Tuesday, July 20, 2021


 I Find this National Catholic Reporter article to be quite interesting in a “c”atholic newspaper that often promotes heterodox, schismatic and heretical ideologies. Nonetheless the article is middle of the road and good but why just pick on Catholics who prefer the Mass prior to its revision/reform?

The church is a 'we': reflections on Francis' restricting the Latin Mass

by Kevin Irwin

My comments:

I think that bishops should have oversight of the liturgy and quite frankly we all know the abuses over the years in the reformed liturgy which the article above shows where the foundations are, immediately following the first revisions to the Mass in 1965-66. 

And flowing from that heterodox foundation of experimentation and disfiguring the 1970 Roman Missal, outright disobedience occurred with bishops, clergy, religious and laity with Humanae Vitae and often with no rebuke that had teeth like Pope Francis’ recent rebuke of traditionalism in the Church. 

That has escalated to many parishes throughout the world celebrating the 1970 Roman Missal that this missal is unrecognizable as such with silly so-call “inculturation” and “make it up as you go” creativity. In many places in this country, what one experiences in the normative Mass of the Church is as different as the priest or bishop celebrating. There is little or no consistency. And options, both official and on the fly proliferate from which Eucharistic Prayer or Preface is used to the ad libbing of the priest to include several “homilies” during the Mass. I have experienced a mini homily during the introductory rite, then again as the Liturgy of the Word begins, the traditional place of the homily and something after the Post Communion Prayer. 

We all know how diverse the music can be and is. 

But the greatest issue with the priests and laity in so many parishes is that there is a rampant disregard for the Deposit of Faith of the Catholic Church meaning there is the promotion of women for Holy Orders, gender ideology which also has serious implications for the both the Sacraments of Holy Matrimony and Holy Orders and an undoing of Humanae Vitae and moral theologies reliance on natural law not to mention the Tradition of the Church in the area of human sexuality and the pursuit of chastity. 

That is the greatest threat to the Church and we see it in Germany and other areas in Europe who are way ahead of anything happening in the USA, but it is coming and quickly to the USA and often with Pope Francis’ ambiguities and lack of leadership in these areas that allow it to escalate.

I did not foresee the complete elimination of Pope Benedict’s Summorum Pontificum but an adjustment of it and a plea from the pope for liturgical and doctrinal unity in diversity from all Catholics. I thought that bishops rightly should have more authority over priests and parishes celebrating the 1962 Missal and allowing it in various areas of the diocese for easy access to all who would find it spiritually enriching. But that was not to be. And it appears for those celebrating the 1970 Roman Missal in an illicit  way with liberal political ideologies rampant, little or nothing will change for them. 

And then from a more strident right wing publication, Lifesite News, we have this balanced article:



Who is Pope Francis punishing?

Pope Francis indicates that this concern, and the desire for measures such as those he has adopted, has been expressed by bishops responding to the survey on the implementation of Summorum Pontificum which the Congregation for Divine Worship carried out in 2020. This is very surprising, since those who had sight of the results consistently reported that a great many bishops were positive about the place of the Old Mass in their diocese.


Tom Marcus said...

I think (Yeah, I know, who cares, what I think?) that a lot of the problem stems from the weird mix of shock and intoxication that followed Vatican II. Depending upon who was in your parish, you had priests and nuns who were either horrified or delighted (sometimes both) at all of the inevitable changes they saw coming to parish life. Until that time, Catholics lived with the assurance that the Church was a steady refuge in a changing world, that it reflected a timeless God who was the same yesterday, today and forever and HE was reflected in a Mass that was more than 1,000 years old. Then these new phrases began to appear and were, gradually forced upon us:

"New Church"
"New Theology"
"New Advent"
"New Springtime"

And even as a kid, I could see that much of this had all the bravado and hubris of a teenager who thinks he knows more than his parents. But effect was profound and that effect became even MORE profound after the Communion in the hand was imposed: It created a sense that EVERYTHING could change. Everything was up for grabs. Everything is fair game. And there are millions of poorly catechized or uncatechized Catholics who, to this day, believe that the Church can merely do as it pleases and changing ANYTHING, including faith, morals, dogma and all that we hold as sacred, can be legislated away or changed with a sweep of the pen if the right pope wills it so.

Even scarier, it seems we have a pope and many like-minded bishops and cardinals who believe just that.

Pierre said...

Tom Marcus,

I grew up before the disaster known as Vatican II and I agree with your observations. We had only one parish priest of the 4 who predicted correctly this would not end well. So a minority can be correct. This latest papal overreach will not end well either.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Pierre, aka, TJM, it is exactly your kind of rhetoric pronounced over and over again by various extreme heterodox Catholics that has led to the clampdown. It I’d heterodox and heretical to fall any act of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church a disaster, be it Vatican II or I or the Council of Trent or any other ecumenical council. A disorder implementation of any council, though can be critiqued as a disaster.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Correction: it is heterodox and heretical to call…A disordered…

Tom Marcus said...

