WHEREIN THERE WASN’T ANYTHING WRONG WITH THE PRE-VATICAN II CHAPEL, BUT WRECKOVATED BY THE JESUITS, NONE THE LESS, AND THEN LATER A NEW RENOVATIOIN BY THE JESUITS AND MUCH MORE TASTEFUL, JUST ADD AN ALTAR RAILING, NEW ALTAR AND AMBO…
Madonna della Strada Chapel at Loyola, Chicago:
First iteration:
Second iteration:
Third iteration:
30 comments:
Good Heavens, what a difference! Keep praying, folks, we're winning.
They had to spend a small fortune to show their dedication to "noble simplicity and poverty!"
FYI, the original orientation of the altar was to the east; which the liturgical deformers apparently ignored when wreckovating the chapel
It's nice. Not sure what the colonnade adds other than it takes up space and establishes space. If not there, the tabernacle would look more easily knocked over as it's just plunked down on a pedestal. The original, hard to see as it's grainy, was likely the best iteration.
Candles tastefully arranged on the floor, Father! But the false pillars add nothing to the improvement.
With Father McDonald's permission:
In keeping with the topic of liturgy, Larry Chapp has offered the following:
-- Pope Leo Stands Above the ‘Liturgy Wars’
https://www.ncregister.com/commentaries/chapp-pope-leo-stands-above-liturgy-wars
=======
Mister Chapp's above article contains speculation, as well as facts, in regard to Pope Leo XIV and liturgy.
I will focus upon Mister Chapp's presentation of facts.
Mister Chapp noted factually Pope Leo XIV's unwavering support for the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI, Traditionis Custodes...
...as well as Pope Leo XIV's clear teaching, in line with our Holy Father's predecessors, that the reformed Holy Mass is in wonderful continuity with Sacrosanctum Consilium/Holy Tradition.
Larry Chapp declared that Pope Leo XIV has affirmed in unmistakable fashion:
"Namely, the Mass of Paul VI is here to stay, there is nothing essentially wrong with it, it does indeed evince a continuity with tradition, and it faithfully implements the liturgical principles articulated at the Council."
Mister Chapp noted that Pope Leo XIV has made it clear that "the Mass of Paul VI is in full accord with the tradition of the Church."
Mister Chapp noted that during last week's General Audience, Pope Leo XIV declared:
"The liturgical reform promoted by the Second Vatican Council is thus firmly rooted in the living tradition of the Church."
In regard to that, Mister Chapp's presentation of facts has shattered the ridiculous portrayal of Pope Leo XIV as a ventriloquist's dummy.
That is, certain folks, such as Dom Alcuin Reid, had pretended that Pope Leo XIV parroted simply that which the "drafters" of his declaration in question had wished to hear.
Certain folks are in denial in regard to Pope Leo XIV's powerful promotion of the liturgical vision that his Vatican II predecessors, other than Pope Benedict XVI in a certain manner, had evinced.
That is true in particular in regard to Pope Francis' liturgical vision, to which Pope Leo XIV has demonstrated a strong attachment.
That does not mean that Pope Leo XIV has rejected in totality Pope Benedict XVI's liturgical vision.
That which Pope Leo XIV has favored clearly is the approach that has flowed from Pope Francis' wonderful Traditionis Custodes — the brilliant document that Pope Leo XIV has claimed as his.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
What MT Suit fails to mention is that TLM attendance continues to grow while Novus Ordo attendance continues to drop. Chapp's article is very simpleton and ignores the elephant in the room
You read the word salad ?
I did!
One last point. The first picture shows a full Church on Sunday, obviously pre-Vatican II!
I had noted that Mister Larry Chapp's National Catholic Register article in question offers speculation, as well as facts.
Example of speculation:
Mister Chapp noted that in regard to Pope Leo XIV and the topic of liturgy:
"His comments have now been parsed from several quarters looking for clues as to what direction he will go when it comes to the contentious issues swirling in the so-called “liturgy wars.”
I will leave it to others to pretend that they have deciphered this, or that, "clue" in question.
I will focus instead upon Pope Leo XIV's clear messages, as noted by Mister Chapp, in regard to liturgy.
Mister Chapp's most important factual points is that Pope Leo XIV has made the following clear...undeniably clear:
"The Mass of Paul VI was not the product of Freemason infiltration or of a secret desire to make it Protestant.
