THE FRUITS OF THE RECENT RECOVERY OF THE 1970’S SPIRIT OF VATICAN II AND THE MELTDOWN AT THE JESUITS

Pope Francis in audience with fellow Jesuit, Fr. Marko Ivan Rupnick

As I have written before and will write again, the Church as a divine institution will survive the bad management of popes, bishops and priests as well as superiors of religious orders. 

We know that even Pope Benedict and also Pope St. John Paul II had to know about the now laicized former Cardinal, McCarrick and his total corruption and unspeakable abuse of seminarians and other vulnerable boys/teenagers/men in the Catholic Church. The Vatican gave a very unsatisfactory apologetic for it and no one in high places suffered any consequences in the form of justice.

And now, a case, another case, involving a well-known Jesuit, Fr. Marko Ivan Rupnik, looks like a “come to Jesus” moment for the Jesuit Order who has a very famous Jesuit in the highest place possible in the Church, Pope Francis, SJ.

Unfortunately, again, Pope Francis seems to be showing abundant mercy toward a sexual predator similar to the case of Bishop Zanchetta, the first priest  Pope Francis elevated to bishop. That case, along with the case concerning Fr. Rupnik begs for transparency from the pope and what seems to be his willingness to forgive and forget the foibles of some priests and bishops, especially if they court favor with the pope, but not with others. 

It is this kind of hypocrisy and corruption that weakens the Church and pushes Catholics away from the practice of the faith, more so than clown Masses of the post-Vatican II era. 

Edward Pentin has a good, thorough article on the Fr. Rupnik Case HERE, WHICH YOU CAN READ IN FULL, but below is the conclusion of his longer article:

‘Be as Transparent as Possible’

Asked whether the Society of Jesus could be more transparent about the Father Rupnik allegations, Jesuit Father Hans Zollner, director of Interdisciplinary Studies on Human Dignity and Care at the Pontifical Gregorian University, told the Register Dec. 9, “I don’t know whether anything more from the society’s side was possible in this case.” 

The Jesuit priest, who has been at the forefront of instituting safeguarding procedures regarding clerical abuse cases, said he expects “the same from the Society of Jesus as from all others in the Church: to be as transparent as possible.”

But his Jesuit confrere, Father Gianfranco Matarrazzo, a former Jesuit Provincial of the Euro-Mediterranean Province, expressed considerable anger over how the allegations have been handled. In Dec. 7 comments on Twitter, he wrote: “With all my limitations, I am trying to give my life to the Catholic Church through the Jesuits. The mortifying dichotomy ‘conservative or progressive’ has never belonged to me. But it has to be said: the ‘Rupnik case’ is a tsunami of injustice, lack of transparency, questionable management, dysfunctional activity, personalised work, apostolic community sacrificed to the leader and unequal treatment.” 

He added that the Dec. 2 Jesuit statement “relaunches this tsunami” that is “a paradigmatic case of justice denied” where “not even the alleged perpetrator has been helped.” The result is “deadly damage to the Jesuit Order, but even more so to Holy Mother Church,” he continued, and gave suggestions on what he believed needed to be done. These included accepting “full responsibility and consequences,” offering a “detailed reconstruction of everything that happened,” convening a press conference to “answer all questions in a transparent manner,” opening up the archives, and having Father Zollner “take a stand on his Order.”

For his part, the Holy Father has remained silent about the matter, even though the allegations regarding Father Rupnik and the Pope’s alleged intervention came to light only days after he affirmed in his Nov. 24 interview with the Jesuit journal America that transparency must be a central characteristic of how clergy abuse allegations are addressed. 

Asked whether this principle should be applied as strongly in cases involving bishops as it is with respect to priests, Francis replied, “Yes, and here I believe we have to go forward with equal transparency. If there is less transparency, it is a mistake.”

THE BLOG “WHERE PETER IS” A SUPER ULTRA MONTANE BLOG, BELIEVES THAT POPE FRANCIS DESIRE TO CRUSH THE TRADITIONAL LATIN MASS WAS INSPIRED BY TAYLOR MARSHALL WHO PULLED OFF AN ILLEGAL STUNT IN ROME DURING THE AMAZON SYNOD AND HAD A PACHAMAMA STATUE STOLEN FROM A CHURCH AND THROWN INTO THE TIBER RIVER!

We know that Pope Francis believes traditionalists to be mentally compromised and rigid and therefore need psychological therapy in order to be accompanied to the synodal Church of what’s happening now. 

That’s a stereotype of the pope, but with all stereotypes, there is an element of truth in it.

But, the blog, “Where Peter is” is making an incredible claim that Pope Francis clamped down on the TLM because of Taylor Marshall. WPI thinks that he conspired with the man who stole the pachamama statute in a Roman Church and threw it into the Tiber River and had it videotaped. This happened during the Amazon Synod. 

We all know that this illegal and immoral act was condemned by the Vatican and made Pope Francis furious. But who knew that Taylor Marshall is the reason for Pope Francis clamping down on the TLM?!?

Let’s be clear here. The German bishops are calling for a new Church that allows for sexual immorality such as homosexual sex freely experienced, same sex and non-binary sexual partners receiving Church blessings and marriage and that Scripture and Tradition are wrong about abortion, homosexuality and chastity. 

