Thursday, June 3, 2021



It seems the rumors swirling around Pope Francis' desire to curtail the use of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass may be true. It sounds like the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has tried to temper the urge of Pope Francis to be the most scolding pope everrrr when it comes to traditionalists while failing miserably at curtailing the liturgical and doctrinal abuses of progressive heterodox, like the German bishops and that Church in particular, but I digress.

Bishops are the primary liturgists of their dioceses. That includes both forms of the Mass. That should be addressed because since Vatican II the Ordinary Form is a mess in most parishes. The Extraordinary Form fails to take into account any organic development that would have occurred normally. It seems young priest who celebrate this Mass think it should be celebrated exactly like it was up to about 1966.

Many extraordinary Form Catholics are Protestants in disguise. They haven't a clue about the Catholic culture in which the Tridentine Mass developed, post-Trent and the respect that is demanded of the Church, her Magisterium and of living popes, bishops and priests. Not a clue. 

As well, some in the EF  community are down right obnoxious as there are also some in the OF community. But I have first hand knowledge of EF Catholics leaving a Mass they thought was going to be EF but turned out to be an entirely OF Latin Mass ad orientem. 

That is sacrilegious to say the least. The Ordinary Form of the Mass is the normal form of the Mass. The Extraordinary Form of the Mass is the exception.

One of the things that should have happened by now is to make sure the Ordinary Form of the Mass recovers the reverence of the EF Mass which means there needs to be an appendix to the modern Missal that allows for EF customs.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the Vernacular is not the enemy of the EF Mass, it is the casualness and mess that the Ordinary Form has become.

Allow for the PATFOTA as in the EF for either the Low or High Mass. Allow a silent canon no matter which one is use. Allow the older offertory rite. Allow ad orientem and kneeling for Holy Communion, the latter the more important of the two. 

What I am describing is basically what the Ordinariate's Divine Worship, the Missal has. 

Is it  too difficult to create a similar OF Missal in design and option as the former Anglicans have. Come on Vatican and bishops, you can do it.


William said...

"Ut Unum Sint" Allowing individual bishops to squelch the EF will drive a stake into the heart of Unity. This is truly a divisive papacy.

ByzRus said...

"The Extraordinary Form fails to take into account any organic development that would have occurred normally. It seems young priest who celebrate this Mass think it should be celebrated exactly like it was up to about 1966."

To me, the EF should not be like a reed in a breeze, blowing in unison with every directional change of the wind. Certainly, this is not the case with the Divine Liturgy. I might argue that young priests who celebrate the EF as though it were 1966 (without this statement being further qualified) are not doing anything wrong - that was only 55 years ago!

"I've said it before and I'll say it again, the Vernacular is not the enemy of the EF Mass, it is the casualness and mess that the Ordinary Form has become."

So true. Perhaps this is the "mess", or, at least part of it, that HH desires.

"Allow for the PATFOTA as in the EF for either the Low or High Mass. Allow a silent canon no matter which one is use. Allow the older offertory rite. Allow ad orientem and kneeling for Holy Communion, the latter the more important of the two."

Would be nice but, given how things are and the aftershocks that will likely last for generations, unlikely to happen soon if ever.

Hopefully, HH isn't on the verge of discriminating yet again against those who favor tradition. I have to wonder what percentage of the 80+% that no longer attend they make up at this point.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Of course, right now everything is conjecture based upon rumor. Not the best form of news reporting.

Admit It, We've Failed said...

I am not a canonist, so my observations and questions here might seem pedestrian, but I think there's enough common sense applicable here to reach a logical conclusion:





So to say that the "New Mass" is the "normative" form of the liturgy, simply reflects a mistruth we have been conditioned to believe through the attrition of faith since the 1970 imposition of this disaster. I say this with no disrespect, but I am afraid we must agree to disagree.

The false church within the Church is calling the shots and the faithful continue to suffer. Those who forced this down our throats will answer for it to God.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

11:16 am--The pope, whoever he is, is the Supreme Pontiff and His Holiness makes the calls. Pope Benedict in Summorum Pontificum offered the names OF and EF. He also said that the older rite was not suppressed.

The current Pope, and we will have to see how he curtails the EF Mass if he does, will be the Supreme Pontiff in this decision and there is higher authority for recourse.

That's the way it has been prior to vatican II and since.

Anonymous said...

