Pope Benedict as Cardinal Ratzinger around 1988 or so and not talking to liturgical nerds, but rank and file Catholics, famously said that most Catholics could not tell the difference between a Bugnini Mass with Gregorian Chant and celebrated ad orientem and the older Tridentine Rite.
I agree that only liturgical nerds can tell the difference and they are a grain of sand on the beach of Catholicism.
I feel that Pope Leo’s interest is in improving the celebration of the Bugnini Mass and wants to give to priests and parishes who desire it, the reverence, dignity and piety of the Ancient Mass, but in the Modern Bugnini form.
He may be more generous in approving the TLM, but I am not sure if he’ll abrogate TC, unfortunately, but His Holiness could be the pope of surprises.
Without changing anything, except some silly options in the Bugnini Mass, the pope could say that no priest needs permission from his bishop to celebrate the Bugnini Rite in Latin, with Gregorian Chant from the updated Roman Gradual and ad orientem with Holy Communion received at an altar railing, kneeling and either on the tongue or in the hand.
In terms of changing some liturgical rubrics or laws in the Bugnini Mass, Pope Leo needs to mandate the use of the Propers for the Entrance Chant, even if another hymn is used as well as for the property Offertory and Communion antiphons.
It must be written in the General Instruction that ad orientem and Holy Communion kneeling are a part of the Church’s liturgical patrimony and should not be excluded in the Bugnini Rite.
It’s that simple.
41 comments:
For the sake of liturgical unity, suppress all of the Eucharistic Prayers save for the Roman Canon and then eliminate the superfluous bidding prayers.
Little difference exists between the Holy Mass of Pope Saint John XXIII and Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI (when celebrated "properly").
Pope Leo XIV believes that. He suggested that trads would encounter the Roman liturgical tradition via the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI.
The problem is that a great many trads insist that monumental differences exist between the Holy Mass of Pope Saint John XXIII and Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI (when celebrated "properly").
A great many trads defame the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI as the "Bugnini Mass...Nervous Disorder...Novus Bogus"...as banal, fabricated Masonic iturgy...as having been concocted via the assistance of six Protestant clergymen.
There are even non-radtrads who insist that while the Novus Ordo is valid, said Mass remains banal, fabricated...the work of Monsignor Bugnini, created in defiance of Vatican II's liturgical-related directives...must undergo a new liturgical reform to get things right.
In light of all of the above, why would any trad embrace the "Bugnini Mass" in any form?
If the primary Mass of the Latin Church is the "Bugnini Mass" fabricated — in great measure by "Freemason" Monsignor Bugnini — then who could blame trads for their widespread rejection of the "Novus Bogus Bugnini Mass?"
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Perception and reality are two different things. The perception of the laity, especially if they are not liturgical nerds or well informed about the structural and fine points of differences, might not be able to perceive differences while many differences there are! I can tell you as a priest celebrating both forms of the Mass, there are major differences, not only in reverence, piety and ethos, but the TLM is far more complicated and takes education to celebrate it properly, from choreography to praying it. There are major differences, but known only to a few. The Bugnini Mass can mock the TLM but it’s only mocking. There are major differences.
Fr. ALLAN McDonald - The NO can be celebrated with the same reverence and piety as any "traditions" Latin mass. The "ethos" is necessarily different because the culture, era, and community in which the NO mass is celebrated is no longer the same as - and will never be the same as - that in which the "T"LM had a home.
Same old, same old. With 4 Eucharistic Prayers and different Rites at the beginning there will NEVER be "unity" because of priests like you. Dead end as usual.
Father Davide Pagliarani, SSPX Superior General, has identified the logical conclusion to the following claim:
The Latin Church's primary Mass is the Bugnini Mass...Nervous Disorder...Novus Bogus...banal, fabricated, Masonic liturgy...concocted via the assistance of six Protestant clergymen.
The Bugnini Mass has broken with Sacrosanctum Concilium. The Bugnini Mass is not in line with the Latin Church's liturgical tradition.
