Saturday, October 1, 2022


 I have written before and write again that I think that most bishops at Vatican II were desirous of the Pontifical Solemn Sung Mass being reformed and nobly simplified.

Even the liturgical wear of bishops at these Masses was fussy and prissy to say the least. 

This is an example of something that I think most Catholics would say is over the top and a bit much. To bring this back to papal Masses would be quite shocking today and I suspect that many during the time of this photo was taken thought it was a bit much:


TJM said...

Compared to the current liturgical praxis, this looks great. St. John XXIII who celebrated this liturgy with great prompt would disagree with you. Prissy? Don’t make me laugh. These guys look positively macho compared to what we see in many sanctuaries today. Remember, Father, you don’t make your product better by criticizing another product

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Be realistic, TJM, Pope Benedict's Magisterium is the way forward, reform in continuity. Pope Benedict may have worn the very cope that Pope John XXIII is wearing in the photo, but it was simplified in length, thus no longer over the top.

What has gotten traditionalists into hot water with the progressive wing of the Church, now in power, is this ideology of denying Vatican II's authority in the life of the perennial Magisterium of the Church. That would be heretical.

We could have the Order of the EF Mass and its rubrics with the new Roman Missal quite easily and not abandoning the new three year cycle Sunday Lectionary. That could easily be the new "reformed" Roman Missal but still allowing the 1962 Roman Missal. And with that, the 1965 allowance of the vernacular could easily be adapted.

Keep in mind in the USA prior to Vatican, much prior, English was allowed for certain parts of the liturgies for Baptism and Marriage and even Extreme Unction as well as the Sacrament of Penance.

TJM said...

First of all, I don’t deny Vatican II’s authority, I just don’t worship a failed Council. If I worshipped Councils it would be Trent which was wildly successful. When the Vatican II worshippers die off, the Church will recover because of priests like my pastor who is 32 and celebrates the TLM. He is heading to Rome for the Summorum Pontificum Pilgrimage and jokes that he hopes he is not arrested by the Swiss Guard! Although he loves the TLM he does not disparage the Novus Ordo, however he uses the Roman Canon almost exclusively and celebrates the Novus Ordo in continuity with the TLM.

I recall that portions of the Baptismal and other sacraments were partially in the vernacular.

I believe the “reform” was driven by a small group of radicals who had little regard for the people. That reform has failed. Only the most contumacious refuse to acknowledge that. I know from your personal efforts you tacitly acknowledge the failure and are trying to do something about it, which is commendable.

We agree far more than we disagree.

Thomas Garrett said...

"What has gotten traditionalists into hot water with the progressive wing of the Church, now in power, is this ideology of denying Vatican II's authority in the life of the perennial Magisterium of the Church. That would be heretical."

Would it?

At the risk of being tedious, I would remind us of the words of our former pope, Benedict XVI, when he was a Cardinal, addressing the Bishops of Chile in 1988:

"The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of “super-dogma” which takes away the importance of all the rest."

I think history can reasonably demonstrate that Cardinal Ratzinger, in spite of the left's craven attempts to caricature him, neither is nor was a rabid traditionalist. The very notes at the end of Lumen Gentium limits the very scope of the Council.

I'm not saying Vatican II was bad. But with regard to its "fruits"...well, they speak for themselves. At very least, it's nothing to boast about. Confusion, dissent, sacrilege, loss of vocations, loss of faith and division are NOT fruits of the Holy Spirit.


The only reason we are even debating this any more is because the left finally got their deconstructionist pope. Probably one more will follow. To them: enjoy it while it lasts. The gates of Hell shall NOT prevail.

Jerome Merwick said...

That reform has failed. Only the most contumacious refuse to acknowledge that.

I want to publicly thank TJM for the challenge of expanding our vocabulary. For those who don't know what "contumacious" means, it is synonymous with "unyielding", "obstinate", "insubordinate", "intractable", "disobedient", "insolent", "haughty", "rebellious", "mutinous", "ornery" and "riotous".