Msgr. Fernando Ocariz, one of the Vatican's experts on the Council who was involved with negotiations with the SSPX, said this of accepting the Council.

Since it was an ecumenical council, meeting and promulgating its acts to the whole Church under the authority of the Pope, the Second Vatican Council’s doctrinal sentences demand assent in the following ways:

1. Whenever the Council teaches something about faith and morals, what it teaches is certainly true, either through the specific note of infallibility or from the religious submission of mind and will owed to the ordinary Magisterium.

2. If such a teaching on faith or morals appears to anyone to conflict with earlier teachings, the problem is not with the truth of the Council’s statement but with our understanding of the Church’s full teaching of which the Council’s statement is inescapably a part.

3. Proper method demands that an understanding of the matter in question be found that accepts the truth of all relevant statements. Later statements can be illuminated by earlier ones and earlier statements can be illuminated by later ones, until a more complete and precise understanding is formed.

4. Where the Council was not teaching on matters of faith and morals, such as where it was describing contemporary conditions or offering recommendations for renewal, its statements are to be received with respect and gratitude but are not necessarily flawless in either their factual accuracy or their prudential judgment.

5. It follows that any arguments which undermine this understanding, whether based upon the pastoral interests of the Council or any other factor, are specious.

I'm not as smart as some of the other people here, but in regard to faith and morals, the Council docs pretty much affirm all that came before. With regard to "recommendations for renewal" (i.e., recommendations for a possible Mass in Sacrosanctum Concilium--which weren't really followed in the first place) Ocariz openly admits that such statements are not necessarily flawless.

In that respect, I don't understand how asking questions or observing the flaws in such statements is heterodox or heretical. If a Council DOES have statements that are not flawless, or not perfect, could not one logically follow that it is POSSIBLE to conclude that there could be disorder in the documents?

Pierre said...

Father McDonald,

I see you are applying a different standard to a layman than a cleric. Interesting. I await your outing of Father Kavanaugh.

Pointing out what is obvious by any objective measure does not make one heterodox. Millions no longer attending Sunday Mass, collapse in vocations and conversions, closure of parishes and institutions. In your world is that success?

John said...

Because of the great variety of ways the NO is presented, its lack of discipline suggests disunity among us. In older editions of the TLM I think I saw the justification for Latin everywhere as a sign of unity among us. It was a time when unity was seriously prized by all in the Church. Today many people talk about it but unity get more and more elusive.

In the Old Testament we read about the Jewish people meandering in the wilderness for 40 years. We have been at it at lot longer now. It seems to this writer that since Vatican Council II Catholic faith practice has gradually morphed into satisfying individual sentimental feelings; Christian love for one another into power struggles especially for the governance of the Universal Church.

The Tridentine Mass is an oasis in the liturgical desert. The people one meets there have put the chaos of the NO behind them. They are younger and judging from their many children do not demand birth control be excused and certainly do not practice abortion. The hierarchy who are friendly to us preach Catholic doctrine 100% every Sunday, no relativism or mobilism. The only time we talk about rainbows is when the thunderstorm has passed. And they, like us in the pews, will not endorse public sinners as worthy political representatives.

I have heard Gregorian chant piped in at airports and I would venture to guess even atheist in the waiting area knew that it was Catholic sacred music. When one hears popular music at a NO Mass how do you, as a Catholic, feel about it?

Anonymous said...

Paris Pete aka TJM - You were outed months ago.

Try as you might, this isn't the "Pierre/TJM Hates Fr. Kavanaugh" blog.

Tom Marcus said...


While I appreciate your support of my sentiments, I think we also have to be careful. Popularity alone is not a measure of how good or bad, right or wrong the Mass is. I seem to remember Bishop Sheen saying, "Right is right even if nobody is doing it and wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it."

There is no doubt that the decline in Mass attendance, which continues to this day, is a sign of the Novus Ordo's unpopularity, but unpopularity is just one of MANY reasons why the continued mix of fear and hatred towards the Traditional Mass is unjustified. Perhaps a better way to express it would be, if God wants this Mass, no one will be able to stop it--there! Yeah! THAT'S it!

(And so far, no one has)

Anyway, thank you!

Pierre said...

Father Kavanaugh at 1:22 PM

And this is not a Fr. Kavanaugh Hates Pierre/TJM blog.

Mark Thomas said...

It is undeniable that Pope Francis' declaration, that many (not all) "traditional" Catholics had weaponized Summorum Pontificum against Holy Mother Church, is correct.