They want all of these things recognized by the Church, things that are illegal in some places and historically considered immoral by the Church. 

I don’t condone breaking into Church and stealing statues to destroy them, but if immorality is to be considered moral now, by the Germans, it doesn’t take a leap to say that vandalism and theft can be seen moral too. 

Btw, I believe theft and vandalism are immoral as well as what the German Church is promoting. 

Read the incredible “Where Peter is” commentary on Taylor Marshall. Btw, I never read or watch Taylor Marshall—it’s a waste of time:

COMMENTARY

DECEMBER 8, 2022

 BY MIKE LEWIS

Taylor Marshall, traditionalist scapegoat?

I LIKE IT! I LIKE IT! NO! I LOVE IT!

 The National Shrine at the World Trade Center Greek Orthodox Saint Nicholas Church just opened. It was recently completed after the previous church was destroyed when the Twin Towers collapsed upon it in 2001.

It is the Greek Orthodox Church’s version of modern architecture and I must say it is stunning. 

As everyone knows, I am eclectic in my tastes as it concerns church architecture. I love the modern cathedral in San Francisco and the one in Oakland, CA. I loved the classic and modern blend of my former church in Richmond Hill, St. Anne’s. 

This one, Greek Orthodox, takes the cake. I love it.

See a brief Facebook video HERE, PRESS HERE! IT IS WELL WORTH THE WATCH…

DIALOGUE WITH THOSE WHO LOVE THE MODERN ROMAN MISSAL AND WITH THOSE WHO LOVE THE ANCIENT ROMAN MISSAL IS A NECESSITY NOW MORE THAN EVER

 

Pope Francis has been the pope of dialogue, except of course, when he isn’t and that dialogue with traditionalists and those concerned about the direction in which His Holiness is leading the Church is being shut-down by His Holiness himself. A bit of a paradox, no?

But, at face value, dialogue when it is mutual and respectful is a good thing and it is needed more than ever between orthodox Catholics who are on either side of tradition, the old way and the new way, especially liturgically.

As everyone knows, I love both forms of the Mass and think that both forms can co-exist in the same parish as long as the pastor loves both forms of the Mass and tries to keep harmony and unity amongst those in the same parish who love either/or or both/and.

One of the problems I see with those who love the TLM exclusively is that their apologetic is based upon denigrating the Modern Roman Missal even when it is celebrated with dignity, reverence, awe and wonder. That is very unfortunate and does not in any way promote the more liberal use of the TLM in the Church. 

The same happens with those who love a well celebrated Modern Roman Missal Mass. They dig up abuses that occurred prior to Vatican II to justify why the new and “improved” Mass is so much better. That does nothing to promote unity in the Church, correct?

Bishop John Stowe of Lexington, Kentucky recently said this about the Modern Mass:

Catholics across the globe have become more familiar with the word of God in sacred Scripture, have cherished "full, conscious and active participation" in the liturgy, have slowly recognized a need to be evangelizers, have appreciated the importance of a well-formed conscience, have engaged in deep dialogue with fellow Christians and other religious traditions, have rediscovered baptism as the foundational sacrament and enjoyed many other gifts that resulted from the council. 

Each of these developments, from the restoration of the ancient kiss of peace in the Mass to elevated role of the laity, can be a doorway to renewing the priority of working for peace in the mission of the church.

My final comments: What Bishop Stowe says is true about the post-Vatican II Mass but for only a very small percentage of those who actually attend the Modern Roman Missal Mass. If Bishop Stowe actually quoted some polls and statistics concerning the modern Mass he would know that for a number of reasons, the good things he gushes about are not evenly distributed throughout the Modern Roman Mass Communities. 

That only 10% of Catholics bother to attend any type of Mass should be a major heartburn for Bishop Stowe and other bishops to include the Bishop of Rome. And that of the 10% who do attend Mass, more than half don’t believe what the Church teaches about the Mass, about Holy Communion or about anything what the Church teaches, believes and proclaims to be revealed by God. 

I would dare say, based upon statistical evidence, that the small minority who attend the TLM exclusively, that 100% of those Catholics embrace without confusion what the Church believes, teaches and proclaims to be revealed by God. That is important to point out and ask why this is so and what is it about Traditionalist communities and their evangelization efforts that is so good and ontologically effective? 

CONFUSION REIGNS IN THE CHURCH AND NOW EVEN THE PROGRESSIVE PRESS IS POINTING IT OUT AND ALL THIS CONFUSION IS COMING FROM THE HIGHEST REALMS OF ROME…

 

These two articles, the first from the National Catholic Reporter and the second from Crux, are linked together by one common word—CONFUSION—in the official statements and policies of the current pontificate. The buck, so to speak, stops at the top..

This confusion is mostly political and concerns wrong-headed diplomacy—but confused moral teachings are at fault too, in Rome:

Ukraine's foreign minister: Vatican must 'call a spade a spade' when speaking on Russia

EXCERPT:

But, he cautioned, the Vatican must avoid any confusion or misunderstandings on where they stand on Russia. 

