Soon after Summorum Pontificum, I noticed some traditionalists (certainly not the majority) were becoming radicalized. They began shooting this movement of the Holy Spirit in the foot by demanding that the TLM and its ancillary liturgies be exclusive to the Church once again and that Vatican II be renounced.
This, of course, was not the purpose of Pope Emeritus I’s gracious allowance of the older liturgies. For him it was part of Reform in Continuity and the proper reading and interpretation of Vatican II.
His prayer was that having both forms of liturgies would help to produce an influence on both, what is called mutual enrichment!
There are many good things that Vatican II’s document on the liturgy requested, like active participation and expanded Liturgical roles; more Scripture for the Liturgy of the Word; some vernacular; the preservation of Latin and Gregorian Chant; and noble simplicity.
The Liturgy itself, prior to this request of Vatican II, had and has many wonderful things that did not need to be reformed, such as a strong emphasis on the “unbloody renewal of the One Sacrifice of Christ for the remission of sins and the salvation of souls and the Sacrificial Banquet that flows from this Sacrifice for those baptized in Christ and forgiven of Original Sin and Actual Sin (through the Sacrament of Penance).
There is a powerful reverence, kneeling for Holy Communion and no casualness with the handling of the Sacred, meaning the Body and Blood of Christ and blessed sacramentals such as sacred vessels. These things need not be lost in the Modern Liturgy, whatsoever.
But a layman, Larry Chapp, writing for the National Catholic Register, has many good things to say about the current state of affairs in the Church, the elitist attitude of some traditionalists who can’t believe that the Modern Liturgy has produced good fruit for many Catholics.
Read his commentary by pressing the title. I post a sound byte below the title:
Vatican II Sought True Liturgical Reform
Larry Chapp Larry Chapp received his doctorate in theology from Fordham University in 1994, with a specialization in the theology of Hans Urs von Balthasar.
Nevertheless, for me, the main draw of the ordinariate parish I attend isn’t so much the beautiful liturgy (which I love) but the intentional community of deep faith that I have found there, just as I had found it in 1977 at the Newman Center. I also think this searching after communities of deep faith is one of the main draws for people who attend TLM parishes.
In reality, I would rather attend a Novus Ordo parish filled with people of faith than a TLM or ordinariate parish populated by fussy, complaining liturgophiles. The takeaway, therefore, is that what is driving so many people away from our parishes, in my view, is not the liturgy as such, since they are often celebrated just fine, thank you very much, but rather the dreary state of the suburban ethos of spiritual mediocrity that hangs over so many of our parishes like a foul miasma.
35 comments:
Larry Chapp and his straw man arguments are tedious. The Novus Ordo is a flop
Father,
I have no doubt that somewhere out there in the big, wide Catholic Church there are some grouchy Traditionalists nitpicking about things better left alone or ignored, but seriously--I think you've drank a bit of leftist Kool Aid with this post. I sincerely wish you would stop nodding with slavish approval at every negative caricature the Novus Ordo Establishment publishes about Traditionalists.
As I've said before, I'm probably grouchier and angrier than MOST Traditionalists and even I don't fit this cartoonish canard you're pushing. I attend a TLM where and when I can and I am grateful for it. Most of the time, I'm stuck at the Novus Ordo and I tolerate it. I don't complain to the parish priest, the parishioners or any of the endless bureaucrats who push papers in this diocese. I don't even complain to the bishop--not that it would matter. I DO complain here sometimes, because I THOUGHT this was a forum where we COULD complain. Maybe it isn't.
Elitist? I have been listening to the "proclaimers" of the "New Improved Renewed Unrigid Free At Last Postconciliar Church of What's Happening Now" shove THEIR triumphalism down my throat since I was a teenager. Sure, I've said the Novus Ordo Establishment mess we've got now is unsustainable and will not last. That's an observation, not elitism. I generally keep that observation to myself. I don't even share it with my children. I am quietly sitting by watching the logical, inevitable end results of Vatican II play out and keeping my opinion to myself. I HAVE shared my opinion here sometimes, because I THOUGHT this was a forum where we COUULD share such opinions. Maybe it isn't.
