopacy made up of a tiny minority of traditional bishops (by which I mean bishops who believe, preach, teach, and enforce the Catholic Faith as taught, inter alia, by the Council of Trent) and a huge majority of ferocious liberals, toothless conservatives, and pencil-pushing bureaucrats.
******* "If John Paul II had spent less time globetrotting and writing massive, dense, and now mostly forgotten encyclicals (with Veritatis Splendor as the glowing exception) and more time on his single most important duty, that of vetting and choosing bishops of proven doctrinal orthodoxy, moral probity, and commitment to the sacred liturgy, men without the slightest hint of liberalism or laxity, the Church might be in a dramatically different place today.
******* "The same could be said of the beloved but largely ineffectual professor-turned-pontiff Benedict XVI. That he had a retiring personality turned from a forgivable quirk into a nightmare on February 11, 2013."
Those are very nasty condemnations of Popes Saint John Paul II and Benedict XVI.
Anybody who doesn't march in lockstep with Dr. Kwasniewski's right-wing views will be branded a Church-wrecking modernist.
Portnoy (where did this latest moniker come from?)
I wasn't born in Asia. Had I been, the chances of my being a Christian, let alone a Catholic, would have been very slim. Admittedly they would have been better in some countries, notably South Korea and Vietnam, which for historical reasons have a higher percentage of Catholics than is usual in Asiatic countries, but even in South Korea the odds against being born into a Christian family and baptized are more than ten to one.
One needs to bear this in mind before indulging in such hyperbole as 'booming'. In fact, the proportion of the world's population which is Catholic has been remarkably stable: 17% in 1910 and 16% in 2010.
What should cause concern is the collapse, in a mere 50 years, of Catholic belief and practice in the European heartlands of Catholicism, and by extension in the Americas. This is especially marked in the 16-29 age group, so when the older generation dies off, there will be no-one to replace it. At the moment a greater proportion of Africans and Asians who identify as Catholics attend Mass regularly, but if we accept the argument that decline is a result of increased wealth and the materialism which it engenders, then South Korea, which ranks 27th in terms of nominal GDP (only four places behind Japan and ahead of Spain and Portugal) should soon start seeing the same collapse.
Attributing what amounts to a chronic decline solely to forces outside the Church is a convenient cop-out for those who won't, for ideological reasons, admit the possibility that the post-Conciliar Church has failed, and failed disastrously. Kwasniewski's critique is devastating precisely because it is not a splenetic rant; polemical it may be, overstated perhaps, but the opinions of those like your pseudonymous self who are too purblind to actually read it are worthless.
On a point of information, Koran is an accepted transliteration of an Arabic word which avoids the pedantry which Arabic scholars would force upon us, so the (sic) is out of place.
And there are no female lectors - lector is an instituted ministry reserved to men. You presumably mean female lay readers.
But accuracy was never your strong suit. Just settle for the cheap jibe and continue to bury your head in the sand.
Dr. Kwasniewski said..."In the end, there are only two reasons we had a conclave of cardinals who voted for Bergoglio: Wojtyła and Ratzinger."
Please note that the Holy Ghost is absent in Dr. Kwasniewski's dig in question.
In regard to his attack against our Holy Popes, Dr. Kwasniewski does not allow any room for the Holy Ghost.
Dr. Kwasniewski does not allow for the Holy Ghost to have inspired Cardinals to have voted for Pope Francis, our holy and great Culture of Life Vicar of Christ.
Dr. Kwasniewski has shoved the Holy Ghost from the 2013 A.D. Conclave.
"Wojtyła and Ratzinger." One is a Saint. The other's holiness has been on display in abundance throughout his life.
But in Dr. Kwasniewski's depressing right-wing world, Popes Saint John Paul II, and Benedict XVI are horrific wreckers of Holy Mother Church.
But among countless members who comprise the Holy People of God, Popes Saint John Paul II, and Benedict XVI, are beloved.
Said Popes defended and promoted the True Religion.
Had the nations heeded their preaching, the world would have converted to Jesus Christ.
Sorry, Dr. Kwasniewski, but far from having wrecked Holy Mother Church, Popes Saint John Paul II and Benedict XVI inspired millions of Catholics to have lived and proclaimed the Gospel.
It is very sad that the "traditionalist" right-wing has devolved to the point that they're on the warpath against holy Popes.
Benedict XVI once made a remark to the effect that if you believe that the Holy Ghost chooses the pope, you have to concede that He can make some very bad choices.
I met Dr Kwasniewski in Oxford a few weeks ago. The subject of his politics did not arise, so I can't comment on whether he leans to the right or to the left. What is obvious is that he is motivated not by hatred, as your ignorant accusation would have us believe, but by a deep love for the Church and a profound concern with the direction it has taken under recent popes (who, in the end, must carry the can - you can't blame Bugnini and Modernist bishops for everything).