Be it the Holy See or any other country, he said that nations cannot continue to insist on the concept of the necessity of peace among the brotherhood between Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians. 

"We are not brothers," he said. "If Russia continues to exist to insist on the concept of brotherhood, it's the Cain versus Abel kind of brotherhood. They [Russia] came to kill to rape and to violate all the laws of God on the land of Ukraine."

___

This confusion because it strikes at the heart of Catholic moral teachings, at solemnly defined teachings at that, is nothing short of a scandal and that a lay theologian has the guts to say it speaks volumes. Warning, the truth presented by this lay theologian might be difficult for sensitive eyes and ears:

Catholic academic blasts Vatican’s Academy for Life as ’embarrassing’

Excerpt:

He also condemned what he said are efforts by some theologians to legitimize practices such as contraception, homosexual relations, and in vitro fertilization, and to change “the paradigm of moral theology,” calling this “embarrassing” and saying the academy for life is “not adult enough” to stand up for the value of the Church’s position on these issues.

WHILE I DON’T ALWAYS AGREE WITH DR. PETER KWASNIEWSKI’S RHETORIC, I DO AGREE WITH THIS COMMENTARY IN 1PETER5 IS VERY GOOD AND WELL WORTH THE READ!

 

BY THE WAY, DR. PETER KWASNIEWSKI IS GIVING A LECTURE AT SACRED HEART CHURCH IN SAVANNAH TONIGHT, FRIDAY, DECEMBER 9TH AT 6:30 PM. HIS TOPIC IS “WHAT’S REALLY REQUIRED FOR A ‘EUCHARISTIC REVIVAL: RETHINKING HOW WE APPROACH THE HOLY EUCHARIST”

BE THERE OR BE SQUARE, BUT IN THE MEAN TIME, READ THIS EXCELLENT COMMENTARY:

LITURGY

“Easy Virtue”: Comfort and Ease as Basic Givens of the Liturgical Reform

 Peter Kwasniewski, PhD December 8, 2022

WOW! SOMEWHAT HETERODOX JESUIT FATHER THOMAS REESE, FORMER EDITOR OF AMERICA MAGAZINE, CRITICIZES POPE FRANCIS, A FELLOW JESUIT

 

Father Thomas Reese, SJ basically parrots what LaCroix and Robert Mickens have already written about Pope Francis’ mental acuity and incoherence. But it is good that Jesuit Father Reese emphasizes  this, especially when it comes from the progressive cabal of the Church, the NCR and Fr. Reese, both stuck in the 1960’s. 

While Fr. Reese does raise his concerns about the way too much talking this pope does and off-the-cuff, not well thought-out and often incoherent and confusing, he bitterly complains that this pope, like every pope before him explains, although Pope Francis does so feebly, why women can’t be ordained to Holy Orders and why bishop conferences are a monster and Catholics should just listen to their own bishop who has authority from God, conferences don’t as God didn’t create bishops’ conferences. 

Heterodox Fr. Reese couldn’t stomach the pope saying this.

You can read the full NCR commentary by Fr. Reese, SJ here:

Does the pope need an editor?

MONEY BYTE:

The pope's interview last month with America, the Jesuit journal, was a textbook example of why the Vatican does not want the pope doing interviews. The pope poked the Russian bear in the nose, gave a convoluted response to why women cannot be priests and even had a muddled response to a question on racism in the United States.

If I had been his press secretary, I would have been pulling my hair out during much of the interview. I would have wanted to edit the text before it was published.

My coherent comments:

By the way, I think the best reason why the Church can’t call women to the Sacrament of Holy Orders was given by Pope St. John Paul II when he said and with true humility that neither he or a future pope or an ecumenical council in union with the pope has the authority to change this teaching as it is a part of th Ordinary Magisterium of the Church! This is perfect because it emphasizes that God is the ultimate authority in these things not the pope or an ecumenical council! This kind of think from Pope St. John Paul II is an antidote to clericalism which is a greater sin of progressives than of traditionalists!

AS A RECOVERING ULTRA MONTANE CATHOLIC, I APPRECIATE APOLOGETICS WHEN IT COMES TO POPES BUT NOW MY MORE NUANCED RESPECT FOR THE PAPACY ALSO ALLOWS FOR HEALTHY CRITIQUE OF POPES AND EVEN ECUMENICAL COUNCILS…

 

Only God is God, popes, the Church, ecumenical councils and theology aren’t God but can become gods. 

I agree with every thing that Bishop John Stowe said in a speech he gave for Pax Christi in Rome. However, as a critique or using critical thinking, I wish he would also show a bit more critical thinking when gushing about what we can do, be it a pope, bishop or laity. Critical thinking helps to avoid “clericalism” which even laity can be, but also to avoid abuse of every kind that gods can and do carry out.

No one is above critique, except God of course. But gods, they need our critical thinking. Critical thinking can neutralize the potential for spiritual, physical, sexual and moral abuse. It can condition clericalism, which basically places gods on the same level as God.