=======
Father Davide Pagliarani:
"All those who have tried to maintain both Tradition and the Vatican II reforms, trying to marry them or to enrich them mutually, have inevitably failed.
"Here, I would say, these remarks are aimed especially at Pope Benedict XVI.
"...Pope Benedict XVI issued his motu proprio in 2007...What was the idea here?
"They will put the two Masses side by side. Both Masses will have the right to exist, to coexist in the Church.
"And they will therefore enrich each other mutually, but at the same time, they will demonstrate that they express the same faith, the same concept of the Church, the same concept of the priesthood.
"Where did that end up? It ended in a failure.
"The trajectory started by the motu proprio of Pope Benedict XVI in 2007 unleashed a conflict, a war, if you will, between the two Masses which, instead of demonstrating their continuity, their compatibility, and their equivalence...
...only confirmed that between the two Masses, and therefore between these two concepts of the Church that they manifest and express, there is a dichotomy, there is an incompatibility."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Thank you for pointing out the derogatory names some give to the Bugnini Mass. Refresh my memory, did you ever point out and condemn the derogatory comments the Pope Francis made, not to the Mass, but people created in the image and likeness of God. Here’s an AI refresher for you. I’d love to here your condemnation of this:
Pope Francis, known for his informal and direct communication style, has occasionally used strong language, colourful metaphors, and in some reported cases, derogatory terms, particularly during private or off-the-cuff remarks.
His use of language has sometimes sparked controversy, necessitating apologies or clarifications from the Vatican.
Reported Homophobic Slurs (2024)
Frociaggine (Faggotness/Faggotry): In May 2024, during a closed-door meeting with Italian bishops, Pope Francis allegedly used this vulgar Italian term to suggest there were already too many gay men in seminaries, stating in Italian, "C'è già troppa frociaggine".
Context: The comment was reported by several Italian media outlets and confirmed by bishops who were present. It was made during a discussion on whether to admit gay men to the priesthood.
Apology: The Vatican issued an apology shortly after, stating that the Pope never intended to offend or use homophobic terms, acknowledging he is an Argentinian who may not have fully understood the offensive nature of the Italian slang.
Reoccurrence: Subsequent reports suggested he used the same slur in a later, separate closed-door meeting.
The New York Times
The New York Times
+6
Insults Towards Clergy and Church Critics
Pope Francis has frequently used harsh language to criticize traditionalist Catholics and certain members of the clergy:
"Sourpusses" (Grugni): He has frequently criticized priests and Christians who appear unhappy or "rigid," referring to them as having faces like sourpusses.
"Christians of words": He has described those who talk about faith but do not act on it as "Christians of words" and as being in "perpetual mourning".
"Pelagians" and "Self-absorbed Promethean neo-Pelagians": These terms are directed at traditionalist Catholics who focus excessively on doctrine, rules, and traditional rituals (such as the Latin Mass), which he believes neglects the need for divine grace.
"Small-minded" and "hypocrites": Often used to describe conservative Catholics who challenge his reforms.
"Shit" (Mierda): In 2018, he reportedly told survivors of clerical abuse in Ireland that priests who cover up abuse are "shit".
Insults Towards Media and Others
"Coprophilia" and "Coprophagia": In a 2015 interview, he accused journalists who focus on scandal and gossip of promoting "coprophilia" (arousal by feces) and "coprophagia" (eating feces), suggesting they are sick and making readers sick.
"Propaganda" within the Church: He has accused some in the Church of transforming their mission into a "propaganda" organization.
"Almost Satanic": He has described domestic violence against women as "almost satanic".
https://share.google/BtufAv6oYmmnWWS80
Feel good story of the day! The Cardinal ignored Traditionis Custodes as any sane person would
In regard to the term "Bugnini Mass," which various folks apply to the 1962 A.D., 1965 A.D., as well as 1969 A.D., Roman Missals:
From: AI Overview:
"Annibale Bugnini...oversaw the 1962 Missal...critics like Dr. Peter Kwasniewski and contributors to New Liturgical Movement (NLM) often argue the 1962 edition was a "deformed" precursor to the Novus Ordo."
