Pope Francis endorses this:
Recently a lower level Vatican official profusely apologized to “New Ways Ministry” for eliminating a link to their website on a Vatican page. We also learned that Pope Francis had written a “glowing” letter to this organization and the nun who founded it praising its ministry and apologizing to the nun for how she had been treated by Church authorities.
If you want to see the New Ways webpage, press this sentence!
Yet, Pope Francis ruthlessly denigrates traditional Catholics and has taken steps now to suppress the celebration of the older form of the Mass. His pre-Vatican II authoritarian style edict is so specific in a dubia answer that parishes can’t even advertise the Traditional Mass if it is celebrated in a parish church. You read that correctly, you can’t advertise a scheduled Mass!
I think most of us can put two and two together. I think most Catholics who know their faith know where all this is going.
Will they succeed in the long run? No, time is running out. And they know it. They are desperate.
The dubia were addressed to the CDWDS and dear old Arthur is 'working towards the Führer'. For an explanation as to what this means, read Ian Kershaw's two-volume biography of Hitler.
It is time that you, Fr McDonald, stopped castigating as Protestants those who don't sign up to the seriously deranged utterances which emanate from Bergoglio and his henchmen. There is no way that parishes which have a regular scheduled old rite Mass are going to de-schedule it; the Latin Mass Society which has been advertising old rite Masses since 1965 is not going to stop doing so because of anything Arthur says. I would be surprised if the Archbishop of Birmingham, due to confer Confirmations according to the older form on 8 February decides to pull out as result of the latest edict.
Soon after his election, Bergoglio said he would continue the liturgical direction set by his predecessor. Either he was lying, or has subsequently changed his mind and executed a volte-face. Neither does him any credit.
One can, of course, be in communion with a mendacious bishop or even a mendacious pope. But one is not obliged to respect him. The office does not sanctify the holder of it, as Lord Acton wisely pointed out a century and a half ago.
Heresy comes first, then schism follows. AB R should be reminded. Or, are these silly instructions deliberately so outrageous that anyone with an IQ above 100 will understand that the orders are not meant to be obeyed?
John, I agree that Pope Francis has undermined his own authority and that of his papacy with so much he has done but in particular with what he has done to undermine both papacies of St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI. It is incredible as are his off-the-cuff remarks and endorsements of those who are clearly outside the moral law of the Church, not only groups but individuals.
However, we must respect the office of the papacy. We can't resort to name calling. In the USA there was once a respect for the presidency that did not allow one to call him names or denigrate him no matter how off the rails he might have become, but today we see conservative news, like Fox, calling Biden all kinds of names and mocking him. That doesn't help anything and it is quite immature to say the least.
My problem with many so-called traditionalists is that they are now congregationalists and easily swayed into schism because the Church isn't meeting their tastes, not only the pope but their local Church, so they splinter away chasing after that which will please them. That is the mortal sin of pride.
I have some parishioners who attend the EF Mass exclusively. However, if an OF Mass is offered in Latin, ad orientem, kneeling for Holy Communion, they will not attend it, even with Gregorian Chant and Polyphony! I have had "rad trads" walk out of a Mass celebrated in continuity with the EF Mass.
These people have problems to say the least but they have also hijacked the "new liturgical movement" leading to more reverence and awe inspiring OF Masses. They, a tiny minority, have influenced Pope Francis in the most negative way. They have to own up to that and their responsibility in all of this.
They reject Vatican II outright--which is impossible for a faithful Catholic to reject an ecumenical Council altogether and they reject even a well-celebrated OF Mass.
That is plain wrong and it must be said so. The pope isn't the only one that need be criticized here.
Do you have amnesia? Singling out Fox when the entire media establishment constantly belittled, castigated, and called President Trump nasty names even before he assumed office. Pope Francis was very dismissive of him because he did not jump on the looney left bandwagon of global warming and illegal alien invasions of countries. But he LOVES abortion, drooling, Biden
Fox presents itself above the fray and virtuous compared to the mainline media, that is why I single them out on this. The point is that authority flows from God and that much of this vitriol directed to authority figures goes against the 4th Commandment. Look it up in the CCC or the Baltimore Catechism. Of course the 4th Commandment refers to those in legitimate authority over us, not dictators or despots who take power by force. Authority figures are bound to the moral law and all 10 Commandments as well as the two greatest just as everyone else is.