Here is Bishop Stowe’s full article that is good, but needs critique:

Bishop John Stowe celebrates Pope Francis' renewal of peacemaking in the church

Here is the money byte of Bishop Stow with my critique of up below it:

Setting aside the liturgical battles, the "letter vs. the spirit" and the resourcement and aggiornamento interpretations, Catholics across the globe have become more familiar with the word of God in sacred Scripture, have cherished "full, conscious and active participation" in the liturgy, have slowly recognized a need to be evangelizers, have appreciated the importance of a well-formed conscience, have engaged in deep dialogue with fellow Christians and other religious traditions, have rediscovered baptism as the foundational sacrament and enjoyed many other gifts that resulted from the council. 

Each of these developments, from the restoration of the ancient kiss of peace in the Mass to elevated role of the laity, can be a doorway to renewing the priority of working for peace in the mission of the church.

My comments: What the good bishop writes is good and I accept it. But he does not acknowledge what has happened since Vatican II and the chaos of its aftermath which itself created grave polarization in the Church, a huge segment who wanted to moderate change in the Church to keep the Church in continuity with what preceded; a smaller group that wanted no changes whatsoever and a much larger group that wanted everything to change so that we would have a different Church without defined doctrines and dogmas. 

Pope Francis has reignited this polarization in a way not seen since about 1968. That deserves critique! 

And the other thing that deserves critique is gushing about a theology of liturgical renewal and what has happened in the last 60 years liturgically. Today in many places, especially the northeast and in Europe, less that 10% of Catholics attend Mass and are active in the Church. That has implications for evangelization. You can gush all you want over liturgical reform and in theory how great that is. But when even the 10% who attend Mass you have more than half of them not believing in the real presence or the Mass as Sacrifice, that needs critique! 

Bishop Stowe??????

IT IS TIME FOR CATHOLICS TO STOP USING THE TERM MARRIAGE, WITHOUT THE MODIFIER HOLY AND SACRAMENT

 

It wasn’t the end of the world when states began to recognize divorce. It wasn’t the end of the world when states allowed those who were divorced to get married again. It isn’t the end of the world that civil authorities continue to define and redefine what civil marriage is and who can get married. 

Are some of the combinations of who and what can get married immoral? You bet ya!

Are these illegal in civil law? No. 

Thus, with civil authorities abandoning all reference to marriage as defined by God, religions and the Church, the Catholic Church must protect all her sacraments, Holy Matrimony being the one that is mocked the most by civil authorities and those who see civil authority as the highest authority. 

Thus there are two terms that Catholics should use for marriage that is valid in the eyes of God: Holy Matrimony, which covers those marriages sanctioned by the Church as a Sacrament or as a holy bond, such as a non-sacramental marriage between a baptized person and an unbaptized person blessed by the Church in a nuptial liturgy. 

The Sacrament of Holy Matrimony refers only to those two baptized persons married in the Catholic Church. 

I personally don’t believe we should recognize as a sacrament the marriages of Protestant sects which do not recognize marriage as a Sacrament and also follow all civil laws concerning who can be married in a civil union. That would be a great evangelization tool for those who are seeking to become Catholic and will allow for a much simpler annulment procedure if they have any previous marriages outside of the Catholic Church.

As it regards those unions recognized by the state, Catholics should simply call them legal unions or partnerships or civil marriage. 

PERSONALIZING A PRIVATE DEVOTION: KOSHER OR NOT? AND THE CATHOLIC CHURCH MODELING HERSELF/ITSELF/NON-BINARY SELF, AFTER PLANET FITNESS…

 The Synodal Catholic Church is grateful to Planet Fitness for modeling what the Catholic Church should follow—the Synodal Judgement Free Zone Church”…

Today is the solemnity of the Immaculate Conception. As is normal for me, I work out each morning at Planet Fitness, which the Church now is trying to emulate as both  are “judgment free zones”, thanks be to God.

As is also normal for me, I pray the Holy Rosary for the last 15 minutes of my 45 minute elliptical workout. Normally, I am a by-the-book person with the various mysteries of the Rosary prayed on the proper day.

But on occasion, I will make up mysteries to fit the feast day the Church is celebrating. Thus, I did so this Immaculate Conception Morning. Here are the mysteries I prayed:

1. The Immaculate Conception

2. The Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary

3. The Purification (Presentation) of the Blessed Virgin Mary

4. The Seven Sorrows of our Sorrowful Mother

5. The Assumption

Kosher or not Kosher, that is the question!
And the Church of the Planet Fitness, “no judgement zone” Kosher or not Kosher—that is the second question!

HILTON HEAD ISLAND, WHERE I LIVE AND MINISTER, ATTRACTS MANY CELEBRITIES, TWO MAJOR SITINGS RECENTLY!

 

ROBERT MICKENS QUESTIONS POPE FRANCIS’ MENTAL ACUITY BUT IS IT ONLY RECENT OR HAS THERE BEEN A DISORDER OF SOME KIND SINCE THE PAPACY BEGAN?

 

I will not pretend to be a doctor who can diagnose  the Holy Father’s poor judgement which might be based upon a mental disorder of some kind or is it an ideological disorder?

I do worry, though, that as the mental acuity issues continue and magnify, that others, all the wrong people, will step into the vacuum and continue the course of disorders present in the Church and a hostile takeover of the Church by ideologues of the left wing, both political and religious.