Father I understand you and other priests stating the Novus Ordo should learn from the TLM, however when the Novus Ordo has altar girls, hand holding, kiss of peace, guitars, drums, rock music, lay lectors both male and female, communion in the hand while standing, giant puppets, clown masses, dancing girls in leotards and effeminate men as well in leotards, how on earth can the Novus Ordo train wreck learn from the TLM????????

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

..and there is NO higher authority for recourse.

Admit it, We've Failed said...

No argument, Father. The pope IS the highest ecclesial authority on earth.

But let's look at the truth: In 1570, the highest ecclesial authority on earth at that time, Pius V, wrote in Quo Primum:

"Therefore, no one whosoever is permitted to alter this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Would anyone, however, presume to commit such an act, he should know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul."

"No one, whosoever" didn't read, "except future popes."

Future popes violated the edict. The whole "extraordinary form" jargon is merely a concoction of a pope--a nice man, but a concoction still.

Popes are the highest ecclesial authority on earth and they have a responsibility to be faithful to the tradition they have been entrusted with. It doesn't take a genius to see what our postconciliar popes have done with that tradition.

The false church within the Church persists and I doubt anything is going to change until a cataclysmic intervention of some sort occurs. And as a race of people and as a disobedient Church, we are BEGGING for it.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

Admit It - Quo Primum of Pius V is an act of liturgical regulation.

As such, it was never meant to be, and is not, and can never be, a definitive (meaning unchangeable or irreformable) statement of belief, doctrine, or practice.

To read it as such is to misread the document and ALL other ecclesiastical documents of a similar nature.

The authority of Pius V to regulate the liturgy does not - and cannot - supercede the authority of subsequent popes to regulate the liturgy.

At the New Lituirgical Movement website you will find and should read "Quo Primum, Papal Authority and the Sacred Liturgy."


It reads in part: "Likewise, legal expressions such as "which shall have the force of law in perpetuity, We order and enjoin under pain of Our displeasure that nothing be added to Our newly published Missal, nothing omitted therefrom, and nothing whatsoever altered therein" cannot be literally interpreted as binding on possible later actions of Pope St. Pius V or upon his successors. The strictures fall only upon those who act without due authority.

If it were otherwise, then Pope St. Pius V would have excommunicated himself a couple of years after publishing "Quo Primum" when he added the feast of Our Lady of the Rosary to the missal following the Battle of Lepanto in 1571, not to mention Pope Clement XI who canonized Pius V in 1712, thus altering the missal.

Among the many other Popes who would have thus incurred "the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul" would have been St. Pius X for reforming the calendar, Pius XI who added the first new preface in centuries for the feast of Christ the King, Pius XII for completely revamping the rites of Holy Week as well as simplifying the rubrics, and Blessed John XXIII for adding St. Joseph's name to the Roman Canon."

Anonymous said...

Where to begin? I do not desire to hurt anyone's feelings and also do not claim a vast theological background to express anything other than personal observations that are per se subject to the critique/opinions of my betters.

I attend TLM in two different cities on alternating Sundays because our family travels. Both parishes provide handouts which include English translations of the lesson and the gospel and other prayers also. At one, Father reads in English the lesson and the Gospel at the other he does not. In my opinion that is all the "organic" development that is necessary to make the 1962 edition of the TLM a very acceptable sacrificial offering to Almighty God.

The non-organically (inorganically?) made Novus Ordo Mass of Vatican 2, as you yourself say Father, is a mess. I do not speak for the Trinity, however the atmosphere at NO masses is often so pedestrian (music, preaching, frequent talking even during the consecration, and other types of disrespectful attitudes in the pews, and even occasionally by the priest at the altar) that it is hard to imagine how well God might be pleased with such slovenly offerings. Remember, Tradition, respectfully transmitted, is able to unite us to our Christian ancestors and to Jesus Christ our Saviour.

Funny you should refer to certain Traditionalist as "Protestants". Some may not have very good manners. They are like battered children, over sensitive always expecting the next blow from militant local parish busybodies to the Pope himself. Some clergy constantly attack and ridicule them. Are they grumpy clericalists themselves or do you not agree?. In addition, the "Protestant" Tradies have been putting up with clerical sex abuse, clerical financial crimes, drug fueled sex parties, Pachamama worship, and so on. One could make a very long list of offenses (schisms; heresies committed by assorted clergy and so called Catholic faithful, Mr. Biden; Pelosi?) that in all seriousness far surpass the bad behavior of a very few beleaguered "Protestant" Traditionalist. Let us not excuse them either.