Holy Pope Francis did not attack Pope Benedict XVI. Pope Francis did not attack Summorum Pontificum. Pope Francis "attacked" the weaponization of Summorum Pontificum.

Many "traditionalists" who now attack Pope Francis/his motu proprio, have long attacked Summorum Pontificum.

Your weaponization of Summorum Pontificum poisoned the atmosphere that surrounded the TLM.

You forced Pope Francis to respond to the horrific, deteriorating situation within the Traditional Catholic Movement.

Your war against Vatican II, and the Novus Ordo, ruined Pope Benedict XVI's peace plan.

Your destructive pipe-dream insistence that the OF's is an "imposter" Mass that will be destroyed, then replaced by the TLM, helped to poison the atmosphere that surrounded Summorum Pontificum.

In regard to your reckless, unrelenting support for leading mutineers who opposed/weaponized Pope Benedict XVI's liturgical peace plan, Vatican II, Novus Ordo — Archbishop Viganò, Peter Kwasniewski, Rorate Caeli, LifeSiteNews, 1 Peter5, The Remnant —how did that work out?

V is for Viganò! Yay! Yay!

Viganò will lead the Church to declare Bergoglio a heretic. Viganò will lead the Church to trample Vatican II, and the Novus Ordo.

V is for Viganò! Yay! Yay!

Again, how has your support for the leading mutineers in question worked for you?

You trampled Summorum Pontificum. You helped to poison the atmosphere that surrounded Summorum Pontificum.

You unleashed destruction via your liturgical war against the Novus Ordo...your war against Vatican II...your war against holy Vatican II Era have even waged war against Pope Venerable Pius XII's liturgical reforms.

You opted for Satan's liturgical war. You weaponized the holy liturgical peace plan that Pope Benedict XVI had promoted.


Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

Deo gratias for my diocese's FSSP parish.

I pray that our bishops will accommodate those of us who desire the TLM. Pope Francis has called upon our bishops to do so.

May they establish a holy Tradition Catholic Movement.

Perhaps we will move to the time that will allow the TLM to return to parishes.


Mark Thomas

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Mark, read it again. The EF Mass is not to be in parish churches and it is to eventually be phased out in time, not timeline though. In other words, it is kaput!

Mark Thomas said...

Father McDonald said..."Father Mark, read it again. The EF Mass is not to be in parish churches and it is to eventually be phased out in time, not timeline though. In other words, it is kaput!"

That is a shame.

Father McDonald, perhaps God will stir liturgical warmongers to accept the peaceful coexistence of the Novus Ordo, and TLM. In turn, the change in the Latin Church's liturgical atmosphere would enable a future Pope to move us beyond Pope Francis' guidelines in question.

I want the TLM. My diocese is blessed to have an FSSP parish.

I want my non-extremist brothers and sisters in the Faith who love the TLM to have the opportunities that we have here to worship via the TLM.

They stand with God, and Holy Mother Church, as well as such countless holy priests as Father McDonald, the FSSP, ICK...

...not with the liturgical warmongering toxic trash that, as noted earlier Archbishop Viganò, Peter Kwasniewski, Rorate Caeli, LifeSiteNews, 1 Peter5, The Remnant...have promoted.


Mark Thomas

Anonymous said...

Those here who attend the Novus Ordo can NEVER understand what we who attend the TLM had to go through and in many cases still do that is: Attending a TLM in a basement of a home or business, the living room, a garage, in a warehouse, a Catholic cemetery next to burial plots such as myself in San Diego because then Bishop Brom would NOT give us a church to have our TLM. You have all of the churches your hearts desire and this is what we had and still have, that's why we will fight to the end for the Mass of our and your fathers and mothers no more hiding and begging a bishop for a TLM NEVER AGAIN. Francis only is making it stronger than ever, during the Covid lockdown Novus Ordo churches were shuttered TLM's were not, and during that time many who never attended a TLM discovered what they being robbed of and now our numbers have grown, so in a way Francis is doing the TLM a huge favor by showing it's beauty and God centered NOT MAN centered as the Novus Ordo is in most cases.

Tom Marcus said...

"it is exactly your kind of rhetoric pronounced over and over again by various extreme heterodox Catholics that has led to the clampdown."

No, Father. No. I do not want to call you a liar, but most of us find this very hard to believe because

1). You have no proof of what "caused" this
2). Although no one else can prove it, most of us believe this was inevitable, regardless of the behavior of some trads.

You are a good man and a good priest Father and I know some of us annoy you, but that does not justify your persistent fallback on this untruth.

Cardinal Muller himself dismissed the argument in his cogent analysis of the Motu Proprio:

Abusus non tollit usum

"Abuse does not cancel use"


"Misuse of something is no argument against its proper use"

Please Father, respectfully, STOP IT.