But in terms of a lack of clear thinking from Pope Francis, we know that the orthodox cardinals, bishops, clergy and laity have decried from the beginning of this papacy that much of what the pope says and writes is incoherent and confusing to both the academically oriented and bread and butter Catholics.

Perhaps if there is a mental acuity issue of some kind, the next pope can declare that to have been the case and wipe the slate clean in terms of previous papacy’s  initiatives. Who knows?

But here is another issue concerning Pope Francis and this one is reported by the National Catholic Reporter, which has raised the alarms before and today on Russia and China and Pope Francis’ stubborn choice to continue on a path of dialogue, dialogue with the devil, if you will, that is creating suffering for so many in China and Russia and the Ukraine:

Dissidents in Russian-allied Belarus question Vatican's dialogue with authoritarians

I KNOW THAT THE POPE FIRED HIS EMINENCE, BUT THIS MAY WELL REHABILITATE HIM FOR THE PAPACY ONCE AGAIN!

 As everyone knows, I despise beyond despise what those priests and bishops, who just can’t help themselves, do at the Introductory Rite of the Mass and so does Cardinal Tagle, thanks be to God!

Good morning, good morning I said! How are you and I hope you are having a great day. It is a great day when we enter into Mass with the Scriptures that the Mass has. I won’t preach a long homily at this point, but let me point out who is in the congregation, especially those who are visiting. Can you stand and tell us you name and where you are from?

And the Scriptures, especially the Gospel, what a blessing it is to hear the words of Jesus spoken to us, and reminding us that He is God and we are not. He forgives sins and heals a man on a stretcher. Isn’t that precious. But let me stop here and let you call to mind your sins, especially against the environment and in favor of bombs and war and all that kind of violence, but especially for not recycling and for using plastics and throwing them into the sea. Pause and beg God for forgiveness.

Lord Jesus, forgive us for treating others as aliens in a foreign land. Lord have mercy.

Lord Jesus, forgive us for making the climate change. Christ have mercy.

Lord Jesus, forgive us for being too Catholic and backwards. Lord have mercy.

Well, it appears Cardinal Tagle doesn’t like these kinds of introductory rite ad libbing:

Don’t wish parishioners ‘good morning’ at the start of Mass, says Cardinal Tagle 

 Staff Reporter

July 7, 2017 at 11:45 am

Priests should not wish their parishioners “Good morning” at the beginning of Mass, according to Archbishop Luis Antonio Cardinal Tagle of Manila.

The words “The Lord be with you” are sufficient, he said.

“With all due respect, my brother-priests, I do not see the need for saying ‘Good morning’ and similar greetings when God’s Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist alone suffices,” he said.

“Is not the expression ‘The Lord be with you’ more than enough?” he asked.

Archbishop Tagle, who was speaking during his Corpus Christi Mass at the Santa Cruz Church in Manila, said that priests seem to give more emphasis on “Good morning” than on the all-important “The Lord be with you”.

Anyone can wish someone good morning, but the words “The Lord be with you” are only heard during Mass, which is why they must be emphasised, he said.

Some priests will repeat “Good morning” if they don’t hear the reply “Good morning, Father,” he said, but don’t seem at all concerned if no one responds to “The Lord be with you”.

Archbishop Tagle’s comments were posted in an article on the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines website.

The archbishop, who is often considered to be progressive rather than conservative, was appointed in 2011, and was made a cardinal in November 2012.

MY ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE OF THE PLUSES AND MINUSES OF THE PRE-VATICAN II CHURCH

 

Of course, I was a mere child but from the first time I remember the Catholic Church, around 4 years old in Atlanta, Ga which would have been around 1957, I have great memories. I’m kind of an idiot savant in that regard. So here goes:

THE PLUSES FIRST:

1. The Mass was awe inspiring, filled with sacred silence before, during and after Mass, a true sense of wonder and awe before the throne of God and a realization that God is God and we aren’t! The mystical presence of God was palpable!

2. People were filled with reverence and constantly praying, not fearful of private devotions going on as the Mass progressed—it was so edifying and a wonderful example.

3. Masses were packed but not everyone went to Holy Communion—they understand the graces of the Holy Sacrifice even if they would not receive Holy Communion at that Mass.

4. There appeared to be discipline among the clergy and the nuns and they tried to set the example in teaching us about Christ, virtue, sin, modesty and immodesty, etc

5. No one complained about their clergy, the bishop or the pope, there was unity and pride in being Catholic with our unique liturgy, devotions, customs and practices, especially fasting, abstinence and ember days, not to mention the strict discipline of the Lenten season.

6. Catholic homes were filled with prayer, devotions and sacramentals.

7.  The Catholic Church is the true Church, no if’s, and’s or or’s about it! 

8. Catholics knew the basics of the Catholic Church and her 6 precepts. They knew what the Baltimore Catechism taught.

9. Catholics knew what sin was, developed a scrupulous conscience and went to confession regular, many weekly

10. There was a clear Catholic identity, what was and what wasn’t Catholic and the same held true of the distinct identity of the priests, nuns/sisters and brothers/monks.