I member quite clearly that on his installation the SSPX presented Francis a document of a spiritual bouquet of 100,000 (the number escapes me but it was huge) Rosaries said for him and his pontificate.
His reply at the gift went something like this "this is so silly, think what useful things they could have done with their time." right then and there I developed a dislike for the man. I respect the office but not the holder of it. Just like I detested Obama but respected the office that he held
The president of the US’s authority flows from the people. Of course the Pope’s flows from God
The idea that PF's gross abuse of his authority with regard to liturgical tradition is a reaction to a tiny and ineffectual number of rad-trads was never tenable. If someone refuses to attend the Novus Ordo on principle (and I know of a few who do), his action has no impact on anyone else. Attempting to suppress the older form is hardly going to persuade him of the error of his ways.
PF reminds me of the bullies I encountered in the schoolyard. I dispatched them with a blow to their glass jaw. I think of Oliver Cromwell’s pithy statement to Parliament. It applies to PF and his minions in spades. Happy Christmas!
Fr. McDonald, you know from our correspondence that the FSSP is leading their congregation to remain not only in communion with the Church and Pope, but circumspect in any response. John’s observation that the critics are small but also ineffectual is the same as my observation. Our parish men’s group is extremely orthodox and conservative in any way you might define them. Yet they are unfailingly faithful to the Church and the Pope. They seethe anger, frustration, and fear toward actions that negatively affect this parish and our liturgical practice but always include the Pope and his intentions, in our prayers.
By the way, I laughed out loud at John’s reference to Kershaw’s ‘Hitler’ because it is on the reading stand next to my chair. The footnotes make it two volumes but very worth the extra length over the abridged edition. I truly wish someone would give similar treatment to the time running up to, through, and after, Vatican II.
"They reject Vatican II outright--which is impossible for a faithful Catholic to reject an ecumenical Council altogether and they reject even a well-celebrated OF Mass."
OK Father--that's a pretty SELECTIVE assessment of the people you condemn if you consider that
• The vast majority of our bishops and cardinals and several popes have all ignored huge swaths of Vatican II, especially provision of Sacrosanctum Conciilium
• The Novus Ordo isn't even a product of Vatican II and we all know it. It is a concoction of the Concilium which was littered with protestants making decisions about Catholic worship and led by a disgraced archbishop of dubious memory.
• It is a matter of HISTORICAL RECORD AND EASILY PROVABLE that the original schemata of what Pope John XXIII intended for the council were cast aside, and Cardinal Ottaviani's microphone was switched off when he tried to intervene in the German insanity that corrupted this venerated Council.
Accept the Council? Sure Father. I accept it based on this provision which is footnoted at the end of Lumen Gentium. And that's all that ANY of us need to accept of this huge, embarrassing failure that has renewed the Church in the same way a that prehistoric meteor renewed the lives the dinosaurs:
"Taking conciliar custom into consideration and also the pastoral purpose of the present Council, the sacred Council defines as binding on the Church only those things in matters of faith and morals which it shall openly declare to be binding."
No new dogmas.
No point in wasting our time on it any longer.
The tragedy was John XXIII’s cancer which allowed a weak man to be elected pope. John XXIII loved Latin and the tradituonal Mass. Veterum Sapientia anyone? Unlike lefties, sane people appreciate and honor tradition. The OF is a direct affront to John XXIII and our sacred tradition. It has failed the faithful but the Vatican bureaucrats has not come to grips with that reality.
The most objective and scholarly account of the Council is Roberto de Mattei's 'The Second Vatican Council - An Unwritten Story'. Also very useful is the earlier account by Romano Amerio, 'Iota Unum'. Amerio was a peritus at the Council.
One cannot evaluate the Council without putting it in a historical context. When Louis XVI convened the Estates-General in 1789 he had no idea that it would lead to a revolution. Similarly with John XXIII in 1958.