Nor does Kwasniewski expect everyone to agree with his analysis, although it will strike a chord with many, who cannot simply be written off as hate-filled 'right-wingers'. He is not spinning silk in a vacuum, and it is rare for people to look at the same evidence (in this case the collapse of Catholic belief and practice in Europe and the Americas) and draw opposite conclusions.
Nor are popes above criticism; the best we can hope for is that the Holy Ghost will prevent them from falling into grave error. Kwasniewski's criticism of JP II tends to stress the negative aspects of his papacy, for example his episcopal appointments (the liberal John Allen remarked on this even before his papacy ended). But it is a useful antidote to the 'santo subito' and 'Saint-John-Paul-the-Great' adulation which marked his passing. Wojtyla was a great man, but great men tend to have great flaws. Think Churchill.
'That he had a retiring personality turned from a forgivable quirk into a nightmare on February 11, 2013.' A clever pun, and not without a grain of truth. It is not a 'nasty condemnation' except in your febrile and quite frankly paranoid imagination. And the nightmare continues.
Kwasniewski is not always right, but he is a notable scholar and gifted composer of liturgical music. His books have been favourably reviewed by those who know what they're talking about and are a far cry from the 'hate-filled right-wing trads' you appear to be obsessed with.
If PF is a "holy pope" why hasn't he canned the Vatican clerics who engaged in a cocaine fueled gay sex orgy at the Vatican? After all, Our Lord drove the moneychangers from the temple.
If PF is a "holy pope" why hasn't he canned the Vatican clerics who engaged in a cocaine fueled gay sex orgy at the Vatican? After all, Our Lord drove the money changers from the temple.
"What should cause concern is the collapse, in a mere 50 years, of Catholic belief and practice in the European heartlands of Catholicism, and by extension in the Americas."
It is of great concern. What is under discussion is the cause.
"...if we accept the argument that decline is a result of increased wealth and the materialism which it engenders, then South Korea, which ranks 27th in terms of nominal GDP (only four places behind Japan and ahead of Spain and Portugal) should soon start seeing the same collapse."
As we have seen in Poland. In a 2014 report, Father Wojciech Sadlon, director of the Catholic Church Institute of Statistics, noted the Sunday attendance was down by 2 million from the previous year. 39% attended Sunday Mass.
"On a point of information, Koran is an accepted transliteration of an Arabic word which avoids the pedantry which Arabic scholars would force upon us, so the (sic) is out of place."
No doubt you would say the same had Kwasniewski used "Mohammedan" instead of Muslim. And it's Beijing, not Peking. Damn those Chinese pedants...
There are female lectors. Whether they are instituted or not is another matter, and a minor one at that.
Fr Kavanaugh aka Mrs Portnoy and any number of absurd pseudonyms:
'It is of great concern. What is under discussion is the cause.'
There are no doubt a number of causes, both inside and outside the Church, and it would be rash to exclude any of them on purely ideological grounds. I certainly wouldn't.
Actually I would prefer 'Mahometan' but it now sounds as studiedly old-fashioned as 'Mussulman'. However, both French and Spanish have 'musulman'. There is no reason, however, to prefer 'Muslim' to 'Moslem' since both are in current usage. The Times prefers the former, The Daily Telegraph the latter.
Your remark about Chinese pedants is not too wide of the mark. Beijing is the pinyin transliteration which was invented by the Chinese government in the 1950s and was adopted with regard to English in the 1980s. Hence Mao Tse-Tung became posthumously Mao Zedong. However, there is no reason to change the spelling and pronunciation of foreign place names which are exonyms in English - Rome, Florence, Munich, for example. The same should have applied to Peking.
The French refer to the Chinese capital as Pékin. In German it is Peking.
When Paul VI issued the Motu Proprio 'Ministeria Quaedam' in 1972 he did not regard institution of lectors and acolytes as being a minor matter. For example in the Novus Ordo an instituted acolyte, as well as being ipso facto an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion, may assist the priest or deacon in purifying the sacred vessels. This does not apply to most servers who are merely substituting for acolytes.
Do the Faithful a favor and resign your pastorate and go to the Anglican Church where you belong. After all, you are a member of the Abortion Party. Your flock deserves a Catholic priest. Intellectually, you are no watch for John Nolan or Prof. Kwasniewski.
John Nolan said..."Benedict XVI once made a remark to the effect that if you believe that the Holy Ghost chooses the pope, you have to concede that He can make some very bad choices."
That is Cardinal Ratzinger's opinion. Perhaps God had offered every grace so as to provide a "bad" Pope the opportunity to reform his (the "bad" Pope's) life.
Was Saint Peter's selection to serve as Pope an inspired one? Saint Peter denied Jesus Christ three times.
Jesus Christ had chosen Judas to serve as a bishop. Did Jesus Christ make a "bad choice" in that regard?
From the Novus Ordo Good Friday Intercessory Prayer for the Pope:
"For the Pope:
Let us pray
For our Holy Father, Pope ____________
That God who chose him to be bishop
May give him health and strength
To guide and govern God’s holy people.