THE MINUSES:

1. Paternalism, not so much clericalism, was rampant and adults were treated as children 

2. Clericalism, meaning not a clear priestly identity or the authority that came with that identity, was an abuse of authority and a haughtiness as it concerned the priestly identity. It was also authoritarianism, meanness and strictness that went beyond correction to abuse. A deference offered to clergy concerning their foibles because they supposedly sacrificed so much, especially sex…

3. There was an unfortunate ignorance about the Scriptures and conversational prayer.

Can’t think of any other minuses…

TLM SPLENDOR…

 Shifty eyes, funny hat, facing God, Second Sunday of Advent at Savannah’s Sacred Heart’s TLM…

A GOOD COGNITIVE, ACADEMIC DISCUSSION OF THE TWO FORMS OF THE MASS IN THE LATIN RITE

 So much of what progressive liturgists used as their apologetic for the new Mass denigrated so much of the older Mass, including the role of the ordained priest, mysticism, reverence, etc. All of these things, seen by so many progressive liturgists as backwardism and contrary to the Holy Spirit today, are maintained in the Eastern Rites of the Church to this very day. 

There has always been a certain kind of clericalist arrogance in the Latin Rite when compared to the Eastern Rites, although the ethos of the pre-Vatican II Mass and most Eastern Rites today is almost identical. 

But progressive arrogance about the Modern Roman Missal is breathtaking especially their denigration by proxy of the Eastern Rites of the Church as well as Eastern Orthodoxy’s similar, in fact, identical liturgy. 

This is a great video:

UNDERSTANDING LITURGICAL REFORM

 

Over the last 43 years of ordination, I have tried to be an apologist for liturgical reform and why Vatican II’s bishops and their theologians felt that it was necessary. Even though there are some elements of what Pope St. Paul VI’s committee who redesigned the Mass based on what they felt, in the most clericalism sort of way, Vatican II “wanted”, which I think were misguided, I have and continue to support the modern Roman Missal when it is celebrated by the “book” and with the options allowed for it along with the styles of music allowed.

But most, not me of course, who promote the reforms of Vatican II simply don’t get why some don’t like those reforms. Why is that? Because progressives who gush over Vatican II and its misinterpretation always promote their ideology from an academic point of view, not a spiritual or mystical point of view. 

From a not academic and non-cognitive point of view, the biggest problem with the reforms of Vatican II has to do with the elimination of the mystical aspect of the Mass which then led to the loss of reverence, the two happening almost simultaneously shortly after changes in the Mass began to be introduced in 1965. 

In the desire for so many in the Church for the laity to completely understand everything about the Mass from an academic and historical perspective with different theological nuances, it was necessary to denigrate the mystical and reverence qualities of the pre-Vatican II Mass as well as the privileged priestly prayers of the priest prayed quietly. 

I would say that mysticism and reverence could be restored even to the Modern Missal without any other changes to the Missal.

1. Vernacular isn’t the problem, but the complete elimination of Latin and Greek is a problem—some parts should be mandated in Latin universally, but definitely not the changing parts. 

2. The revised order of the Mass and some of the elimination of so-call useless repetition is not the problem, but a conglomeration of too many options are. The biggest problem is making the chanted or spoken propers of the Mass, meaning the official Introit and Offertory and Communion Antiphons optional. This has led to horrible vernacular music and styles of music, some styles that eat away at mysticism and reverence. 

3. Liturgical dance is not necessarily a problem. The old Mass itself is a dance but highly choreographed. The Mass is a dance, not dance added to the Mass. The problem with dance added to the Mass is that it is alien to our liturgy and turns the dancers into entertainers which often leads to applause when they finish their number. That destroys reverence and mysticism. 

4. Prayers spoken out loud is not the problem but all prayers out loud and facing the nave confuse to whom the prayer is directed and turns the priest and others who say prayers into commentators who speak to the people before them. This eats away at mysticism and reverence. As well, sacred silence which occurs in prayer quietly prayed enhances mysticism and reverence, such as the low voice Eucharistic Prayer. 

5. Holy Communion while standing and on the move simply rushes Holy Communion for the Communicant and destroys leisure mysticism and reverence which occurs when Holy Communion is offered to kneeling communicants at the altar railing. In this case, the priest is on the move, coming t us as we await Him. The priest distributing Holy Communion represents the movement of Christ in the Holy Spirit coming to us in procession. We await Him receive Him in reverence, pause for a mystical experience and return prayerfully devout to our pew renewed by the Gift received, Jesus Christ. 

The Mass needs to be cognitively understandable but not to the point of destroying mysticism and reverence. Most celebrations of the modern Missal have little to no mysticism or reverence. 

SUPER PROGRESSIVE HETERODOX ROBERT MICKENS SOUNDS THE ALARM ABOUT POPE FRANCIS’ COGNITIVE DECLINE

Robert Mickens, writing for the progressive LaCroix and also writes for the ultra progressive Tablet, the UK’s equivalent to the National Catholic Reporter, has in the past gushed over Pope Francis and His Holiness’ 1970’s liberal Catholicism, the kind of backwardism that the pope calls out except when His Holiness doesn’t do that.