The Pope can teach authoritatively even infallibly the doctrines of the Church as it has come down to us but he cannot make things up. He cannot soft pedal the commandments for example Thou shall not kill. Or finesse the constant teaching of the Church when it comes to adulterous marriages. This is what the "Protestant" Tradies say more or less. The way they say it is not always elegant or even well mannered.

Lastly, it is not the "Protestant" Tradies that are the danger to the Catholic Church, its younger generation. The danger comes from the radical innovators of the liturgy. Benedict XVI called it the dictatorship of the relativists.

Milosz said...

Father, thank you so much for your post.
I’m from Poland and I fully share your view.
I’m fed up with traditionalists who can be described as ‘militant’.
Suddenly, I think they more believe in the form of the Mass, gestures etc. then in what is going on during a Mass, this is to say, the transubstantion.
I’m writing this as a young Pole who prefers the older rite but looking at how traditionalists behave I’m not surprised Vatican can be willing to do sth with TLM.
To me, 1965 order ad orientem would be perfect.


Admit it, We've Failed said...


Thank you for your post, because it got me thinking... I often wonder if the transubstantiation has even taken place at the Novus Ordo Masses I've had no other option but to attend for the last several decades. I'm not saying it hasn't. I just wonder if it actually HAS, given what a horrific mutilation the Novus Ordo is of the Mass.

Perhaps some reader out there can answer this: The Catholic Church has a long list of approved (stress on APPROVED) Eucharistic miracles. Have any of them happened in the context of the Novus Ordo?

Anonymous said...

The purpose of the Church is to save souls. I think Milosz is onto something. I’m a 74 y.o. lover of the old Latin Rite I grew up with, and will go to my grave loving that Liturgy. BUT, I am getting sick of the disunity being created by liturgy disputes. We are a Church struggling with surviving so many challenges that threaten our survival as a force for good. I want our children and grandchildren to love our faith. They will be the force that moves our Church forward.

Admit it, We've Failed said...

Anonymous, I agree with you. Liturgical disputes are indeed terrible and a source of disunity and grief. But as the saying goes, we didn't start it. It wasn't the Traditionalists that decided to go in and tinker with success, then impose it like a dictatorship on steroids. It isn't the traditionalists who were stingy with John Paul II's indult. It wasn't the traditionalists who came up with the whole phony "Church of the New Advent" B.S. paradigm.

Abraham Lincoln once said that America must either become all of one thing or all of another, it can't be split. And so too must the Catholic Church. Pope Paul VI, God bless him and his memory, is the one who created the wound that will not heal. His successors have held the party line. And we can't blame good priests like Fr. McDonald--because they have to answer to these people.

Third Secret of Fatima, anyone? My money says it predicts MASSIVE apostasy in the Church enforced from the top. FROM THE TOP. Is it any wonder they won't give us the whole thing? To do so would be self-indictment.

BTW, St. Padre Pio said so too. We can be good little patsies and take it or we can fight back and stand up for truth. And the best weapon we've got is the rosary. Use it.

ByzRus said...

Agree. Milosz is on to something. Behavior within some traditional circles is perhaps not the ideal however, at the same time, after 50+ years of mistreatment from many within the establishment/hierarchy, I can understand where it comes from. The pope himself has been dismayed by this "fad"! Liturgy should not divide, but, the reality is, division exists. Some of the division was created by HH who does not seem to minister to this part of his flock. Limitations on the TLM aren't going to make traditionalists all of a sudden say "Ok, Holy Father, you are right and we can't wait to come back to the Novus Ordo!". At this juncture and 13 years after SP, limitations will likely be destructive in many places and ignored in others.

Milosz said...

Thank you very much for your comment.
On Thursday in Poland we celebrated Corpus Christ (maybe in the USA you have it on Sunday) and I attended the NO.
During the sermon, the provost preached about the Eucharistic Miracle in Sokółka in 2008. It’s on its way to being approved by the Vatican as the 133rd miracle. The last one approved was from 1996 Buenos Aires.


Anonymous said...

1. Legnica: A Bleeding Host in Poland, 2013
The bleeding Host in Poland was approved for veneration in April 2016, by Bishop Zbigniew Kiernikowski of Legnica who said that it “has the hallmarks of a Eucharistic miracle.”