John and RCG, Pope Benedict’s Christmas elocution to the Cardinals about a year into his papacy tells us how to interpret Vatican II. Thus the famous “hermeneutic of continuity” with the Church of all ages. That is a part of Pope Benedict’s Magisterium as is Summorum Pontificum and the most famous phrase from it: “What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful.”
Try as Pope Francis may to erase Pope Benedict, he will fail in the long run. One day Pope Benedict will be studied and followed whereas Pope Francis long forgotten.
Thank you, gentlemen. I will search those out and try to keep an open mind.
Let me first say, I pray for priests attached to the TLMbecause these new liturgical prohibitions strike at the very heart of their priesthood. The NO Mass said as you describe it should be acceptable to all of us. I used to attend such a Mass for a short time. Then it was abrogated. Never found another like it. You have it but I live at least 500-600 miles from your location. I have trouble driving the 200 miles every Sunday to the nearest TLM.
The essence of the Catholic faith, left to us by Jesus, through his Apostles, and the Church Fathers is firmly embedded in the TLM. This was recognized early and most famously by St. Vincent of Lerins. If you want to "sing a new Church" into being as this was enthusiastically advertised in the 60s and 70s, then the old rites must be adjusted to fit the new melody. That is why we have a mess on our hands now. The afore mentioned new Church advocates have become impatient with the slow progress. Hence the impatience voices we hear to shape-up or ship-out.
Funny thing about faith. The Old Believers who rejected Russian liturgical reforms (18th c.) still exist. Since WW II, some have even come to the US (Alaska,Oregon, Minnesota) from their initial exile in China, Turkey, and Romania . Some survived the Bolshevik regime in the Siberian wilderness only to emerge after the Soviet Union fell apart. Japanese Christians survived persecution too. They are 1-1.5% of the population yet their influence is still significant. I read 60-70% of marriages in Japan are in Christian ceremonies. I was very surprised to read that. The TLM will not disappear, not in my lifetime at least, if ever.
Well said. Merry Christmas
Can you explain why, sixty years on, Vatican II still requires 'interpretation'? And who is to say whether Ratzinger's or Bergoglio's interpretation is the more valid? It could be that neither is.
Yes, I might prefer the opinion of a scholar to that of a mountebank and proven liar, but this in itself decides nothing.
"One day Pope Benedict will be studied and followed whereas Pope Francis long forgotten."
Oh, I beg to differ Father!
Is Arius forgotten? Is Rodrigo Borgia forgotten? Is Martin Luther forgotten? Rasputin?
No, no, no! Francis will never be forgotten. He will be one chapter in this disastrous epoch that future generations will mock and laugh at in disbelief. Right now, we see him one way, but he is destined to be so much more in the annals of history.
I don’t yet seek interpretation of Vatican II, but it’s premise. I suspect the Church was searching its soul after WWII and in the ascendancy of Communism. Modern Man wonders if he can be replaced by a machine, perhaps the Bishops wondered if the Church could be replaced by socialism. Please avoid political responses to that; the need for social and economic progress could flow from the Old Form of the Liturgy, so the connection to change is not apparent.
Your last point is well taken. Of course, we could say a lot of social deterioration and economic ruin has followed the implementation of the OF, but even I am not that unfair!
If you are expecting the documents of Vatican Two to be read and understood like the documents from many earlier councils, then your expectation is where the problem lies, not with the documents.
(Too often people read the Book of Revelation for what they think it should be, a book predicting future events or a "road map" to the future, rather than for what it is, a book written in the peculiar style known as apocalyptic. Hence, they get the meaning all wrong. I once heard a discussion between two gentlemen at the West Side YMCA which involved one telling the other that jet fighters were clearly "predicted" in the Book of Revelations.(sic).
John W O'Malley, SJ, writes, "Vatican II largely eschewed Sholastic language. It thus moved from the dialectic of winning an argument to the dialogue of finding common ground. It moved from abstract metaphysics to interpersonal "how to be." It moved from grand conceptual schemes or "summae" with hundreds of logically interconnected parts to the humble acceptance of mystery." (What Happened at Vatican II, p 46)
Again, "The purpose of the epidiectic genre, the technical name for panegyric in classical treatises on rhetoric, is not so much to clarify concepts as to heoghten appreciation for a person, and even, or an institution and to excite emulation of an ideal." (What Happened at Vatican II, p 47)
Yet, Father K, post Vatican II only 30 percent of OF attendees believe in the Real Presence and millions of Catholics have walked away. Big success story!