Mr. Mickens reacts to Pope Francis’ recent off-the-cuff interview with America Magazine that then caused an international incident with Russia. The pope called out two nationalities in Russia for special denigration and name-calling. Normally this is reserved for Catholic traditionalists, but here the Russians and somewhat justified, called out the stereotyping for what it is and questioned if the pope was even Christian! Keep in mind that the pope questioned if Trump was Christian when Trump said something the pope didn’t like.

And on top of that this may have caused the Russians to then hack the Vatican website last week.

Then the pope rambled on about why women can’t be priests and talked about the Petrine Ministry which forbids it but that women can find their place in the Marian ministry. The former Irish Prime Minister, Aliesse called His Holiness out on this and named him a “woman hater”. 

Then Micken dares to say what no progressive has said thus far—the pope is cognitively compromised, talks to much and should not give as many if any more interviews which always have something in them that is problematic. 

Here is the money byte from LaCroix:

 To be fair to the pope, he said some really good and encouraging things in this recent interview. But he also repeated much of the stuff that he's already said on numerous other occasions, like comparing abortion to hiring a hitman. Repetition is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, it can be an effective pedagogical tool. And it's also true that not everyone tracks the pope like the journalists who are assigned to cover him. So it's probably wise for him to repeat some of things he feels are important to every single audience or group of people he encounters.But recently Francis seems a bit "off his game", as it were. He's begun making impromptu comments that are not always that clear or articulate. For instance, he gave a rambling, off-the-cuff talk on November 12 to members of the Dicastery for Communication that was hard to make sense of.And in an aside while addressing the International Theological Commission (ITC) on November 24, he offered what he called an historical example of "indietrismo" in the Church — a Bergoglism that means always looking to the past and believing nothing should change because "we have always done it this way". The pope actually gave what seemed to be a counter-example. He pointed out an unnamed group that separated from Rome after the First Vatican Council (presumably the Old Catholics) because they were "trying to be faithful to tradition" but then ended up ordaining women. That's hardly a group that says, "We've always done it this way."

Read more at: https://international.la-croix.com/news/letter-from-rome/pope-raises-more-than-just-eyebrows-with-interviews-and-off-the-cuff-comments/16991?utm_source=NewsLetter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Mailjet_04Dec22

PRESENT & PAST…

 A friend sent me this photo. He wrote that Bishop Kevin Boland, our 88 year old retired bishop, couldn’t stop commenting on the number of servers and people present for a daily Mass for First Friday at my former parish of Saint Anne’s in Richmond Hill. He remarked it was the most servers he celebrated with, since his episcopal ordination!  He thanked the parish and commented on how this reflects highly and demonstrates the vibrancy and love we have for the Eucharist.

 Well, here is one of those “altar boys” at his 1995 episcopal ordination at our Cathedral…

35 YEAR OLD DOM LOUIS BLANC SPEAKS WITH GREAT WISDOM AND HOLDS THE VIEW THAT I HOLD AND PROMOTE—POPE EMERITUS I, AKA, BENEDICT XVI RENEWAL IN CONTINUITY AND CELEBRATING BOTH FORMS OF THE MASS AS GIVEN TO US…

Below I copy a segment of an interview published by Rorate Caeli of Dom Louis Blanc of Triors, France. He makes sense and is, like me, very conciliatory as it concerns both forms of the Mass and Sacrosanctum Concilium. 

You can read the entire interview at Rorate Caeli by pressing its title:

Interview with New Abbot of Triors, 35: Benedict XVI told me that, "in the present confusion, the important thing is to live according to the tradition." "Future belongs to those who esteem brothers with other liturgical sensibilities."

EXCERPT MONEY BYTE:

 How is the liturgy in your abbey managed in relation to the two liturgical forms and how did you receive the motu proprio Traditionis custodes?

Your question touches a sensitive point. Our abbey happily lives by the practice that comes from Fontgombault: the Roman liturgy as it is recorded in the ancient Missal. Some modifications have been made over the decades in response to the needs of the Church as expressed by Rome, especially in the beautiful Conciliar Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium.

 

When I entered Triors, I found again the atmosphere I loved in my family: unconditional love for the Church and the Pope, absolute respect for his Magisterium, and a careful liturgy. It was only after the year 2000 that I began to become aware of the liturgical debates, at a time when St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI after him had been able to restore a climate of peace. My friends live in both forms. A priest friend of mine from Emmanuel told me that he learned a lot in the abbeys about how to celebrate well. That is why I have never been peremptory on this subject, sure to be in the river of the Church's life. The motu proprio of 2021 seems to me above all a response of the Holy Father to a conflict between the caricatured bangs of the two sides.

"Nothing is more damaging to the liturgy than constant activism," said Cardinal Ratzinger (2). So I receive Traditionis custodes without revolutionizing everything, and I appreciate very much the rich reflections of the letter Desiderio desideravi.

Our bishop has expressed his esteem for me on several occasions, perceiving that we seek in the liturgy the encounter with Christ, without stiffness and deeply.