Now if we juxtapose the personalities of our current pope and our last pope against each other, which of the two fits that description?


TJM said...

Jerome Merwick,

I can't imagine whom that would apply to!! I know a very holy Catholic lady who now refers to PF as Pope "Ahab."

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

The "Reforms" of Vatican Two had been developing for at least a hundred years before 1962. It was not a group of "radicals" who, out of the blue, just decided that the time was ripe to take some kind of action.

Jaroslav Pelikan writes: "As the twentieth century began, each of the major churches of a divided Christendom was obliged , for reasons of its own, to address anew the doctrine of the church - its place in the mind of Christ, its essential message, its nature and identity, its marks of continuity, its authority and structure, its response to its two-fold mission of keeping itself 'unspotted from the world' and yet being 'the salt of the earth,' and above all its authentic unity despite and beyoind its historic divisions." (The Christian Tradition, vol 5, Christian Doctrine and Modern Culture (since 1700))

Development of Catholic doctrine and praxis has been part and parcel of the Church since the beginning. In almost every age, some few have denied even the possibility of the development of doctrine and praxis. Some have scoffed at the evolution that has taken place, preferring to remember the Church of their childhood as the "perfect" expression of the faith. Some have found change to be too unnerving and have reacted almost violently. Some have separated themselves from the Church to establish "new" denominations.

Cardinal Koch is a fine thinker. He speaks of "the search for the true and the good," and reminds us that in seeking these things one is also seeking God. That's the connection that, I think, many in Western culture have little or no understanding of. When radicalized individualism holds sway as it does in much of our thinking, it can be hard, if not impossible, to understand that the "self" is in any way connected with and dependent on what has gone before. And it can be equally hard to appreciate that, in all things, there is a connection with God what we ignore only at our own mortal and immortal peril.

Jerome Merwick said...


AHAB! Good heavens, I couldn't have come up with a more apt nickname! The heck with Francis the Destroyer. From now on he is Ahab!

Unfortunately, you and I are Moby Dick.

TJM said...

Fr K,

You can prattle on all you like but it was a group of radicals on the Consilium who botched things up. None of the minor tweaks which occurred prior to the Council envisioned abandoning Latin or Chant. On the eve of the Council. Veterum Sapientia reinforced the primacy of Latin.

You are more like Mark Thomas than I had previously thought. The Novus Ordo has been an utter flop but I know how deeply entrenched you are in the failure. If you think that only 30% of those who bother to go believe in the Real Presence is not failure, I don’t think you are playing with a full deck

John said...

Jaroslav Pelikan is not of the Catholic faith.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

Being "of the Catholic faith" is not a requirement for being one of the most eminent historians of Christianity in the last 500 years, for being awarded honorary doctorates from 42 universities, for being chosen to present the 12th annual Jefferson Lecture by the National Endowment for the Humanities, for publishing over 20 books, or for being the editor of the religion section of the Encyclopedia Brittanica.

Pelikan was a Lutheran for most of his life and converted to Orthodoxy 8 years before his death in 2006.

mark said...

Father McDonald said..."What has gotten traditionalists into hot water with the progressive wing of the Church, now in power, is this ideology of denying Vatican II's authority in the life of the perennial Magisterium of the Church. That would be heretical."

I guess that Popes Francis, Benedict XVI, Saint John Paul II, as well as Saint Paul VI, belonged to the progressive wing as trads were in "hot water" with said Popes in regard to Vatican II.

Pope Saint John Paul II, for example, demanded that "traditionalists" accept the holiness, orthodoxy, as well as reforms, that flowed from Vatican II.

Pope Benedict XVI was also unyielding with "traditionalists" in regard to the above.

The Holy Catholic Church, not just progressives, from 1962 A.D. to date, has defended, as well as promoted, Vatican II.

From Pope Venerable Pius XII's Encyclical MYSTICI CORPORIS CHRISTI:

"Christ enlightens His whole Church, as numberless passages from the Sacred Scriptures and the holy Fathers prove. Finally, it is He who, though unseen, presides at the Councils of the Church and guides them."