"Key Perspectives from New Liturgical Movement on the 1962 Missal
1962 as a "Pre-Vatican II" Deformation:
"NLM contributors, including Kwasniewski, frequently argue that the reforms leading to the 1962 Missal (especially 1955 and 1960) were already breaking with tradition, serving as the bridge to the 1969/1970 reforms."
"Annibale Bugnini is noted for his instrumental work in the liturgical commissions that produced these reforms, aiming for a "general liturgical reform"."
"Dr. Peter Kwasniewski advocates for the broader, traditional Roman Rite but often highlights the need to understand how the 1962 changes...initiated the decline of the traditional liturgy."
=======
Speaking of Peter Kwasniewski, New Liturgical Movement, and the 1962 A.D. "Bugnini Mass":
https://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2022/12/why-1962-must-eventually-perish-case-of.html
-- Why 1962 Must Eventually Perish:
"1962 is a half-dismantled building waiting for the demolition crew called the Consilium. "
=======
https://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2025/06/practical-steps-for-transitioning-from_01062630700.html
-- Practical Steps for Transitioning from the 1962 to the Pre-1955 Roman Rite
=======
https://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2014/03/just-say-no-to-65.html
-- Just Say No to '65!
"In short, the so-called 1965 Missal was a quick slash-and-burn edit on the 1962 to buy time for the completion of the innovating Bugnini Missal.
"Some of the changes made in '65 already go beyond anything the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council even touched on in the aula, let alone voted to include in Sacrosanctum Concilium.
"It marked the beginning of the end, and, as such, needs to be stalwartly resisted even as a theoretical option.
"Indeed, to be fully consistent, we must admit that there is no particular mystique to the 1962 edition; as all engaged in the study and promotion of the liturgy know, the '62 already carries the telling signature of Bugnini's handiwork."
=======
If it is legitimate to view the 1962 A.D., 1965 A.D., and 1969 A.D. Masses as "Bugnini Mass(es)," then the only safe way out of the supposed "Bugnini Mass" debacle:
Peter Kwasniewski: "Indeed, it seems to me that the way forward is to get beyond the insistence on the 1962 missal...and return to a healthier stage of the rite, namely, as it was found in 1948, before experts began to meddle with the substance of it."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Fr. Kavanaugh,
The NO can be celebrated with the same reverence and piety, as well as much the same manner, as the old Mass, but you will not allow it in your parish; nor will most of the bishops. What we have today is not the Novus Ordo but a post Novus Ordo Mass stripped of all options for a traditional form of celebration.
You have also forgotten the old adage of "lex orandi, lex credendi," or how the form of worship creates the culture and belief.
Mark Thomas,
The problem is not that traditionalist insist that there are many differences between the two Masses but that the bishops have forbidden the regular use of options in the new Mass that allow for a traditional form of worship. McDonald's can list fillet mignon on their menu all they want, but if all that they will serve are hamburgers they will be identified and judged by the hamburgers, not the theoretical fillet mignon. If the new Mass is only allowed to be celebrated in a radical modern form, that is what it will be judged by, notwithstanding the theoretical options for a traditional form of the Mass.
The old offertory prayers should also be also be restored, at least as an option.
Anthony - The NO is traditional - as traditional as the TLM. It is the mass given us by the Church as was the TLM.
Bishop have authority to regulate the liturgy in their dioceses. We may not like their decisions, but those decisions are theirs to make, not yours, not mine.
Oh my FRMJK, your ignorance is showing. Artificial Intelligence knows what you do not know or you weren’t taught at your pre-Vatican II seminary:
No, the modern Catholic Mass (Novus Ordo) is generally not considered the "Traditional Mass" by Catholics, although both are considered valid rites. The Traditional Latin Mass (Tridentine Mass) refers to the rite codified in 1570, while the modern Mass was introduced in 1969 following the Second Vatican Council to allow for vernacular languages and increased active participation.