"It is the Mass of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, promulgated by one pope and reaffirmed by several others.
"It is orthodox and filled with the graces needed for salvation, and not in spite of itself, but because of its altogether laudable turn to the vernacular and to the active participation of the faithful."
"...the new Mass is perfectly orthodox, in line with the tradition, in line with the conciliar call for a reformed liturgy, and is the ordinary form of the Mass for 99% of the world’s Catholics."
"And so any fantasy-camp thinking that it is in need of being replaced is just a hopeless enterprise.
"That is the message of Pope Leo."
=======
That is Pope Leo XIV's undeniable message.
His Holiness has distanced himself light years from liturgical warmongers who battle against the Holy Ghost-guided liturgical reform — the liturgical reform which, in line with Vatican II, him above the
which, in line with Vatican II, has produced the holy, orthodox, renewed Mass.
As Pope Leo XVI declared recently, and noted with great importance by Mister Larry Chapp:
"The liturgical reform promoted by the Second Vatican Council is thus firmly rooted in the living tradition of the Church."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
The liturgical reform promoted by Vatican II might be firmly rooted in the living tradition of the Church but what came afterwards, and what we are living under now, is not. It is a betrayal of what Vatican II called for.
Pope Leo XIV has made it clear that Sacrosanctum Consilium, as well as the reformed Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI that resulted from the subsequent liturgical reform, are rooted in Holy Tradition.
The True Church has rejected the claim that the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI has betrayed the Council's liturgical vision.
In the same sentence, Pope Leo XIV identified the "Vatican II Mass" (his words), as "the Mass of Paul VI" (his words).
Pope Saint John Paul II:
From: VICESIMUS QUINTUS ANNUS
"...the reform of the Liturgy is strictly traditional and in accordance with “the ancient usage of the holy Fathers”.(18).
Footnote 18 referenced the "Roman Missal, Preface, 6."
From 1969 A.D. to date, Holy Mother Church has taught that the Mass has been "Renewed by Decree of the Most Holy Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican."
Pope Francis:
"On the basis of these principles a reform of the liturgy was undertaken, with its highest expression in the Roman Missal, published in editio typica by St. Paul VI and revised by St. John Paul II.
"It must therefore be maintained that the Roman Rite, adapted many times over the course of the centuries according to the needs of the day, not only be preserved but renewed “in faithful observance of the Tradition”.
"Whoever wishes to celebrate with devotion according to earlier forms of the liturgy can find in the reformed Roman Missal according to Vatican Council II all the elements of the Roman Rite, in particular the Roman Canon which constitutes one of its more distinctive elements."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark Thomas, Pope Benedict held a different opinion. Additionally, you are ignoring the great gulf between how the new Mass was promulgated and how it is actually celebrated in your typical parish.
And while Pope Francis was mostly correct in his statement that whoever wishes to celebrate with devotion according to earlier forms of the liturgy can find in the reformed Roman Missal all the elements of the Roman Rite, as I have repeated many times, this form of the new Mass in not allowed. Until the restrictions that prevent this form of the new Mass are lifted such a claim is a red herring and it is dishonest to keep claiming that this is an alternative.
Father Anthony, in regard to the question of dishonesty:
You need to take that up with Pope Leo XIV as he had offered to trads the Roman liturgical tradition via the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI.
"The question about, people always say ‘the Latin Mass.’ Well, you can say Mass in Latin right now. If it’s the Vatican II rite there’s no problem.
"...if we celebrate the Vatican II liturgy in a proper way, do you really find that much difference between this experience and that experience (the TLM)?"
=======
In regard to the Mass:
That which certain folks claim that Joseph Ratzinger had stated supposedly as Cardinal, differed greatly from his teachings as Pope.
Pope Benedict XVI upheld Church teaching that the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI conformed to the Roman liturgical tradition.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
If you review the comments I have made here over the years I have always said that I would accept the new Mass without the restrictions that are now imposed place. I have also stated that I believe that such a Mass would satisfy most traditionalists even if, like me, they still had a preference for the old Mass. You will also notice that my criticism is mostly directed at the restricted form of the new Mass, not at what has officially been promulgated.