2. Tixtla: Eucharistic Miracle in Mexico, 2006
In Oct. 2006, a parish in the Chilpancingo-Chilapa Diocese of Mexico held a retreat. During mass, two priests and a religious sister were distributing communion when the religious sister looked at the celebrant with tears in her eyes. The Host that she held had begun to effuse a reddish substance. On account of the scientific
results and the conclusions reached by the theo logical committee, last October 12 the Bishop of
Chilpancingo, his Eminence Alejo Zavala Castro,
announced the following:
- The event does not have a natural explanation.
- It does not have paranormal origin.
- It is not traceable to manipulation of the enemy.”

3. A Eucharistic Miracle at Chirattakonam, India, 2001
This Eucharistic miracle was
verified recently, on May 5,
2001 in Trivandrum, India.
In the Host there appeared
the likeness of a man similar
to that of Christ crowned with
thorns. His Beatitude Cyril
Mar Baselice, Archbishop of
the diocese of Trivandrum,
wrote regarding this prodigy:
“[…] For us believers what
we have seen is something that
we have always believed […].
If our Lord is speaking to us
by giving us this sign, it
certainly needs a response
from us”. The monstrance
containing the miraculous
Host is to this day kept in
the church."

4. The Eucharistic Miracle in Sokolka, Poland, 2008
In its official communiqué, the Metropolitan Curia of Bialystok stated:

“The Sokolka event is not opposed to the faith of the Church; rather, it confirms it. The Church professes that, after the words of consecration, by the power of the Holy Spirit, the bread is transformed into the Body of Christ, and the wine into His Blood. Additionally, this is an invitation for all ministers of the Eucharist to distribute the Body of the Lord with faith and care, and for the faithful to receive Him with adoration.”

That being said, if you doubt what the Church tells us is Truth, that the NO mass is valid and that the Eucharist is confected in NO masses, then you have separated yourself from the Church and taken to yourself the authority given to the Magisterium.

Православный физик said...

Until the attitude returns that Liturgy is gift, this is all much ado about nothing.

The idea that one can just completely invert praxis at the stroke of a pen, should be downright scary.

Mark Thomas said...

In regard to the sick reactions to the recent Summorum Pontificum-relared rumors:

We are dealing with a rumor that has been floated periodically from the dawn of Pope Francis' Pontificate to date. "A source has reported that Pope Francis will soon restrict/ban the TLM."

Holy Mother Church has exhorted us to love and respect Pope Francis. Instead, from the first seconds of his Pontificate, "traditional" Catholics have misrepresented, as well as attacked His Holiness daily.

During the past few days, "traditionalists" have increased their Satanic attacks upon the Vicar of Christ.

The authentic Catholic response to the rumor in question is to remain calm. We are to trust in the Lord.

Beyond that, we are required to obey any Summorum Pontificum-related teaching that the Vicar of Christ, Pope Francis, may issue.

Pope Saint Pius X, 1912 A.D.

"Therefore, when we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed; we do not place his orders in doubt...whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope."


Mark Thomas

Cardinal Pell in regard to Pope Francis:

"Francis said he’s a loyal son of the Church, and his record shows that. He’s a completely faithful exponent of Christ’s teaching and the Church’s tradition."

Anonymous said...

Why can't we have nice things? We have to deal with incompetent leadership, back stabbing liturgists and scorn from those outside the Church. Can't we at least have an hour of aesthetically pleasing communion with Our Lord? Yeah, Sister Stretchpants playing Marty Haughan on the guitar doesn't invalidate the Mass, but can't we have an hour a week in which to bask in the beautiful traditions handed down by the saints who went before us? Just one hour? Can't the reformers restrict their antinomianism to the other 167 hours of the week? They can't let even 60 brief minutes go by without campaigning for the New Green Deal and extolling the wonders of socialism (the best example of the Christian message on Earth) and Father Sideburn's amusing anecdotes about "Old Jim who works at the dockyards and who never graduated 8th grade but has more holiness than most of us put together" (and certainly more holiness than Father Sideburns).

Jesus was right when He said "even what little you have will be taken away"

rcg said...

Fr McDonald, I take exception to at least two of your points.

First, what organic development would have occurred since 1962 that is being ignored by young priests? This seems like a straw man.