Facebook
Facebook
+4
Key differences between the two include:
Language & Direction: The Traditional Mass is in Latin with the priest facing the altar (ad orientem), while the modern Mass is usually in the local language with the priest facing the people (versus populum).
Structure & Focus: The Novus Ordo introduced more Scripture readings and shortened the rite, whereas the Traditional Mass emphasizes a more silent, sacrificial, and ritual-heavy focus.
Tradition vs. Revision: Traditionalists often view the modern Mass as a rupture from liturgical tradition, whereas others see it as a legitimate development and restoration of older practices, according to discussions on EWTN News.
We've established over the years that Fr. Kavanaugh understands "traditional" to mean something like coming from the church rather than in the historical sense that others might use the term.
He probably has a point since you all believe that the rites approved by the papacy cannot be harmful to the faithful. Since the pope essentially determines the "tradition," it follows that rites approved by the pope are "traditional."
Certainly the exercise of the Petrine Ministry, alone, or Peter with the Apostles, i.e. bishops, is traditional and of Tradition, an unbroken Traditiion until the East’s schism. But the pope alone or the pope with the bishops can create novel things, that in the long run can become traditional. Currently the current Mass is not the traditional Mass, it’s the Bugnini Mass or the Mass of Paul VI.
Bishops do not have plenipotentiary authority over the liturgy. They are bound by the liturgy as promulgated by the popes. In forbidding what the popes have approved they are abusing their authority. Even when they are exercising valid authority they are not beyond criticism. The right exercise of authority must respect both justice and charity.
As for the meaning of "traditional," I will go with the generally understood meaning rather than making up one to fit my agenda.
It's not traditional (in the historical sense) to hold to the idea that bishops lack plenipotentiary authority over the liturgy. Bishops were the authors of the first liturgies -- one of the oldest known liturgies is attributed to St. James, the first bishop of Jerusalem. Of course, there are also liturgies of St. Basil and St. John Chrysostom.
The idea that the pope could dictate liturgical practice writ large didn't arise until the 11th century, and there was pushback on that idea up until the Council of Trent.
I think you're forced to agree with Fr. Kavanaugh's assessment here -- at some point, the so-called Traditional Latin Mass was a novelty that became "traditional" because it was mandated from on high. The same thing is true of your current Novus Ordo. They're equally traditional...
Attempts to defame the 1962 A.D., 1965 A.D., as well as 1969 A.D., Roman Missals via the moniker "Bugnini Missal (s)," is preposterous.
Let's pretend that Monsignor Bugnini is the creator of one liturgical reform after another contained within the above-mentioned Roman Missals.
So?
The Vicars of Christ, not Monsignor Bugnini, authorized this, or that, liturgical reform. The Vicars of Christ, guided by the Holy Ghost, promulgated orthodox liturgical reforms.
To refer to each Roman Missal in question as the "Bugnini Missal" does not detract from the holiness and spiritual value of said Missal.
Therefore, one does one wish to accomplish via the employment of the "Bugnini Missal" moniker?
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Fr. AJM - Your poor seminary formation, which you have told us about often, is showing again, not to mention what must be a congenital reading disorder.
Traditional, as the Church understand the term - and I don't give a rat's patootie how Anthony wants to understand it "generally" - is far, far deeper and richer than "what has been around longer."
Thank you, Marc.
Other than in the earliest years of the Church when someone had to come up with a liturgy, bishops never had plenipotentiary authority over the liturgy. They were always bound by their local liturgical traditions and the modifications that they introduced were minor. The fact that even the popes did not have such authority before Vatican II proves the point.
And no, I do not agree with Fr. Kavanaugh's assessment. Traditional is what has been handed down from past generations, not just what has been authorized. Nor was the old Mass ever a complete novelty as the new Mass is. It was the product of a long and slow evolution. Individual additions were made from time to time but on the whole it remarkably stable over its 1500+ years of use. If the Novus Ordo is still around in 500 years it could at that time be called traditional, but not today. I was 13 when it was introduced and I still remember it. Let's stop playing with words and admit the truth. Despite being authorized by the Church, the Novus Ordo is not traditional in any sense of the word that is generally understood. It may be authorized; it may be holy; it may be an improvement; but it is not traditional.