I still maintain that Vatican II was a disaster and unnecessary. I could go into countless reasons why, but I'm about to use up my character limit. However, I have no doubt that there were many good, sincere (and hoodwinked) bishops who had nobler intentions for the Council. God bless them. I don't hate them and, again, I don't generally share that opinion with anyone. I HAVE mentioned it here sometimes, because I THOUGHT this was a forum where we could mention such things. Maybe it isn't.
Stop blaming the victims father. It's unbecoming of a man of your goodness and stature.
Father:
I would differ with your post in one respect, and that is the sequence of events. You say, "Soon after Summorum Pontificum, I noticed some traditionalists (certainly not the majority) were becoming radicalized." While I don't doubt that you noticed this after Pope Benedict issued that decree, I would demur from the suggestion (perhaps not intended) that the radicalization came after SP. On the contrary, whatever traditionalists may be described as radicalized or grouchy or disagreeable or any term you use -- and granting that at least some do deserve those descriptions -- the radicalization had been long underway, as a fruit of their being treated very shabbily by bishops and priests for many decades.
I don't recall all Pope Benedict wrote in SP, but even if he didn't say so explicitly, I have no doubt he intended SP to heal the radicalization you describe. And, I think that was happening. Before Summorum Pontificum, in many places there was a tremendous polarization between those who preferred the older and newer forms of Mass, and those who wanted the older form were often treated as strange and even a threat. But after the TLM was, let us say, "normalized" as an option any priest and any parish could provide, in so many places the TLM stopped being some exotic thing, and instead was more like another "flavor" provided for those who preferred it. I don't mean to demean the Mass with this term; I'm trying to capture how I think folks who aren't deep into these liturgical and theological battles might see the matter.
Anyone who thinks that it was only after SP's liberation of the TLM that some trads became shrill or extreme simply wasn't paying attention. And that's fine, it's not a sin for most Catholics not to have been paying attention. But some -- I mean those in authority -- do not get off so easily. It is infuriating for bishops and priests to declare, akin to the reaction of the Claude Rains character in "Casablanca," that they are "shocked, SHOCKED" to discover the 1970 Missal was subject to widespread and profound abuses. I am not interested in defending the ill advised or extreme reactions of some traditionalists, but let's not pretend it all happened against a very different historical backdrop. People didn't walk away from the new Mass because it was celebrated well.
Fr. Fox, in terms of the timing of this radicalization of some (certainly not a majority) of traditionalists, I am speaking only from anecdotal evidence as I experienced it. After SP, I began my blog, I guess around 2009. By that time, blogs were becoming popular especially liturgical ones. I had some of my parishioners at St. Joseph, a small number, who became radicalized. One joined the SSPX (in was in my RCIA class, prior to SP, discover the TLM at my parish, loved it and eventually went schismatic, joining first the SSPX, then he went Eastern Orthodox, returned to the SSPX later then got truly angry when he discovered sexual abuse of minors by some of their priests was occurring too. I’m not sure what he is today. I pray he has found middle ground.
What I think is unfortunate, is this desire to overturn Vatican II altogether, as if the Church would do that, and to think we are going back to a unified liturgy in the older rites. We need to have a plurality of liturgical forms today, which is to include the TLM and its other liturgies, but also a reenchantment of the reform ones and a recovery of the sacred as well as pre-Vatican II reverence in the modern liturgies.
The radicalization of "traditional" Catholics was widespread when (or soon after) the founder of the "traditional" Catholic movement, Father Gommar DePauw, initiated his mid-1960s attacks against Vatican II...not to mention the liturgical reforms, then, at the end of the 1960s, the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI.
The assault upon Vatican II has always been a given within the "traditional" Catholic movement.
During the 1960s, I had knowledge of Fr. Gommar A. DePauw, J.C.D. But it was during the 1970s that I first delved into the "traditional" Catholic movement.
Anybody who had availed himself/herself to the "traditional" Catholic movement had encountered repeatedly:
"Vatican II is evil." "Vatican II is a Jewish/Masonic conspiracy designed to destroy the Church."
One also encountered repeatedly:
"The Novus Ordo is spiritual poison." "The Novus Ordo is a Jewish/Masonic conspiracy designed to destroy the Church."
The above nonsense in regard to Vatican II/Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI remains widespread among "traditional" Catholics...and is promoted around-the-clock via "traditional" Catholic blogs/twitter accounts.
Despite many decent "traditionalists," the "traditional" Catholic movement is sick to its core.