Thanks Father K--you just confirmed what most of us have suspected all along: Most of the VII documents are fluff.
One more instance of modernity's triumph of style over substance.
"If you are expecting the documents of Vatican Two to be read and understood like the documents from many earlier councils, then your expectation is where the problem lies, not with the documents."
"If Vatican II seems to contradict what you see the leadership of the Church doing, then it's your fault. You're just not smart enough to understand the lofty great things we have planned for you."
I guess I'm just old fashioned, but previous Councils might have used academic language, but the language was direct and clear--just as Jesus taught us. There is nothing in the gospels of the rest of the New Testament that indicates anyone listening to Jesus or the Apostles would have needed a dictionary to understand them. All of this pseudo-intellectual gobbledygook serves no one, save the bureaucracies that have turned out so many great "professional Catholics" and few, if any saints.
The average Catholic in the pews isn't dazzled by "abstract metaphysics", "conceptual schemes", "epidiectic literature" or "panegyrics". We just want the truth and we want it direct and with clarity. Serving one's vanity by flashing such a vocabulary about doesn't help the Church--or this discussion, for that matter. I'm sorry--that's probably too complicated. Here's the short version: We all know you went to grad school, Father. You can stop showing off now.
Is O'Malley saying that the language of Vatican II was epideictic (note the spelling) which usually means 'done for outward show or display'? Or that it has the nature of a panegyric, in which case it is pertinent to ask which person or institution is being publicly praised?
When John XXIII called the Council he wanted the doctrine of the Church set out in a way that would be more accessible to mid-20th century man, but 'eodem sensu eademque sententia'. I would have thought that clarification of concepts was germane to achieving this.
In the first quotation I can see O'Malley's point, although it seems to be considerably overstated. But the second quotation appears to be wrenched out of context.
The language used in the Vatican II documents is not that of the Council of Trent, nor would anyone expect it to be, given the Council's objectives. But they (the documents) are not the Oracles of Delphi or the Dead Sea Scrolls. To maintain that they cannot be read and understood without 'interpretation' by so-called experts is gnosticism, pure and simple.
When I read the Vatican II documents, these strike me as very traditional. When I hear various interpretations of what I read, I scratch my head and wonder how that interpretation came about. Sacramentum Concilium is a case in point. It seems rather conservative and straight forward to me, noble simplicity, an expanded lectionary, preservation of Latin, especially Gregorian Chant while allowing some vernacular. Then, all hell breaks out liturgically, the liturgy wars and the like and all the sacraments suffer greatly from the interpretation which I don’t see.
What’s up with that?
Jerome - The documents of Vatican II are not "fluff." That you think they are indicates that you don't know them, that you haven't reflected on what they say, and that you think dismissing them makes them worthless.
Thomas - You consistently denigrate higher learning which is unfortunate though not unexpected these days when so many use the term "elite" to mean "someone who knows more than they do and who has the audactity to use his or her knowledge appropriately." Next time you go to a doctor and he tells you that you suffer from myocarditis, be sure to tell him how tired you are of his use of flashy vocabulary and remind him that he can stop showing off.
Johnny - Regarding the use of epideictic/panygeric style, O'Malley goes on to say, "It is an old genre of religious discourse, used extensively by the Fathers of the Church, revived in the Renaissance, and revisited in the twentieth century..." (p 47.)
Fr. ALLAN McDonald - Yes, the documents are Vatican II are very traditional.
Father K is just another apologist for failure
Dear Father Kavanaugh,
I do not denigrate "higher learning" (a phrase, which as someone who also attended grad school, am loathe to use, as it drips of vanity). My problem is with people who get a taste of academia, then use their expanded and specialized vocabulary as a weapon to let the unwashed know that they should just shut up and trust the experts. I've been watching the "professional Catholics" created by the Vatican II Forever industry for most of my life and whenever they are confronted by simple questions that shoot holes in their assertions, they vainly fall back on their slick, show-biz vocabulary of "higher learning" to silence anyone who disagrees or dares to question them.