Secondly, the problems associated with supporters of the EF are not the problem with the EF and I do not think their problems are caused by the EF.

I agree with your assessment of a significant population of EF being ‘Holier than Thou’. I have experienced it myself. It is a problem they bring with them, a desire to validate their prejudices and need for superiority. They should be addressed, but I believe we must affirm the nature of the Mass and the Church to them as we would any one else who brings their sin with them to the Body of Christ.

Admit it, We've Failed said...

Thank you RCG.

Just because some people within the Traditionalist community tend to be a bit testy (and who can blame them, after what the Church has done to so many of them?) doesn't invalidate their desire to end all the liturgical confusion and end it on the side of history and tradition.

MT's papalatry aside (Heck, he's ready to paint the patchamama idol on his walls) merely questioning the validity of something--that is to say, merely ASKING a question doesn't separate one from the Church. If every Catholic who ever had doubts was separated from the Church, I doubt there would be 10 Catholics who'd ever lived.

I sincerely hope that the Novus Ordo Mass IS valid! Heaven knows I've put up with enough insipid music and bad homilies, ugly architecture, needless renovations and a catalogue of cringeworthy, ridiculous, antics at Masses over the years that I wouldn't want it to all be for naught! And I appreciate the listing of Novus Ordo era Eucharistic miracles. My only question would be, were all of these at actual Novus Ordo Masses?

I have taken it on faith that the Novus Ordo is valid and I have done so for many years. That doesn't mean that I have to like it and it sure as heck doesn't mean I'm not allowed to ask questions. Now go open up one of your Missals from Oregon Catholic press--maybe someday, they'll actually print the Eucharistic prayers in a format where they aren't all broken up over several pages!

(just had to throw that last complaint in--I'm especially tired of THAT!)

Anonymous said...

I can't help but see the hilarious irony in the Markbot very selectively quoting St. Pius X, who condemned just about everything the Church has been toying with since we opened up the windows for some fresh air and let legions of demons into the fortress.

Can any of us imagine good old Pope Sarto listening with approval while Pope Bergoglio makes questionable comments about Catholics praying the rosary, asks reporters "Who am I to judge?" about homosexual priests, dismissing proselytizing as "nonsense" and enshrining a wooden, pagan fertility idol at St. Peter's? Do any of us picture Pope Pius smiling in approval?

Instead, my mind keeps going back to St. Nicholas, remembering what he did to a priest named Arius.

Sorry Mr. Thomas, but your invocation of the saint who railed against modernism makes about as much sense as William F. Buckley invoking Jack Kerouac.

rcg said...

Admit It makes a point concerning many of traditionalists, that they are exhibiting a normal human reaction to being persecuted. When our FSSP priest wanted to move the alar rail less than a foot forward to help elderly and infirm parishioners kneel more easily and safely we nearly had an insurrection. Merely opening the discussion triggered memories of wreckovations in previous parishes and we had to hold several open discussions about it. The laity have become so distrustful of the clergy and their motives that they refuse any change to something from before1962. This is easing, but it still happens.

Anonymous said...

Being told, "No," is not persecution.

No, we will not transition to Gregorian chant. No, we will not exclude girls from being altar servers. No, we will not reinstall the altar rail.


No, you're not. What you are being is petulant.

Many clergy don't give into the demands of the EF crowd for the same reason companies are advised not to pay ransom for malware attacks. The demands never end.

Admit it, We've Failed said...

Hmmmm...don't think I used that word--persecuted--in my previous posts--at least not in reference to myself.

Your post is quite revealing however. Since you opened the door to the "p" word, your "no we won't's" tell us quite a bit:

Gregorian Chant? Vatican II's Sacrosanctum Concilium calls for its "pride of place" in liturgical music. As a side note, I'd love to see the number of CD and record sales comparing the various Gregorian Chant CD's for the last 20 years with recordings by the St. Louis Jesuits or the Damiens!

Female Altar Servers? (it's actually "Altar Boys" distorted into the gender-neutral language of militant feminism). The biggest source of vocations has always come from male Alter "Servers". The dioceses experiencing the biggest crises in vocations are often the ones most militant about getting those girls up there. But then again, if you think it's fair to bait girls with a taste of what the priesthood is like, then remind them that they cannot ever be priests, then continue to claim to respect the Church's teachings while pressuring the Church to change its teachings on male priesthood because it's "discriminatory" and "unfair"...well, at least SOME readers here can understand the oxymoronic logic of continuing down this path.