The problem, and the lie, is that I cannot always say the new Mass in Latin right now. And it is not just Latin; there are other valid options in the new Mass that are de facto forbidden. Until all of these restrictions on the new Mass are lifted your advocating for the "Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI" is a charade. Such a Mass is not available to the faithful. Call to account those who are preventing a traditional form of the new Mass and your words would carry some weight.
Father Anthony, I appreciate your comments in regard to the lack of opportunities to offer "a traditional" Latin Mass via the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI.
Pope Leo XIV offered such a Mass to folks who long for "traditional" Roman liturgy. We should have every reason to trust Pope Leo XIV in regard to the sincerity of his proposal in question.
Therefore, is up to Pope Leo XIV to exercise his awesome authority to at least attempt to provide such Masses to his spiritual children who desire that form of worship.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Father Anthony, I question whether such a Mass would "satisfy most traditionalists even if, like me, they still had a preference for the old Mass."
A disturbing problem among various trads is the hatred that exists for the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI — even when offered in "traditional" fashion.
Archbishop Cordileone has portrayed trads — not all — as folks who would not hesitate to break communion with Rome to worship via, if you will, the "true" Mass (the TLM).
Fortunately, he noted that there are trads, young trads in particular, who have embraced "traditional" Novus Ordo Masses.
However, Father Zuhlsdorf, for example, rejected recently your, as well as Archbishop Cordileone's, claims in question.
Father Zuhlsdorf:
"...many diocesan bishops and others who think that people only want more “cow bell”, i.e., incense, ad orientem, lace, Latin, servers in cassocks, bells, a certain style of vestment, etc."
"Hence, they should be perfectly content with the Novus Ordo dressed up in all those things. This is wrong of course..."
That is the disturbing extent to which a great many trads have become radicalized against the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI, even when offered in "traditional" form, according to Father Zuhlsdorf.
Is he correct about that?
Pax.
Mark Thomas
By why focus only on the most extreme traditionalists? Where is your equal concern with the extreme liberals? Where is your criticism of a frequent poster here who is the epitome of those who reject the Church's discipline on the liturgy by restricting the approved options for a traditional form of the new Mass? Until these restrictions are removed it is dishonest to call for people to accept the new Mass in favor of the old.
Father Anthony, in regard to my supposed focus upon "extreme traditionalists" — a claim that I dismiss:
Such folks/groups as the SSPX, Peter Kwasniewski, Rorate Caeli, Michael Matt/The Remnant, to name just a few such folks/groups, have long engaged in vicious verbal assaults against the Council, Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI, our Vatican II Era Popes...
The above groups/folks enjoy a collective substantial following among trads.
=======
In addition to the above:
Archbishop Cordileone had portrayed recently the following as reality within the trad community: Unless granted the TLM, trads would not hesitate to "seek spiritual nourishment outside of the family in union with Rome. They will do that."
Father Zuhlsdorf declared recently that even when the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI is replete with "incense, ad orientem, lace, Latin, servers in cassocks, bells, a certain style of vestment, etc."...
...trads would refuse to worship via that holy Mass in question.
Archbishop Chaput:
"And it’s my personal experience that many people who are attached to the Tridentine form simultaneously reject many parts of the Council, and I think that’s a very bad thing.
"Now I also know many Catholics who love the Tridentine form and go to it faithfully who accept the Council.
"But for many of the people – you don’t have to scratch them very hard before they bleed anti-Council thoughts and sentiments.
"Because in my personal experience as a bishop, it is true that many of the younger seminarians and younger priests were beginning to distance themselves from the Council, not only on the teachings of liturgy, but also other things and somehow abandoning the Council to the dustbin of history rather than as the chief gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church of our time."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Once again, and yes, again and again and again, I remind you the greatest threat to Church unity are not those you carp about, but rather the progressives in the Church, like most of the Jesuit order, which long skin should have been excommunicated. Then there are about 98% of the 5 to 15 % of Catholics who still attend Mass that would love to see women ordained (and any gender that is claimed) as well as any gender marriage and maybe 98% of the 5 to 15% who attend Mass who don’t believe in Transubstantiation. The majority of those attending Mass experience a Mass where there is a casual approach to the Paul VI’s Mass as well as grave liturgical abuses. Most “radical” traditionalists feel that Paul VI’s Mass is a lost cause because the Liturgy Wars never successfully motivated any bishop of pope to clamp down on how poorly the Paul VI Mass is celebrated—because it is not celebrated by the Book. Your silence about the majority of Catholics in the Church who are so-called non-traditionalists indicates that you agree with the majority who hate the Paul VI Mass because they refuse to celebrate it properly.