Statements from previous councils say what they meant and meant what they say. The Church exists for the people in the pews, not for the "elites" who use the faith to sell books, get lecture bookings and collect consulting fees for their "expertise".
So if I'm understanding this correctly as part of the "elect", Fr. MJK ventures a bit into philosophy which likely is part of his training), quotes a book that he didn't write on the subject of VII and is then told he is showing off using big words....that he didn't write. --You know you can highlight the word, right click and search that term.-- Then, when the same priest notes that interpreting the writings of the VII, traditional though they are, requires a different lense, he is again chided. And, yes, Thomas Garrett, I too interpreted your response as a denigration. All the while, TJM is orbiting with predictable sound bytes.
One has to wonder why Fr. MJK wastes his time trying to engage in conversation of this sort, or why Fr. AJM tolerates it? Last time I checked, this blog was striving for a heightened level of understanding and discussion. Such study, discussion and interpretation is usually done away from the pews as it is not reasonable to do so in quite this way there ("classroom" discussion is separate/distinct from community worship and instruction). Take care to understand that I am not espousing elitism, I am simply suggesting that discussion of this sort takes on an academic stance, like it or not.
Thomas - Maybe your "unwashed" self should demand, then, that when an "expert" tells you something that he or she knows based on his/her "higher learning," you should tell that person to shut up and trust you, the non-expert to get it right.
The Church exists, as you say, for the people in the pews. But it may be a burden for you to recognize that the people in the pews include every single baptized individual, whether that person is the twice-a-year mass attendee, Sister Mary Polyester Pants Suit who runs the CCD program, Johnny Base Note who plays guitar in the Contemporary Ensemble, Mr. and Ms. Politcally Active, Sally and Teddy Homeschooler, and anyone else who has the benefit and blessing of Baptism.
ByzRus- I am reminded of the passage from Matthew, "We played the pipe for you, and you did not dance; we sang a dirge, and you did not mourn."
I will quote the commentary of Theophylact of Ochrid, knowing that it will raise the "elitist" sensors on some. "It is the malcontent nature of the Jews that He is speaking of here. For as they were cantankerous, neither John’s asceticism nor Christ’s simplicity pleased them. They were like foolish little children who are never satisfied — whether one cries for them or plays the pipe for them, they are not pleased."
Mickey - It was O'Malley's take on the language of Vatican II that raised some questions in my mind. You've presumably read the book, so I thought you might be in a position to expand on the theme, perhaps giving an example from the Council documents of the epideictic/panegyric style.
O'Malley was born in the same year as Ratzinger, but their respective interpretations of the Council seem very different.
LOL - since Father K refuses to answer, maybe you will. If the Council and the OF are so wonderful, why is it that millions of Catholics have fled, and as to the remnant which attends the OF, only about 30 percent of the attendees believe in the Real Presence?
Father K comes here primarily to be a thorn in Father McDonald’s side. I suspect professional jealousy. In contrast to Fr. K, Father McDonald acknowledges things have gone terribly wrong with the lex orandi, lex credendi since the Council and is taking constructive steps to address this. Your buddy is too invested in the liturgical failure to do anything.
Also as an inveterate lefty, Father K ends up politicizing most threads and TDS. You’re in fine company there!
I believe we've gone through this before. No doubt the changes of the council, poorly implement though they were, contributed greatly; the cultural and social shift of that time had to have had a negative effect on tradition, faith and morals. Much added to history's dustbin since then, high altars among them.
Agree, Fr. MJK oftentimes brings an alternate view, or vantagepoint to consider. To me, that's what makes conversation both interesting and challenging. Otherwise, you have an echo chamber of group think.
To be fair, the steps Fr. AJM has taken regarding re-enchantment, are constructive from his perspective. I don't disagree with, really, anything that he's done liturgically; it is just important to note that there is absolutely nothing legislative that obliges anyone else to follow his lead. While I hope more do, they don't have to.
You regularly draw conclusions about which you know nothing. I suspect foolishness to be the driver. You know neither myself nor Fr. MJK and, therefore, you're in no position to tell either of us what company you presume us to be in. Where is all this politicization? Some time back, I recall Fr. MJK discussing what the Democratic party formerly stood for and who they represented and from a historical point of view, I felt the points that he made were on point. Otherwise, I don't know what you're talking about and the repetition is beyond distracting.