That at least is the case in regard to radtrads.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Being faithful to Christ, his teachings, and his Church is what matters in the end. Do we want to stick with this or do we want to change this? Traditional Catholics are vilified for wanting to stick with Christ, his teachings, and his Church and are particularly denigrated for wanting to pass it all this along, in tact, to their children and their children's children. Now, go figure!
Personally, the defenders of Vatican II and the NO radicalize me aggressively by demanding explanations about the actions of others associated with traditionalist liturgy.
On August 15, 1967 A.D., Father Gommar DePauw, declared via a private letter (that he had made public later that year) to Pope Saint Paul VI:
"Your Holiness...we are tempted to agree with one of your own immediate collaborators in Rome who has been quoted as characterizing the recent Vatican Council as "a sinister farce acted out by a number of good-for-nothings, some of whom, despite the gold crosses on their chests, don't even believe in the Holy Trinity or the Virgin."
"Your Holiness...we refuse to become absorbed into any new CONCILIAR church! WE CONDEMN AND REJECT THE CONCILIAR CHURCH!" (Emphasis, Father DePauw.)
The above demonstrates that at the beginning of the Catholic Traditional Movement, the assault against Vatican II (then a few years later, the assault against the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI) has occupied center stage.
There are folks who have claimed that it is Pope Francis who radicalized "traditional" Catholics against Vatican II, (as well as the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI).
If anything, decades ago, long before Pope Francis' reign, Archbishop Lefebvre/SSPX/his followers raged against Vatican II (as well as the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI).
In 1988 A.D., some 25 years prior to Pope Francis' reign, Archbishop Lefebvre's radicalization in question had resulted in his excommunication from the Church.
But it is Pope Francis who radicalized trads. Unbelievable.
Anyway, the war against Vatican II has, since the mid-1960s, been a staple of the "traditional" Catholic movement.
Not every trad has supported that war...but, unfortunately, many have...and said war rages today.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Keep in mind, that the novelties of Vatican II were imposed upon the laity in the most authoritarian way and it’s spirit more so. This priest, only a few years earlier would have not been controversial and he would have been in the mainstream.
For years we've been hearing how the answer to overcoming the problems of the Church is to double-down and impose "more Vatican II" upon the faithful (whatever more Vatican II actually means--considering the vast disparity in perceptions and interpretations). We even have those who insist it is going to take even LONGER, maybe GENERATIONS before we get to the "real" core of what Vatican II was. It's exasperating.
One can only hope that, at some point, enough honest people in the Vatican will break the "omerta" of insisting how wonderful the whole thing was and dare to honestly investigate and evaluate what REALLY happened. Suffice to say, such an investigation, if done objectively, would cast light upon a variety of nefarious and ill-intending interests, many of which conflicted with the Church itself, that infiltrated and corrupted this controversial mess--a mess that isn't going away soon.
Until then, painting Traditionalists with the broad brushes of self-righteous slander will only insure that the Council continues to be questionable--as well it should be.
If there is a "war" against Vatican II, it's based on convictions, evidence and a heartfelt desire to remain faithful to the faith Jesus Christ entrusted to the apostles.
On the other hand, there is a palpable VENDETTA against Traditionalism from the top of the Church down and those who are executing this vendetta--well, their words their records and reputations show us all we need to know.
Our expert on the Traditionalist movement, who would have us believe that it is "sick to its core" has presented...what I guess he believes is irrefutable evidence of that sickness?
First we have the words of a priest who expresses his belief that sinister forces were at work in the Council, that there were flaws in its results and his belief that he must, therefore, reject it.
We then have the all-too-well known story of a saintly French Archbishop who had second thoughts about the Council, especially as he saw its results play out and the reminder that he was excommunicated. Of course, no mention is made of the lifting of the excommunication of his bishops or of the suspect validity of the excommunication in the first place.
In short, we have two stories of men who believed they were doing the right thing by rejecting the Council.
Nothingburger.
Actually many Novus Ordo priests violate Vatican II all the time by not following the texts and rubrics of the Novus Ordo and nothing is done about it. The Novus Ordo by design spreads disunity because the Mass can be radically different from parish to parish. The TLM exemplifies noble simplicity
The war against Vatican II that such "traditional" Catholics as Father Gommar DePauw had initiated during the mid-1960s has demonstrated the following:
There are folks who have claimed that trad Catholics had been fine and dandy...nice, soft, and friendly...for years and years.