The point that the All Highest K and MT Suit refuse to acknowledge, is that the Novus Ordo has been an unmitigated flop; millions have fled and it is the epitome of disunity largely because of "priests" like K!!! They are apologists for failure.
You are confusing "traditional" and "Sacred Tradition." Whether you like it or not, "traditional" has a generally understood meaning. You cannot shoehorn in a different meaning, disregarding how it is popularly understood, just to deny the value of respecting tradition. This is not my understanding of tradition but the universal use of the word. If I were to mention the "traditional Mass" to anyone, you are the only one I know of who would not accept what I was speaking of. You do not get to redefine a word for the rest of the world.
Father Kavanaugh said..."Anthony - The NO is traditional - as traditional as the TLM. It is the mass given us by the Church as was the TLM."
Church teaching supports Father Kavanaugh's above comments.
Example: Pope Saint John Paul II:
"The reform of the rites and the liturgical books was undertaken immediately after the promulgation of the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium and was brought to an effective conclusion in a few years thanks to the considerable and self less work of a large number of experts and bishops from all parts of the world.
"This work was undertaken in accordance with the conciliar principles of fidelity to tradition and openness to legitimate development, and so it is possible to say that the reform of the Liturgy is strictly traditional and in accordance with the ancient usage of the holy Fathers".
=======
Pope Leo XIV also made it clear to trads (everybody) that the Roman liturgical tradition is contained within the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Anthony - I am not confusing Traditional and traditional.
If the style of mass you want to emulate when you celebrate is what you want to call the "traditional" mass, what would you call the mass I celebrate? You would call it "non-traditional" which is EXACTLY where your problem lies.
The mass I celebrate is the traditional mass.
As I posted previously: "Tradition has particular connotations in Catholic usage:
It denotes Authentic
That Jesus is divine is AUTHENTIC Catholic teaching
It denotes Essential
The belief in the divinity is Jesus is ESSENTIAL to be a Christan
The word “Tradition” carries these connotations even when it is not capitalized. There is, in Catholic parlance, a difference – a world of difference – between Tradition and traditional, between Traditional and traditional.
That’s why I am particular about describing elements of the mass such as Latin, Gregorian chant, ad orientem, etc as “traditional.”
Those elements are neither authentic nor essential. The mass existed without them for centuries.
In Catholic usage "Traditional" and "traditional" have more nuance than you might allow. As you use it, "traditional" mean historical. Elements of the mass that are historical - and the history is very long - are the use of Latin, celebration ad orientem, Gregorian chant, exclusion of women from serving, etc.
I employ the more nuanced, deeper understanding of "traditional" which includes the connotations of what is traditional being both authentic and essential. The NO in the vernacular, versus populum, with hymnody, and including female altar servers flows from the same well-spring, the Divine, as the style of mass you prefer. This It is authentic in that it is authorized by the Church. And it is essential in that the sacrifice of the mass, that is it a true sacrifice, that it is an unbloody representation of Calvary, that, as true worship, it is the source and summit of Christian life.
With that richer understanding of "traditional" I maintain that the NO is, in every sense traditional while being different in historical elements from the mass you prefer.
What John Paul and Benedict were defending as traditional was the new Mass as promulgated. Does the new missal contain traditional elements? Yes. The problem is that, on the whole, the bishops will not allow those elements to be used. When we talk about the new Mass we need to distinguish what is contained in the Missal and approved by the popes, and what is actually allowed to be celebrated. This is why Fr. McDonald and I have been have argued that the present restrictions on the way the new Mass is celebrated should be lifted to allow these elements to be used.
You also err in elevating isolated papal statements to the level of Church teaching. And inasmuch as the new Mass contains elements that are not in accordance with the ancient usage of the holy Fathers, with due respect to Pope John Paul II, the new Mass is not strictly traditional.