You have selective recall on Father K. He has called President Trump evil. Recall that? Very judgmental and off the mark when you consider his Party is always trying to get more money for abortions and refuses to accept any restrictions on this holocaust. . He has gotten into it with several posters here, including John Nolan, who knows far more about liturgy than he does. He drove away one of our best commentators, Bee, through vicious attacks. You should be a bit more circumspect when coming to his rescue.
"He has called President Trump evil." If he did, and so?? The former president did seem to model "win at any cost", "self preservation at any cost" type behaviors. Reagan, he was not.
"His Party". I don't recall establishing this and, furthermore, it's none of my business.
"He has gotten into it with several posters" And you haven't? John Nolan? John Nolan was rude to me following my very first "Anonymous" post (as I didn't yet have a handle, I didn't know the protocol) on this blog. Wearing my big-boy pants I got past it, but found it to be unnecessarily harsh.
"Who know far more about liturgy than he does." Supposition. Perhaps John Nolan is a better arm chair liturgist than Fr. MJK, fine. The distinction, Fr. MJK has a parish to which he is responsible for ministering. As laypersons, none of the rest of us have anything close to that level of spiritual responsibility.
Bee: Began imitating, stylistically, the comments of others on this blog and either did not care for the response, or being ignored because of the tone. This is what happens when group think becomes prevalent - when posters abuse their platform.
To quote the late, great James Gandolfini as Tony Soprano to Richie: "Those who want respect, give respect".
One can only insult an identifiable individual, and an 'anonymous' contributor is not in that category. Therefore to take personal umbrage at a 'rude' or 'unnecessarily harsh' reply to an anonymous comment doesn't make sense.
This blog was at one time infested with anonymous and constantly changing pseudonymous comments, mostly written by the same individual. Now that you are an identifiable individual you are guaranteed an easier ride. Perhaps if you repost or reference your original comment, you might elicit a different response.
So, per that logic, if one were to attack my castle, and my standard isn't flying, it's not a real attack? I suspect we'll have to agree to disagree there.
Besides our host, I'm not sure it's anyone's responsibility to provide any guarantees regarding this blog. To do otherwise is, to me, presumptuous. Again, I suspect we'll have to agree to disagree.
Your first comment tells me all I need to know about you. Ok - President Biden is evil. There is far more public evidence to support that proposition than the assertion made by Father K about President Trump who started no new hot wars and was pro life and reinstated policies prohibiting the feds from paying for abortions. Biden wants to codify Roe V Wade - that’s evil coming from an alleged Catholic.
Everything else you write flies in the face of demonstrable facts. You still have not answered why the OF is such a flop as is Vatican II? If there was poor implementation why has there not been a correction? I lived before the Council when our Church was truly a great, universal Church, which on balance did far more good than the post Conciliar Church
I'm shaking. You've drawn a conclusion about me.
Trump was a Republican, then a Democrat, then a Republican again. He's whatever you want him to be to win at any cost. You're blinded by love but, you'll figure it out eventually.
As for the rest of your comments, I don't know what to say that I already haven't.
By the same analogy, if no standard is flying it can be assumed that the owner of the castle has struck his colours and therefore no attack is necessary.
Neither I, nor you, nor the esteemed blog owner, can make guarantees for anyone else. But I, or you, or the esteemed blog owner, can make guarantees regarding his own conduct. That's not presumption.
LOL and Joe Biden cheated on his wife, sniffs kids, dropped out of 2 presidential primaries because he was a plagiarist and manifest liar, and remains a faux Catholic, blatantly defying the Church’s teachings on the sanctity of human life.
His anti-energy policies have triggered inflation not seen since the Carter years, burdening the less fortunate. The porous border is bringing in crime. His “smart” foreign policy has caused the French to withdraw its ambassador.
Your kind of guy!
I don't see how a lack of fondness for one translates into fondness for the other.
That aside, and given the day, I think it's time to put this aside.
A blessed Nativity Feast to you, your family and anyone else who reads this.
Post a Comment