Altar Rail? Frankly, all that statement hints at is a--dare I say it--petulant refusal to recognize the validity of the TLM. And if you've ever been to the TLM in a modernist prayer-barn church building without an altar rail, Communion takes twice as long. Besides the many wreckovated churches that have restored their altar rails, a number of newer buildings that never had one are now adding them. It's too early to give you numbers, but it is happening.

Petulant! Ha! Just one more example of the offenders labeling others with their very own behavior! No, no, no sir (or is it ma'am?), how little you know. I do not consider myself persecuted at all, even so, I can say that many Catholics who appreciate Tradition have been treated in a manner that could qualify as persecution.

As for your mini-litany of "NO WE WON'T!" reminds me of some other "No we won't" temper tantrums that characterize our modern age of making a public spectacle until we get our way:

"No we WON'T go back to illegal backroom abortions!"

"No we WON'T go back in the closet!"

"No we WON'T wear a top--if men can take their shirts off, so can we!"

"No we WON'T stop saying, $%#@! in public! We have freedom of speech!"

and of course, everyone's favorite from the most famous refusnik of them all:

"Non Servium!"

Pierre said...

Anonymous K at 8:47,

You could flip each of those comments and apply it to the OF crowd, yet the clergy cower to them

Anonymous said...

After trying to visualize St. Pius X and his reaction to Pope Francis, another historical possibility came to mind:

Picture if you will a "liturgical roundtable discussion" outside the confines of time:

On one side of the table, you have St. Gregory the Great, St. Pius V, St. Pius X, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine of Hippo and St. Bonaventure.

On the other side of the table, we have Annibale Bugnini, Pope Francis, Pope Paul VI, Hans Kung and Father Richard Rohr. Pope Paul VI opens the discussion with these words: "In 1969, I had an idea about how to make the Mass more "inclusive" and easier for everyone..."

Can ANYONE reading this, tell me with a straight face, that Sts. Gregory, Pius V & X, Thomas and Augustine would approve?

God is the same yesterday, today and forever. Our liturgy alway reflected that--setting us apart from the Protestants.

At least it did until 1970.

Anonymous said...

"I often wonder if the transubstantiation has even taken place at the Novus Ordo Masses I've had no other option but to attend for the last several decades. I'm not saying it hasn't. I just wonder if it actually HAS, given what a horrific mutilation the Novus Ordo is of the Mass."


"I have taken it on faith that the Novus Ordo is valid and I have done so for many years."

Can't have it both ways. Can't say "I wonder if it is valid" and "I take it on faith that it is valid."

The Church teaches that Jesus is fully God and fully human. But you can doubt/question that and be Catholic?

The Church teaches that the books of the Bible are divinely inspired. But you can doubt/question that and be Catholic?

The Church teaches that procuring an abortion is objectively mortal sin. But you can doubt/question that and be Catholic?

Anonymous said...

I agree that being told "no" by the pastor is not persecution.

The problem is many of the "no's" are driven by ideology and bias rather than charity and rational thinking.

To make matters worse, many Catholics just wait until Father No is transferred, knowing that sooner or later they'll get Father Yes. That doesn't say much for consistency in a Church that desperately needs it. Instead, it's like the relationship of a child to two divorced parents: If one says no, I'll go to the other to get my yes.

I am sure this has always been a problem in the Church to some small degree. But when the Church split into idealogical camps, it became a chronic condition.

Now, what inspired the Church to make a major shift in ideology, thus splitting the faithful? I'll give you a hint: It wasn't the Holy Spirit.

Anonymous said...

Admit It - If you don't consider yourself persecuted, and you didn't use the word, then guess what? The post responding to the person (persons) who DO feel presecuted wasn't directed at you.

But if you are feeling persecuted, though not admitting it, then....

Admit it, We've Failed said...

Anonymous! Good point! Maybe I DO feel persecuted once in a while, but I try not to make a public spectacle of it.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go lick my wounds and feel sorry for myself!

Anonymous said...

Lord, I believe. Help my unbelief!

Anonymous said...

"The problem is many of the "no's" are driven by ideology and bias rather than charity and rational thinking."

And of course you know this is driven by "ideology" because.....?

Admit It - The Dameans last recording was in 1995 and the St. Louis Jesuits in 1985. So your suggested comparisons are not possible.