The proliferation of Eucharistic Prayers is not in accordance with the ancient usage of the holy Fathers and is not traditional.
Mass versus populum is not in accordance with the ancient usage of the holy Fathers and is not traditional.
Communion in the hand, contrary to claims often made, is not in accordance with the ancient usage of the holy Fathers and is not traditional.
The use of lectors drawn from the common laity rather than reserving them to properly ordained/installed men is not in accordance with the ancient usage of the holy Fathers and is not traditional.
The use of altar girls is not in accordance with the ancient usage of the holy Fathers and is not traditional.
The substitution of hymns for the psalm Introit, Offertory, and Communion is not in accordance with the ancient usage of the holy Fathers and is not traditional.
The suppression of the ancient Gregorian chants is not in accordance with the ancient usage of the holy Fathers and is not traditional.
In addition, traditional is not just what the Church did prior to the 5th century. It developed over time. Thus, the suppression of Latin is not traditional and is actually contrary to the directives of Vatican II.
If you want to claim that the new Mass is just as traditional as the old then these non-traditional innovations need to be eliminated, or at least no longer required. To claim that the new Mass is traditional because traditional elements are included in the Missal while forbidding their use is dishonest and a lie.
Anthony - It was a lie when you accused me of being a secular humanist, of rejection Sacred Tradition, placing the status of man above revelation and Tradition in the ordering of the Church. In this lie you used the capital "T" in Tradition, effectively accusing me of heresy.
The new mass is "strictly traditional," while differing from the old mass historically. A brassiere made from man-made fibers differs historically from a cotton undergarment but is "strictly" a bra. A Boeing 777X is historically different from Boeing 1928 40C, but it is strictly an airplane.
There is nothing in the nature of liturgy that precludes multiple eucharistic prayers, "common" laity (what a term!) as lectors, female altar servers, etc.
Fr. Kavanaugh,
What would I call the Mass that you celebrate? Modern. This is the proper juxtaposition and understanding: traditional vs. modern. And no, within Catholicism "traditional" does not just denote authentic or essential. Catholics still use the, if I may say, traditional meaning of "traditional," as opposed to modern. When applied to doctrine "Sacred Tradition" is assumed as a subset of the more general meaning of tradition.
Your attempt to limit the meaning to Sacred tradition is not a more nuanced usage but a false usage, and quite frankly, dishonest. By limiting traditional to what is authentic or essential you are attempting to empty traditional practices of their value, that if something is not essential it is open to unending change. Tradition, as commonly understood, has value even if it is not essential. It creates stability and is a sign of continuation with the past.
Finally, I never accused you of rejection of Sacred Tradition. I was explicit that I did not charge with a denial of the faith but rather with an erroneous emphasis of priorities, and I stand by my statement.
Anthony - If the mass you celebrate is the traditional mass, then you really have no other choice than to say masses celebrated not in the style you prefer are non-traditional.
Historical vs Modern is the proper juxtaposition.
Any "traditional practices" can lose their value - they are not sacrosanct - and be set aside. They do not have to be maintained just because they've been used in the past.
You did make that accusation. Your words: "Fr. Kavanaugh, your position, with its selective rejection of Sacred Tradition, is not Christian humanism but secular humanism." March 24, 2026 at 1:23 PM
Traditional practices may loose their value but that does not make them any less traditional as the word is commonly understood. Your restriction of traditional to Sacred Tradition only is complete nonsense and is not how anyone but yourself understands the word.
Why did you leave out the rest of the quote?
"In this I distinguish between secular humanism and atheistic humanism. I do not charge you with disbelief in God but rather placing the status of man above revelation and Tradition in the ordering of the Church. Thus your greater concern for the activity of the congregation than the action of God through the ordained priest and his ministers."
Anthony - You accused me of being a secular humanist and then tried to re-define the word. Secular Humanism is, by definition, atheistic.
1. "A secular humanist is someone who embraces reason, ethics, and human-centered values while rejecting religious dogma and supernatural beliefs."