Almighty and eternal God,
You guide all things by your word,
You govern all Christian people.
******* "In your love protect the Pope you have chosen for us." *******
John Nolan said...
-- "I met Dr Kwasniewski in Oxford a few weeks ago. What is obvious is that he is motivated not by hatred, as your ignorant accusation would have us believe, but by a deep love for the Church..."
So? People who've met the holy Popes bashed by Dr. Kwasniewski have insisted that said Popes had/have a deep love for the Church...and that, as holy instruments of God, said Popes fulfilled diligently their duties as Popes.
2. In regard to my "ignorant accusation"...I didn't offering anything about Dr. Kwasniewski's motivation.
I employed the word "hateful" twice in regard to the nonsense spewed by Dr. Kwasniewski.
-- "Father McDonald-permitting, I would like to support my declaration that Dr. Kwasniewski's article in question traffics in hateful nonsense."
-- "Dr. Kwasniewsk's article is filled with hateful nonsense."
My employment of the word in question is accurate in having described the vicious attacks leveled via Dr. Kwasniewski's article in question.
Definition of hate (Entry 1 of 2)
1a : intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury
b : extreme dislike or disgust
Have you read Dr. Kwasniewski's article in question?
He spewed venom at several holy Popes, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Vatican II, the CCC...on and on.
Nobody can possibly deny that Dr. Kwasniewsk expressed "extreme dislike or disgust" — hate — for the Holy OF Mass, Vatican II, etc.
My comments in regard to his "hatred" ("hateful") of the above are valid. He expressed a strong "dislike or disgust" for the above.
Finally, rather than have spewed venom at several holy Popes, Dr. Kwasniewski would have been served better had he spent time having read the following from Pope Saint Pius X.
This is the manner in which a Catholic should love our Popes bashed by Dr. Kwasniewski.
"Love the Pope!" - no ifs, and no buts:
For Bishops, priests, and faithful, Saint Pius X explains what loving the Pope really entails
"When Paul VI issued the Motu Proprio 'Ministeria Quaedam' in 1972 he did not regard institution of lectors and acolytes as being a minor matter."
The institution of lectors and acolytes is not a minor matter and I never suggested it was.
That women who read at Mass are not "instituted" is, I suggest, rather minor. We have long since given up the notion that Ordination is THE sacrament of ministry and mission. CCC 1213 "Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons [and daughters] of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission:..."
Baptism makes all sharers in the mission of Christ.
CCC 1268 "The baptized have become "living stones" to be "built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood." By Baptism they share in the priesthood of Christ, in his prophetic and royal mission."
As long as those who served on the altar were understood to be extensions and/or replacements for the priest, the gender exclusivity was necessary. Inasmuch as that is no longer the case, we have recognized the Baptismal dignity of women, a dignity that was too long overlooked or denied.
Has it ever crossed your mind that if you want to be taken seriously you need to be more succinct, less repetitive, and above all less hysterical?
I don't object to lay readers (of either sex) at the OF Mass. I have done it myself; the last time was five years ago, and since the Mass was in Latin and Gregorian Chant I actually sang the first two lections since the priest sang the Gospel.
It's no big deal; I didn't declare to myself that I was exercising my Baptismal dignity (isn't it odd that Novus Ordo-ites want a simple liturgy yet justify the commonplace by using overblown and pompous language?) and I certainly didn't need a fancy Latin title (odd, isn't it, that those who insist on calling readers 'lectors' are the same people who don't see the point of Latin in the liturgy).
'Whether they are instituted or not is another matter and a minor one at that.'
'The institution of lectors and acolytes is not a minor matter and I never suggested it was.'
You've missed your vocation, Father. You should have been a politician.
Whether you declared something to yourself is not germane. I don't step off a dock onto the water declaring to myself, "You will sink, Kavanaugh."
'Whether they are instituted or not is another matter and a minor one at that.'
'The institution of lectors and acolytes is not a minor matter and I never suggested it was.'
"The two sentences are not contradictory. "Whether they (referring to women who act as lectors at mass) are instituted or not is another matter and a minor one at that."
"The institution of lectors and acolytes (referring to Pope Paul VI and 'Ministeria Quaedam' in 1972) is not a minor matter and I never suggested it was."
Surely a man or your education can, if he desires, understand the difference.
A man of far less than my education can spot a contradiction. That's why politicians are distrusted. Like you, they will contradict themselves and then deny that they have done so, usually by an exercise in semantic hair-splitting. They don't convince, and neither do you.
I see that you have resumed your real identity. Should you need another alias, I would suggest 'Janus'.
Felix sit annus novus!
John Nolan at January 2, 2019 at 7:18 PM:
John Nolan said..."Mark Thomas Has it ever crossed your mind that if you want to be taken seriously you need to be more succinct, less repetitive, and above all less hysterical?"
I don't mean the following in nasty fashion: Mr. Nolan, it is meaningless to me as to whether I am taken seriously. Take me seriously. Dismiss me as a crank.
Post a Comment