That trads had become radicalized only after years, and years, and years of having been treated like dirt by Churchmen.
That is nonsense.
Father Gommar Depauw had formulated the "traditional" Catholic Movement in 1964 A.D. Then, in early 1965 A.D. (March 15, I believe), he launched said movement publicly.
The radicalized trad war against Vatican II, as well as the liturgical reforms, had been launched prior to Vatican II's December 1965 A.D. conclusion.
It is nonsense that the radicalization of trads had materialized only after years, and years of their having been trampled supposedly by Churchmen...only after years, and years of having been deprived of the TLM.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Father McDonald, if you are interested, here is a great collection of Father Gommar DePauw-related newspaper articles, as well as his personal literature.
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library — Digital Library Collections.
Folder Title: Catholic Traditionalist Movement (2 of 3).
If you scroll down a little, the first newspaper article about Father Gommar DePauw is from The New York Times, Sunday, March 28, 1965:
-- Catholic Group Opposes Reform
https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/public/digitallibrary/smof/publicliaison/blackwell/box-034/40_047_7007844_034_011_2017.pdf
Pax.
Mark Thomas
"The takeaway, therefore, is that what is driving so many people away from our parishes, in my view, is not the liturgy as such, since they are often celebrated just fine, thank you very much, but rather the dreary state of the suburban ethos of spiritual mediocrity that hangs over so many of our parishes like a foul miasma."
I think Larry's commentary, I call him Larry since he was a classmate of mine in the seminary, is accurate. I am reminded of what Richard Foster, a Quaker, wrote in his book "Celebration of Discipline": “Superficiality is the curse of our age. The doctrine of instant satisfaction is a primary spiritual problem. The desperate need today is not for a greater number of intelligent people, or gifted people, but for deep people.”
For good or for ill, what many people today are seeking is community. They are not seeking sound doctrine, but if they become a member of a parish community, the door to learning our doctrine can be opened to them. If they find a welcoming congregation and can avoid the "You're In MY Seat" glare, then they can be drawn into a relationship with Christ, the head, and His Body, the Church.
If they remain outside because they encounter talk of vendettas from grouchy, angry types, well, they'll go somewhere else to find a community that they can be a part of.
Fr. De Pauw was on the faculty at my seminary many years before I arrived. The story we heard was that, though he had been released from his teaching job there, he refused to depart. It took a personal visit from Cardinal Lawrence Sheehan, Archbishop of Baltimore and Chancellor of the Seminary, to demand that he pack his things and leave.
Tom said: There are folks who have claimed that it is Pope Francis who radicalized "traditional" Catholics against Vatican II, (as well as the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI).
If anything, decades ago, long before Pope Francis' reign, Archbishop Lefebvre/SSPX/his followers raged against Vatican II (as well as the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI).
In 1988 A.D., some 25 years prior to Pope Francis' reign, Archbishop Lefebvre's radicalization in question had resulted in his excommunication from the Church.
But it is Pope Francis who radicalized trads. Unbelievable.
Are there "radicalized trads" who are in their 20s or 30s? If so, under which pontificate were such people "radicalized"?
Under which pontificate were "trads radicalized" in the last approximately 10 years who a) weren't even alive during Vatican II or b) were either not alive or were not adults during the pontificates of Pope John23, Paul6, JPI, JPII, or Benedict16?
Who "radicalized" the people who did not consider themselves "trads" until the pontificate of Pope Francis but are now "radicalized trads"?
Are there any converts who came into the Church in recent years who were not "radicalized" during the pontificates of JPII or B16 but are now "radicalized trads"?
Perhaps we should call a "cease fire" in the alleged "war" on Vatican II and declare a more specific target for some well-deserved aggression: The Consilium.
The Novus Ordo Concoction of the Consilium is endlessly (and DISHONESTLY) invoked as the "Mass of Vatican II". As a matter of record, it is not.
Sacrosanctum Concilium made provision--but did not necessarily mandate--certain changes to the Liturgy. A thorough reading of that document makes it pretty clear that what the Consilium gave us "in the name of" Vatican II is a far cry from what the actual Vatican II document calls for.