2. "Secular humanism posits that human beings are capable of being ethical and moral without religion or belief in a deity."
3. "Secular Humanism begins with denial or doubt concerning the existence of anything supernatural—including God."
4. "Secular humanism is a rejecting religious dogma and supernatural beliefs and supernatural beliefs rooted in science, philosophical naturalism, and humanist ethics."
5. "Secular humanism is a philosophical stance that emphasizes human values and the importance of reason, ethics, and justice, while rejecting religious beliefs as the foundation for morality and meaning."
When you accuse someone of being a secular humanist you are accusing them of "rejecting religious dogma and supernatural beliefs."
Further you accuse me of "selective rejection of Sacred Tradition" - your words and your capitalization. That's an accusation of heresy. CCC 2089: ""Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same..."
Lastly, I do not reduce traditional to Sacred Tradition.
Fr. Kavanaugh,
Let me clarify my critique. I reiterate that I am not accusing you of disbelief in God or of consciously rejecting Church teaching. But, contrary to you, I do not take a flippant view of liturgical traditions, believing that non-essential elements can be easily dismissed.
While not strictly speaking of Sacred Tradition itself, many traditional elements do, nevertheless, flow from Sacred Tradition and reflect it. Case in point, celebration ad orientem is not a part of Sacred Tradition but does reflect Catholic teaching that the Mass is the representation of the Sacrifice on the Cross directed towards the Father. The move to celebration versus populum obscures this and gives the false impression that the Mass is primarily a communal meal, a re-presentation of the Last Supper without reference to the Cross. While I recognize that you still hold to Catholic teaching, nevertheless, the insistence on versus populum does flow from an overemphasis on the actions of the community over that of Jesus Christ. This misplaced emphasis does not flow from Catholic teaching but from an acceptance of secular humanistic priorities, this despite acceptance of Catholic teaching. This secular humanistic approach is what has driven much of the post Vatican II reform, even if Catholic dogma is still adhered to. So no, I am not accusing you of heresy, i.e., the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth, but rather of poor judgment.
The Church of Rome has declared authoritatively that the post-Vatican II "reform of the Liturgy is strictly traditional and in accordance with the ancient usage of the holy Fathers."
The above quotation is from an Apostolic Letter by Pope Saint John Paul II. Said letter constituted an exercise of Pope Saint John Paul II's Magisterium.
That letter confirmed authoritatively that which Pope Saint Paul VI had declared in regard to the reformed Mass.
Anthony, if the following is false, then I apologize to you:
It is my understanding that Anthony has labeled said teaching of Pope Saint John Paul II a mere "isolated papal statement(s)" that does not rise "to the level of Church teaching."
The undeniable fact is that the Papal declaration in question constitutes Church teaching. Said teaching has been confirmed by Pope Saint John Paul II's predecessors.
=======
Rorate Caeli reprinted today Chris Ferrara's 2005 A.D. essay in which he noted the following:
To reject the Church of Rome's authoritative teaching that the Mass has been reformed is in line with Vatican II's Sacrosanctum Concilium is to claim that our Popes have erred gravely in their authoritative interpretation of a Conciliar document. Quite a quandary."
As Holy Mother Church has taught, liturgical renewal in line with Sacrosanctum Concilium has meant that the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI "is strictly traditional and in accordance with the ancient usage of the holy Fathers."
Again, Holy Mother Church's Magisterium has confirmed Father Kavanaugh's declaration that the "NO is traditional - as traditional as the TLM. It is the mass given us by the Church as was the TLM."
=======
As we read within the Roman Missal:
Uninterrupted Tradition
6. "...the two Roman Missals, although four centuries have intervened, embrace one and the same tradition.