To attack the Second Sacred Vatican Ecumenical Council is to attack Jesus Christ, as well as His Holy Catholic Church. Such an attack is the work of Satan.

That places such a person in "hot water" that exists far beyond the realm of the Church's progressive wing.


Mark Thomas

TJM said...

Notice how Fr K and Mark Thomas cannot deal with reality? They must be conjoined twins and share one brain

mark said...

Pope Benedict XVI, on October 12, 2012 A.D., heaped praise upon Vatican II.

-- Pope Benedict XVI declared that Vatican II was conducted by "the guidance of the Holy Spirit."

-- Pope Benedict XVI affirmed the following declaration from Pope Saint John Paul II:

"I feel more than ever in duty bound to point to the Council as the great grace bestowed on the Church in the 20th century: there we find a sure compass by which to take our bearings in the century now beginning."

-- Pope Benedict XVI declared that "The Second Vatican Council Documents...are a compass in our time too that permits the Barque of the Church to put out into the deep in the midst of storms or on calm and peaceful waves, to sail safely and to reach her destination."

-- Pope Benedict XVI said of Vatican II, "I could see a living Church — almost 3,000 Council Fathers under the leadership of the Successor of the Apostle Peter — which set herself to learn at the school of the Holy Spirit, the true driving force of the Council."

On and on Pope Benedict XVI went in praise of Vatican II.

Pope Benedict XVI insisted that the Holy Ghost is "the true driving force of the Council."

Nevertheless, there are folks who reject of our holy Popes' teachings in regard to the Council. Said folks attribute evil to Vatican II.

But as our holy Popes have made clear, a Catholic must stand with Vatican II.

Pope Benedict XVI insisted that Vatican II is the sure and certain compass that, under the influence of the Holy Ghost, guides us to the Truth.


Mark Thomas

Jerome Merwick said...

There seems to be a naive notion among the more credulous who post here that the people at the top are always telling us the truth. Even more naive is the belief that these people will always do the right thing or that they are FREE to do the right thing.

I would suggest that such is not always the case.

Popes and the cardinals who curry their favor will often make public statements that carry the party line when they themselves aren't of the same mind. What immediately comes to mind is Pope John Paul II's constant public face of positivity and statements of "all is well" while the curia and the "deep Church" were making it clear to him that THEY were not going to have any of his reforms. Many times he tried to release statements to the Church at large, only to see his work sabotaged. One look at the shameful quality of so many his bishop appointments makes that all too clear--many of them weren't his choices at all.

Mr. Garrett's observations about what has happened to the Church since the council and their incompatibility with the fruits of the Holy Spirit. Pope Benedict's or any post Vatican II pope's statements about the failed council are mere boilerplate--contrived, edited and cooked up for public consumption. And many just blindly consume.

TJM said...

Jerome Merwick,

You summed it up well. Statistics don’t lie and the Vatican prefers happy talk instead of addressing the rot and decline.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

So, we have "Deep State" and now "Deep Church." What's next "Deep Library" that seeks to indoctrinate kids in satanic rituals? "Deep Meteorology" which give us falsified weather forecasts. How about "Deep Anthropology" that pushses Darwinian evolution?

I'm sensing a distrubance in the force . . . a Deep One.

Jerome Merwick said...


Unfortunately, I did NOT sum it up well. A sentence has a subject and a verb and expresses a complete thought. I failed to write a sentence in my fourth paragraph. So I'll attempt to correct that error here:

Mr. Garrett's observations about what has happened to the Church since the council and their incompatibility with the fruits of the Holy Spirit are hard to argue with.

TJM said...

Well we know Fr K is not a “Deep” priest since he cannot acknowledge the manifest failures of the Novus Ordo or reject the Party which touts abortion as “healthcare” and is currently running a campaign demanding abortion on demand as the most critical issue facing Americans!