I have a friend who is an editor at GIA and know the editor at ILP. I could get some numbers on the sales of hymnals from them, you could find the numbers on sales of Gregorian Chant hymnals, and we could have a comparion party. Looser buys the champagne.

Admit It, We've Failed said...

In no way was I suggesting that I can read the minds of clergymen (or anyone else), but how anyone older than 30 can look at the Church for the last three decades and not recognize an anti-traditional ideology is beyond me.

My anonymous detractor deserves credit for doing his research--at least regarding the release dates of "happy, peppy, new Catholic" music from the Peter, Paul and Mary generation. My point was about the fact that none of the sappy, dated, cheesy, cringeworthy (I could probably think of some other adjectives if I took more time) music of the "New Church" and Her stripped-down liturgy has never had much appeal, while the timeless sounds of Gregorian Chant continues to grow in popularity--or, at very least maintain a certain level of popularity the "Up With People" singers could never attain.

I'll take your word about hymnal sales--especially since the folks in the pews don't make that choice, but the pied pipers who make the decisions at the administrative level do. I'm not interested in "winning" an argument with you. I'm just sharing what I've observed. And regarding champagne, well--I don't drink. Thanks anyway, but I'd prefer that neither of us think in terms of "winning" and "losing". Since we're supposed to be against all this divisiveness, maybe we could consider what we DO agree on.

Hmmm....DO we agree on anything?

Anonymous said...

"In no way was I suggesting that I can read the minds of clergymen (or anyone else), but how anyone older than 30 can look at the Church for the last three decades and not recognize an anti-traditional ideology is beyond me."

You say you can't read minds, and then turn around a tell us you HAVE read their minds in order to come to the conclusion that they are operating from an "anti-traditional" ideology.

Further, you say "anyone older than 30" can also read their minds and come to the conclusion that they are operating from an anti-traditional ideology.

Admit It, We've Failed said...

Have a nice argument with yourself.

Anonymous said...

Notice how MT aka the Markbot has run away because there are no “cut and paste” points to support his position?

Anonymous said...

How about we just post on the subject and stop attacking each other or pointing out how others are or are not responding?

Our anonymity may protect us from knowing who the other people are posting here, but GOD KNOWS who we are.

(and no, I am not Mark Thomas)

Anonymous said...

Admit It - My argument is with the sloppy thinking and writing you exhibit, saying that you DO read people's minds by concluding they are ideologues, then turning around and saying you DON'T read people's minds while still concluding they are ideologues.

Pierre said...

Here is a pretty good statement as to why the bitter, old ones want to restrict the EF:

"I see these men at the end of their time absolutely seething with rage that what they’ve spent over 50 years peddling has been rejected by a substantial number of the faithful.

We were supposed to be grateful for guitar masses accompanied by tambourines, felt banners, relaxed catechesis, horrible music, abhorrent preaching and what for many effectively amounts to belief in the abolition of hell. How dare any of us not toe the line. They may be on their way out but they’re still able to toss a grenade or two before the door closes behind them."

Anonymous said...

"Substantial Number"? Hardly. Miniscule is more accurate. There is one FSSP parish in the entire state of Georgia, the 10th largest state in the union. There are One Hundred and Eighty-One NO parishes in Georgia.

There are 655 venues where the Latin mass is offered in the USA. There are over 17,000 parishes in the country.

Convince yourself with whatever phantasy you like, but the data are what they are.

Look a Little Deeper, Mark said...

Anonymous, your observations are hollow and only tell one side of the story.

Of COURSE there are more N.O. parishes--because the institutional Church that has driven forcing it down our throats is in charge (and in the long run, that will prove to be a good thing, because the Church is not Protestant, fragmenting off every time something goes wrong). Of COURSE there are but few FSSP and SSPX chapels, because trying to get one approved or built (or both) is like a combination of pulling teeth, passing an act of Congress and waiting for the next total solar eclipse--there is nothing but obstacles presented by the current people in charge of the institutional Church.

The Ape of the Church, the anti-Church that carries the appearance of the Church, the false Church running the show--whatever you want to call it (or in your case, probably deny) calls the shots. The numbers that should speak to you are the numbers of parishes that have closed over the years, the numbers of vocations abandoned, the numbers of Catholics who have abandoned going to Mass and the continually dropping numbers of Catholics who believe in the Real Presence. Any corporation that operated the way our Church does would have fired the CEO and Board of Directors years ago, but the people at the top of our hierarchy continue to hold the party-line about some sort of "new springtime". Yeah. Right.