"...it is also understood how outstandingly and felicitously the older Roman Missal is brought to fulfillment in the later one."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
There are different levels of authority attached to Church teaching: extraordinary and universal teachings such as ex cathedra papal decrees and ecumenical councils, ordinary and universal teachings of the pope and bishops, i.e., the ordinary Magisterium, and ordinary teachings of popes and bishops. The latter, while authoritative, are not infallible. Furthermore, all of this only applies to teachings about faith and morals. The proper form of the liturgy and whether a particular reform is congruent with the mandates of Vatican II fall outside of these categories. They are matters of prudential judgement, not faith and morals. One is, therefore, completely free to disagree with the judgment of a pope or even of a council concerning such matters. You need to stop treating the pope as if he were some sort of oracle.
That’s not accurate. According to the Roman Catholic Church, all teachings from the pope are considered “safe” from error. And you aren’t free to disagree: you’re required to submit.
Marc you are incorrect:
Yes, Catholics can dissent from certain papal teachings under specific circumstances.
Dissent is generally understood as a disagreement with Church teachings, particularly those that are not infallible. Here are some key points regarding dissent:
Types of Teachings
Infallible Teachings: These are doctrines that are considered definitive and must be accepted by all Catholics. Dissent from these teachings is not permissible.
Non-Infallible Teachings: Catholics may express dissent from teachings that are not declared infallibly, especially if they believe these teachings do not align with their understanding of faith and morals
.
Respectful Dissent
Dissent should be approached with respect and a spirit of dialogue. It is possible for Catholics to disagree with the application of teachings while still maintaining a commitment to the core tenets of the faith
.
Public vs. Private Dissent
Public dissent, especially on significant moral issues, can lead to scandal and confusion within the Church. Therefore, while private dissent may be more acceptable, public dissent should be handled with caution
Father Anthony,
You are not dealing with a priest, steeped in logic. This is what he votes for routinely:
BREAKING: A nursing facility operated by Catholic nuns is SUING the State of NY over a law requiring them to affirm a patient's made-up name and pronouns, and allow men to invade the women's restroom.
The nuns argue that the law directly violates their religious rights and compels them to act against their faith.
I think Vatican I and Vatican II don’t support what your AI summary says.
And unhelpfully to you, there’s no infallible list of your infallible teachings, so you have to play Protestant and figure that out for yourself anyway.
Oh my Marc, you must have missed my RCIA class on the different levels of papal teachings and how there can be respectful dissent. As far as playing Protestant, I’ll take your experience in that given that you belong to a protesting schismatic Church, but thankfully with Apostolic Succession, though tainted by those who protest the authority of the pope in all things, which the Catholic Church clearly condemns, but Protestants and protestants don’t.
Anthony - You say "I reiterate that I am not accusing you of disbelief in God or of consciously rejecting Church teaching."
That is EXACTLY what you did when on March 24th you said, "Fr. Kavanaugh, your position, with its selective rejection of Sacred Tradition, is not Christian humanism but secular humanism."
Secular humanists reject belief in God. I do not reject belief in God, so your accusation is false.
Mass celebrated versus populum reflects Catholic teaching that the Mass is the representation of the Sacrifice on the Cross directed towards the Father. The Father isn't "here" or "there," so facing "this" way or "that" way is not facing the Father who is, by definition, omnipresent.
You say, "So no, I am not accusing you of heresy, i.e., the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth"
That is exactly what you did when you said on March 24th when you said, "Fr. Kavanaugh, your position, with its selective rejection of Sacred Tradition, is not Christian humanism but secular humanism."
Selective rejection of Sacred Tradition is heretical.
As you can see in what I wrote, I am referring to the different levels of papal teachings. There's no nothing in Roman Catholic teaching that supports the idea that the pope could promulgate something harmful as that would undermine the way you all understand the indefectibility of the church.
You could dissent from something less than a papal teaching -- something non-doctrinal. But you cannot dissent from a teaching involving faith and morals.
Again, the issue you have is that no one can authoritatively tell you which teachings involve faith and morals and which ones don't. So you are left to use your own judgment (Protestant-style) to figure that out for yourself. And you'd have to, in the first place, use your own judgment to figure out what the teaching it.
Roman Catholicism is just Protestantism with more texts to pour through.
Post a Comment