Mark Thomas, what you and others leave out of your criticism of traditionalists is that their view of both Vatican II and the new Mass is colored by their experience of a distorted view of both that has been presented by the liberals for the past sixty years. When people claim that others reject Vatican II what they really mean is that they reject the liberal interpretation of Vatican II. In truth, one that most are reluctant to admit, is that Vatican II defined no new doctrines. In other words, there is nothing new in Vatican II to reject.
As for criticism of the new Mass, you are presenting it as if it has been revealed by God and to reject it is a rejection of the faith. The particular form that the liturgy should take is a matter of discipline, not doctrine. And just as the reform itself came about because of criticism of the old Mass, the new Mass is also open to legitimate criticism.
Instead of your fixation on what extreme traditionalists hold, why not join Fr. McDonald and me in trying to promote a form of the new Mass that is faithful to Vatican II and is in continuity with the old? Stop trying to delegitimize the entire traditionalist movement with the voices of the most extreme.
I agree that such folks/groups as the SSPX, Peter Kwasniewski, Rorate Caeli, as well as Michael Matt/The Remnant, are extremists. That is the major league problem in regard to Trad Inc. Everywhere one turns, one encounters extremism.
The above folks/groups enjoy a collective vast following among trads.
In addition to the above trad heavyweights, we have that SSPX offshoot, as well as LifeSiteNews, CRMI, Mundabor, on and on.
As Peter Kwasniewski has acknowledged, "...I do see it reappearing in the traditional movement, along with other -isms (e.g., antisemitism, libertarianism, sedevacantism) that are incompatible with Catholic tradition."
"The revival of traditional liturgical practice has permitted the reappearance of some extreme points of view that deserve refutation."
The are many holy Catholics among trads. Unfortunately, extremists also abound among trads...and I mean abound.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
The problem of extremists within the traditionalist community is nothing compared to the extremists from the liberals who have been controlling, and still control, the liturgy for the past sixty years. And yet I hear not one word from you complaining about them. And why always interject comments about them as if they were representative of the entire traditionalist movement? I am actually in a Latin Mass parish and the vast majority of the parishioners just want to be left alone and be allowed to worship as their ancestors did for over a thousand years.
I have denounced over the years here liberal-generated spiritual destruction inflicted, in my opinion, upon the Church.
=======
I realize that the SSPX, Peter Kwasniewski, Rorate Caeli...do not represent the entire traditionalist movement.
Nevertheless, the folks/groups I listed enjoy substantial followings among trads.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Your definition of extremists is too broad. An extremist would be one who would reject the validity of the new Mass outright, not someone who prefers the old and wishes to see the two side-by-side. The new Mass came about because of criticisms of the old. It is just as legitimate to criticize the new.
One could counter that your definition of extremists is too narrow.
=======
It may be that the definition of "extremism" is similar to that of beauty — in the eye of the beholder.
There are plenty of folks, including, unfortunately, Catholics, who believe that the Church is extremist in regard to Her teachings on abortion, artificial birth control, in vitro fertilization, same-sex marriage, the rights of migrants, death penalty...
The many trads who support the SSPX, The Remnant, Rorate Caeli, Peter Kwasniewski, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò...believe that said groups/folks are mainstream...in continuity with Holy Tradition.
Anyway, you stand by your opinions regarding Trad Inc. I stand by my opinions of Trad Inc.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Just as those who would reject the new Mass out of hand are and wish to impose the old Mass on everyone are extremists, so are those who reject the old Mass and insist on imposing the new Mass on everyone. So what if there are those who prefer to worship as their ancestors did for over 1500 years? What skin is that off your nose? It is time to end the divisions in the Church by being tolerant of one another.
In regard to the imposition of "the new Mass on everyone":
None other than the author of Summorum Pontificum, Pope Benedict XVI, declared:
"Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books.
"The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness."
The above had made clear the tremendous level of spiritual value and holiness that Pope Benedict XVI had assigned to the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI.
An attempt by a trad community to kick the holy Novus Ordo to the curb, which, unfortunately, various trads desire, would nullify full communion with the True Church.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Post a Comment