One need only go to any medium-sized or major city where there ARE TLM's to see the attendance at such parishes and compare them with your garden-variety Novus Ordo parish. The TLM parishes usually have bigger congregations, growing congregations and are often forced to offer Mass at the most inconvenient times in areas of most cities that are run-down or inconvenient to drive to--and they move forward and succeed anyway.

Given the shallow thought processes you display in your relentless provocations against the majority of people who read this blog, I have a strong sense that you might just be Mark Thomas--except you are the "darker" Mark Thomas, who instead of saying "holy, Francis, holy Francis, etc." you like to spew your frustrations with us for not agreeing with you and seeing your enlightened way.

Of course, that's just a theory and I could be totally wrong. But regarding the Novus Ordo--enjoy the riding on your sinking ship. Sooner or later it will go under. Its losing venture cannot sustain itself forever.

How to Close Parishes and Lose All Influence Over People said...


Oh, you are SO right anonymous!

St. Vitus, an FSSP parish that was not even allowed its own church building until 2019 year grew from 250 to 500 parishioners in California's San Fernando Valley (not exactly conservativeland).

In Naples, Florida, the FSSP has been establishing a foundation for two years as of 2019 and saw its numbers jump 20 percent in one year to avg attendance of 400 per week.

In 2018 FSSP parishes were established in Conshahaken PA (Philly suburb) and Providence, Rhode Island--after waiting for bishops who would actually ALLOW them to open for business (I only use that phrase, since we're living in a Church that too many bishops treat like a business).

San Diego's Latin Mass Community, the first established after JPII's 1988 indult met in a mausoleum for YEARS and every Sunday, 300-400 people would pack the mausoleum, many driving for 2 hours or more to get there and were refused a second Mass for years (after all, the bishops told us there was "no demand" for all this). Finally, their bishop gave them the poorest parish church in the diocese located in a gang-infested neighborhood and that church packs them in beyond standing room to outside the doors during their five Sunday Masses--you're lucky if you get that kind of crowd at Christmas for one Mass at a Novus Ordo parish. And these Masses are filled with young adults, young famlies and, of course a few old people who COULDN'T POSSIBLY LOVE THE MASS FOR ANY OTHER REASON THAN JUST NOSTALGIA--we all KNOW that!

Yeah, that old miniscule TLM group needs to figure out that they just don't matter. After all let's compare them to the "successful" stats of Novus Ordo Catholics:

According to the research of Sherry Weddell, author of Forming Intentional Disciples:

1.) Only 30% of Americans who were raised Catholic are still practicing .

2.) 10% of all adults in America are ex-Catholics (.

3.) 79% of cradle Catholics become unaffiliated and cease using “Catholic” by age 23.

Yeah, the miniscule growth of TLM communities should just be ignored and we should continue with the successful model we call the "Postconciliar Church".

Success! I guess if you're a Catholic bishop in America, it's all in your mind.

Anonymous said...

How To - The claim that the TLM numbers are "substantial" isn't supported by the facts. You can talk all you want about other things, as you have done, but that'not germane.

Yes, there is a lot of nostalgia around these days.

Remember, Summorum Pontificum is a post-conciliar reality...

Mao "Say Dung" said...

The Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution are post-revolutionary realities.


Anonymous said...

anonymous Mark Thomas The Dark Side:

It's so funny to read your "irreversible authoritarian-etched-in-stone" point about postconciliarism, after your refuse-to-believe reality rant about the TLM.

I'll give the the short version:

The TLM isn't going to go away, no matter who tries to abolish it. There is no "postconciliar Church" and Vatican II is not a "superdogma" that supersedes all that came before it.

Anyone with a sense of the "long game" and a knowledge of history can figure it out:

The voices questioning the very validity of Vatican II are growing and they're not going away.

The "postconciliar church" that has been IMPOSED (and I mean IMPOSED) upon the faithful has existed for about 0.03 percent of the Church's history. All that came before it endured for 2000 years and it isn't going away. Keep trying!

Teenagers laugh and snicker at your "new and improved" version of the Mass. They recognized contrived inauthenticity when they see it.

You and all the other TLM haters are on the losing side of history.