"Super-Duper-Uber-Holy" Paul VI even KNEW he had been deceived by Bugnini, who was in charge of this disaster, and, even after firing him, he persisted with Bugnini's "creation", imposing it upon the Church, demonstrating about as much "organic development" as an electronic circuitboard. And after years of swallowing this imposed disaster, we now have a smiling Pope who insists we must listen to the faithful. Seriously?
I'm amazed that anyone converts at all, since our leadership has bent over backwards to kill whatever credibility our Church once had.
Let us pretend that it was only after years and years of nonsense from unsympathetic bishops that "traditional" Catholics had become radicalized.
I acknowledge that there were unsympathetic bishops...that said bishops could have done more to have accommodated trads.
But how could any "traditionalist" have justified, then, or now, even if he, or she, had felt trampled upon by Churchmen, the following from Archbishop Lefebvre?
From the Sermon of Archbishop Lefebvre, June 29, 1976 A.D:
"And we have the precise conviction that this new rite of Mass expresses a new faith, a faith which is not ours, a faith which is not the Catholic Faith.
"This New Mass is a symbol, is an expression, is an image of a new faith, of a Modernist faith."
"Now it is evident that the new rite, if I may say so, supposes another conception of the Catholic religion — another religion.
"Slowly but surely the Protestant notion of the Mass is being introduced into the Holy Church."
"This is why we think that we cannot accept the new rite, which is the work of another ideology, or a new ideology."
"Well, we are not of this religion. We do not accept this new religion. We are of the religion of all time; we are of the Catholic religion. We are not of this 'universal religion' as they call it today — this is not the Catholic religion any more."
"We are not of this Liberal, Modernist religion which has its own worship, its own priests, its own faith, its own catechisms, its own Bible...We cannot accept these things. They are contrary to our Faith."
Archbishop Lefebvre has long been a hero to countless "traditional" Catholics.
Even today, his decades-old attacks against the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI have a strong influence upon "traditionalists"...young, and old.
Rorate Caeli, Peter Kwasniewski, The Remnant, 1 Peter5, Crisis Magazine, Taylor Marshall, ...and, of course, the SSPX, continue Archbishop Lefebvre's (as well as those of Father Gommar DePauw) horrific attacks against Vatican II/Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI.
There is not any amount of mistreatment of "traditionalists" by our Churchmen that justifies the trad war against Vatican II/Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Hooray for my hero, Marcel Lefebvre!
DJR said..."Who "radicalized" the people who did not consider themselves "trads" until the pontificate of Pope Francis but are now "radicalized trads"?"
Said folks radicalized themselves. Pope Francis did not make their decisions in question.
Folks who opted for radtrad-ism during Pope Benedict XVI's reign did so themselves. Pope Pope Benedict XVI did not force anybody to embrace radtrad traditionalism. The same applies to those who embraced radical "traditional" "Catholicism" during Pope Saint John Paul II's reign.
Thanks to the promise of Jesus Christ (that Rome holds and teaches the True Religion), anybody who has embraced Pope Francis' teachings, for example, in regard to Vatican II/the Holy Mass of Pope, has embraced holy, orthodox teachings.
Pope Benedict XVI delivered holy, orthodox teachings in regard to Vatican II/the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI. The same applied to Pope Saint John Paul II.
A "traditionalist" may embrace radtrad nonsense during a given Pope's reign. But that is on said "traditionalist." That is not upon a given Pope.
Current radicalized trads do not wish to hear, via Pope Francis, the voice of Jesus Christ.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
mark, you seem to focus on a small number of “rad trads” rather than the larger problem of which Cardinal Mueller speaks, led by other cardinals and bishops in Europe—the hostile take over of Catholicism with the aim of changing the Church and her doctrines, not just discipline and all led by the LGBTQ+++ lobbey and radical Protestantism. That is the problem, precisely because these people are large in numbers and have the backing of at least two cardinals and several bishops and sadly enough maybe even the pope.
Pope Francis has been polarizing in the Church since day one. Who does he call out the most, not the far left, but the far right, both of whom he has embolden to act up.
Reading Mark Thomas' remarks is like listening to Joe Biden's inane dribbling.
We are faced with soaring inflation, runaway energy price hikes, threats of war from China and Russia, a porous border that is destroying our domestic economy, crime rising and a justice system enabling it, a public education system castrated by lawsuits and teacher unions, public health policymakers who have all but destroyed our economy and pushed a vaccine that every day new evidence exposes as a farce and possibly a deadly farce, a rising homeless population and the genius Commander in Chief brilliantly tells us that our biggest threat is "domestic terrorism from the right."
We have a Church being lead by a likely antipope who has deconstructed the edifice at every turn, who has appointed like-minded bishops and cardinals, committed questionable canonizations, enabled the supporters of LGBT perversions, worshipped pagan idols in the Vatican, engages in petty name-calling for those he disagrees with (displaying an appalling lack of dignity for a pope) and calls the process of discarding the Magisterium and replacing it with the opinions of Catholics who no longer believe "listening to the spirit". But in Thomas' world, the biggest threat to our Church are "radtrad Catholics".
I'm sure his Uncle Jorge would pat him on the head for such persistence!
Father McDonald said..."mark, you seem to focus on a small number of “rad trads” rather than the larger problem of which Cardinal Mueller speaks, led by other cardinals and bishops in Europe—the hostile take over of Catholicism with the aim of changing the Church and her doctrines, not just discipline and all led by the LGBTQ+++ lobbey and radical Protestantism. That is the problem, precisely because these people are large in numbers and have the backing of at least two cardinals and several bishops and sadly enough maybe even the pope." Pope Francis has been polarizing in the Church since day one. Who does he call out the most, not the far left, but the far right, both of whom he has embolden to act up."
Father McDonald, I focused upon the topic that you presented here:
Here is your headline:
"LISTEN UP TRADITIONALISTS, STOP KILLING A MOVEMENT BY DEMANDING AN END TO VATICAN II AND THE MODERN SACRAMENTAL LITURGIES OF THE CHURCH"
Father, you did not mention..."Cardinal Mueller...LGBTQ+++...the hostile takeover of Catholicism..."
But in regard to your response:
Where is Peter blog offered the following in regard to Cardinal Müller and the "hostile takeover of Catholicism:"
https://wherepeteris.com/cardinal-muller-and-the-destruction-of-the-church/
I hope later today to offer additional comments in regard to your response.
Father McDonald, as always, thank you for having allowed me to participate on your important blog.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
I think I should have written
"...being LED by..."
Grammar, spelling and punctuation are not my strong suit.
"I hope later today to offer additional comments in regard to your response.'
Truer words were never spoken. Apparently that's all this guy lives for.
Bellum,
Jerry
Tom said: "Current radicalized trads do not wish to hear, via Pope Francis, the voice of Jesus Christ."
In January 897 A.D. (sic), our Holy Father at the time, Pope Stephen VI/VII, dug up his predecessor Pope Formosus, put Formosus' corpse on trial, found the corpse guilty of various crimes, mutilated the corpse and then had it thrown in the river.
The "radicalized trads" of the time then heard the voice of Jesus Christ, via Pope Stephen, telling them that Formosus was an antipope.
They also heard the voice of Jesus Christ, via Pope Stephen, tell them that the priests and bishops ordained/consecrated by Formosus were actually not priests or bishops after all, as their orders were null and void, along with many of the sacraments that were administered to the laity.
After our Holy Father Pope Stephen VI/VII was deposed and strangled, the "radicalized trads" of that time heard the voice of Jesus Christ reverse itself, via Pope Theodore II, and state that Pope Formosus was a true pope after all.
Several pontificates and a few short years later, 904 A.D. (sic), the "radicalized trads" of the time heard the voice of Jesus Christ reverse itself again, via Pope Sergius III, and declare that Formosus was an antipope. And not only Formosus, but John IX, Benedict IV, and Leo V (along with Christopher), were all antipopes.
We also know that the voice of Jesus Christ has reversed itself on the evil practice of altar girls, as we have heard His voice via at least three popes. And yet the last three popes have permitted that evil (although the voice of Jesus Christ reversed itself on that issue during the pontificate of Pope St. John Paul II).
History is a thing.
DJR said..."We also know that the voice of Jesus Christ has reversed itself on the evil practice of altar girls, as we have heard His voice via at least three popes. And yet the last three popes have permitted that evil (although the voice of Jesus Christ reversed itself on that issue during the pontificate of Pope St. John Paul II)."
Our Lord Jesus Christ:
"Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
In regard to the Bishop of Rome/additional bishops, Jesus Christ declared that he who hears them, hears Christ, and he who rejects them, rejects Christ and Him who sent Christ.
By the way, DJR, your annual Pope Formosus reference does not change the above teachings of Holy Mother Church.
Finally, to return to your previous post...who has radicalized "traditionalists"?
A Pope does not make/order Person "X" to embrace radical traditionalism. Each radtrad is responsible for his or her decision to have embraced radtrad-ism.
Thank you.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
We've had bad popes. Fortunately, we haven't had a LOT Of really bad popes, but they've certainly made their mark in our Church's history. In the case of most of these bad popes, it was either personal sins or a certain poor leadership of the Church that made them bad popes.
NONE of these popes dared to tamper with the Deposit of Faith or doctrine. Until now.
Captain Sanctimony speaks with fawning certitude and gushing outbursts of "Holy this" and "Holy that", but his certitude NEVER addresses the ongoing scandal of this pope's shameless assault on the Deposit of faith and the all-too-easily available information that strongly suggests that he was not canonically elected. It's called the SANKT GALLEN MAFIA.
Gush on that little Marky.
Tom said: "In regard to the Bishop of Rome/additional bishops, Jesus Christ declared that he who hears them, hears Christ, and he who rejects them, rejects Christ and Him who sent Christ. By the way, DJR, your annual Pope Formosus reference does not change the above teachings of Holy Mother Church."
Okay, so tell us then. Was Pope Formosus a true pope? If you say yes, you're contradicting the voice of Jesus Christ speaking through Pope Stephen VI and Pope Sergius III.
If you say no, then you're contradicting the voice of Jesus Christ speaking through Pope Theodore II, Pope John IX, and Pope Benedict IV.
Which ones do you contradict?
Regardless of your pick, you contradict the voice of Jesus Christ because you believe that Christ was speaking through each of those popes on that issue. But that's not possible, as their voices contradict one another.
And that leads one to only one conclusion: Your understanding of when, and how, a pope speaks with the voice of Jesus Christ is completely erroneous.
Do you actually believe that Christ, speaking through prior popes, taught that having altar girls is evil but that He has now reversed Himself merely because subsequent popes have accepted this evil?
Oh, come one, DJR, get with it! "Oh so holy I wish he was my daddy" Francis is NEVER in error.
We KNOW that Jesus Christ will return to judge the living and the dead, so He is the Just Judge. And he spoke through Francis about the homo priest issue when Francis so authoritatively and decisively told us, "Who am I to judge?"
Even though we have recognized false gods (and goddesses) as demons for centuries, Jesus was speaking through Francis when he brought that ugly, naked thing whose name begins with a "P" into the Vatican. All bow now!
When "holy uberpopey" Cardinal Bergoglio was first elected (if you want to call it that) pope in 2013, he invited the unrepentant, fruity Cardinal Daneels, who practically wanted to make Sodomy a sacrament, out on the loggia with him. Of course THAT too was Jesus Speaking through him! (it was also a great preview of one thing Francis would spend the rest of his pontificate turning his head at).
When Francis published Amoris Laetitia he approved the contradiction of centuries of Catholic teaching by proclaiming that Catholics living in irregular situations (divorced and remarried Catholics) are no longer in a state of mortal sin and can receive Holy Communion--of course! That was JESUS speaking through him!
And it was JESUS speaking through Francis when Francis signed the statement, "We are profoundly thankful for the spiritual and theological gifts received through the reformation." Of course, that meant that JESUS WAS THANKFUL FOR HERESY!
And it was, of course, JESUS speaking when The Francis dismissed all 116 members of the Pontifical Academy for Human Life, appointed his own gang of 45 and REMOVED THE REQUIREMENT THAT ALL MEMBERS TAKE AN OATH TO UPHOLD THE CHURCH'S TEACHINGS ON HUMAN LIFE! And it was JESUS who told Francis to appoint Father Maurizio Chiodi to the Academy, the priest who has publicly argued for Euthanasia! And all the other new members who accept contraception, abortion, homosexual acts and various other contradictions of our century old teachings...well, that was JESUS speaking through Francis to tell us once and for all that our Traditional morality needs to be "updated"!
Oh, I could go on, but our favorite resident popesplainer and all-around brown-nose to the zeitgeist has it down: When this pope BELCHES, it's the voice of JESUS belching and you are "Satanic" if you dare to disagree.
If only you would listen to little Marky. Then you too could be "holy, holy, holy"!
DJR said..."Do you actually believe that Christ, speaking through prior popes, taught that having altar girls is evil but that He has now reversed Himself merely because subsequent popes have accepted this evil?"
Is that a reference to Pope Saint Gelasius I's letter in which he referred to the evil of women who had assumed the role of presbyter — he employed the word "cunctaque" to refer to the priesthood?
He condemned, as established by his use of the word "cunctaque," the liturgical abuse in question — that women had performed the ministerial tasks of priests.
By the way, even the conservatives at Adoremus, via an article in which they had decried the Church's approval of altar girls, acknowledged that the Church's decision to allow altar girls "involves the discipline but not the unchangeable doctrine of the Church."
Yes, DJR, the voice of Jesus Christ continues to be heard via the Pope.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
DJR said..."And that leads one to only one conclusion: Your understanding of when, and how, a pope speaks with the voice of Jesus Christ is completely erroneous."
I know when Our Lord Jesus Christ speaks via the Pope. The Pope manifests his Magisterium.
But to be certain, I have my holy bishop who, via his communion with the Pope, transmits to me the True Religion.
Therefore, I am made aware, via my holy bishop, as to the voice of Jesus Christ.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Vatican II:
"Therefore, the Sacred Council teaches that bishops by divine institution have succeeded to the place of the apostles, as shepherds of the Church, and he who hears them, hears Christ, and he who rejects them, rejects Christ and Him who sent Christ."
There is an old saying that, "a fool can't be angry and a wise man won't be angry" (or something along those lines).
It's hard not to be angry when one looks at the state of the Church and the direction in which it seems headed. In 2002, when the scandals broke out, many Catholics decided that this was their "out" to exit the Church. I looked at it as all the more reason to stay. Who could ever have the excuse of being "afraid" to go to confession after the public sins of so many priests had been revealed? But those scandals were also a symptom of something deeper. Vatican II didn't create all of those abusive priests--dysfunctional families did. Vatican II (or its malinterpretations and practices) likely enabled and emboldened them. Cardinal Spellman wasn't exactly a postonciliar bishop, but his legacy is every bit as bad as Cardinal Law's.
The scandal was part of something much deeper: An attack on the priesthood from the pit of Hell. The first step is to discredit the priests--and it worked. Even though less than 3 percent of priests were found to have credible charges brought against them, virtually ALL priests were now sulllied with the identity of "child molester". And, to make matters worse, the deep homosexualist underground seized upon this mess to convince us that they were out to "protect children". Children? The John Jay Report was pretty clear: The vast majority of abused were adolescent males. That is NOT pedophilia, that is homosexuality. The result is we have a homosexualized group in our Church and, in too many cases, running our Church and they are bolder than ever in distorting our Church into something it isn't. Many priests don't have a clear direction about their vocation because of compromised chanceries, but they do the best they can. Now there is more talk of eventually ordaining women and canonizing non-Catholics. Ugh.
We have the faithful Underground Church in China betrayed while the corrupt Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association is recognized and given the mantle of legitimacy, FROM A DEAL NEGOTIATED BY THEODORE MCCARRICK. We have faithful Cardinal Zen under arrest, facing a kangaroo communist court and Pope Bergoglio remains silent. Does anyone think John Paul II would have remained silent?
The current regime has imposed "listening sessions" in which the vast majority of those bothering (or who have the time) to even speak up are disgruntled older Catholics who don't believe in the Real Presence and/or resent that their haven't been even MORE radical changes since 1970. Can anyone seriously call such a process "listening to the Spirit"? Perhaps if one considers the spirits of the Demonic realm, but that is not the Holy Spirit.
Our Church is in the worst mess it has ever been in and a large part of that is the result of conforming to a world that is in the worst mess it has ever been in. Yet, we have to remain hopeful. Jesus promised that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church. He didn't tell us how close Hell would get to destroying it, but He promised it would not. I strongly suggest that what will save the Church will be something that none of us have thought of or can imagine. God always has more options than we do. Right now, it seems to be that His permissive will is permitting us to be spanked.
Whatever DOES save the Church, I highly doubt it will owe much, if anything to the endless noodling we've wasted our time for all of these decades on regarding Vatican II.
Post a Comment