LN: Many "Trads" did not understand the reasons for this very firm text and did not recognize themselves in what Pope Francis said about those who refused the Second Vatican Council and the Mass: what would you say to these worried Christians and how do you see the future?

 

The liturgy is made for the glory of God and our holiness. It is therefore given to us by the Church.

It is important for the Church today, when some people still see the Council as a rupture - the form is new, yes, but not the substance - to have some strong signs of its continuity. Cardinal Ratzinger said in 2001: "To emphasize that there is no essential rupture, that the continuity and identity of the Church exist, it seems to me indispensable to maintain the possibility of celebrating according to the Old Missal as a sign of the Church's permanent identity" (3). This living practice of the Old Missal in its rich simplicity is also consistent with our monastic rhythm.

As for the future, I see one important thing: the caricaturists of all time have always eventually run out of steam. The future belongs to those who have esteem for their brothers of the other sensibility. I am thinking in particular of the communion that today unites the Abbots of the Solesmes Congregation. With a lot of patience, in a climate of welcome, the charism of Dom Guéranger, who in his time knew how to bring about unity in France around the Roman Missal, could manifest itself now in his sons who, all together, would bring a decisive stone to the progress towards unity.

A BALANCED APPROACH TO THE 1962 LITURGIES WITH MUTUAL ENRICHMENT

 Somehow, I intuitively believe that Pope Emeritus I, aka, Benedict XVI, and His Holiness desire that both the Modern and Ancient Roman Missals enrich each other will, in the long run, be victorious. Why do I intuit this? Because it is based upon common sense. 

This EWTN video hits the nail on the head. It also shows us that the 1962 Missal and the communities that desire it, aren’t the problem for the Church. They are the solution to the real problems. And the basis for the real problems of the Church is a lack of common sense: 

CURIOUS VATICAN NEWS HEADLINE

 

Pope Francis: Benedict XVI's theology is not for the past, but fruitful for the future

HOW ABOUT A TRINITY OF POPES FOR A TRINITY OF LATIN RITE CHURCHES?

 In my most humble evaluation of the Church today, it seems to me that we now have in the Latin Rite (this commentary excludes the Eastern Rites) three branches.

For simplification purposes, I will describe them as the Latin Rite of the "past, present and future."

For lack of a better description, we have the Rite of the past, exemplified as the backwardists, represented by the SSPX. They simply do not accept Vatican II and prefer the Church of Pope Pius XII but up to a certain year, like 1955 before the liturgical books experienced some tinkering. 

Then we have the Rite of the Church of the present interpreting Vatican II in continuity with what preceded. Thus there is a bit of backwardism and forwardism in this Rite. We can say that Pope Emeritus I also known as Benedict XVI is the head of this Church of the present as His Holiness is still living and at the Vatican to boot. 

Then we have the Church of Forwardism headed by Pope Francis I. We know where this Rite of the Church is going, the way of liberal Protestantism exemplified by the various branches of Anglicanism. It is the Church of the culture and anything goes as long as cultural dictates it and what people believe confirms it. 

Each of these three branches need a pope. Thus we will have one Latin Rite with three popes. 

Technically we already have two popes, Pope Emeritus I for the Church of Continuity and Pope Francis I for the Church of Forwardism. 

I would recommend that the SSPX join with the FSSP and other groups that prefer the Church prior to the liturgical changes of 1955 elect a pope from their number. That pope could well be named Pope Pius XIII.

Thus, one could pick and choose which pope and rite they will follow, but still be a member in good standing with the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church with three popes. 

This commentary must be spirit inspired!

HOLY FATHER, PLEASE EXCUSE MY FRENCH, BUT WHAT THE HELL DO YOU MEAN BY “BACKWARDISM”?

 We know that Pope Francis has been extraordinarily clear about traditionalists. He despises them and their theology. He wants to crush them but while crushing them, he wants others to accompany them to the  crusher, like a priest who accompanies a prisoner on death row to the firing squad, offering prayers, etc.

I appreciate Pope Francis being so clear about his disgust and discomfort with the mentally ill backwardist laity who must be eliminated for the sake of unity in the Church.

I thank God I am not like those backwardist laity and have a good standing with this pope! 

But Holy Father, what do you mean by backwardism? I know it refers in particular for a style of Mass that the Church had for about 1,600 years if not longer. Certainly there was progress and development over the course of those centuries, but at its core the modern 1962 Roman Missal is a product of backwardism and not forwardism. 

But, let me ask you Holy Father, to answer 10 questions I have about what else you mean by backwardism? Can you be as clear in Your Holiness’ answers as you are about your dislike of backwardist traditionalists?

1. Is teaching Transubstantiation backwardism? 

2. Is teaching that marriage is exclusively between one biological male and one biological female for a lifetime and for begetting children and a Christian family, backwardism?

3. Is resourcement, the ideology used to reform the 1962 Missal, backwardism of the worst kind, going all the way back to about the second century to recover the simplicity of the Mass at that time?

4. Is the infallibility of the pope as described by Vatican I backwardism?

5. Is reciting the Nicene or Apostle’s Creed, especially at Mass, backwardism at its worst?

6. Is relying on Scripture, Tradition and the perennial Magisterium of the Church backwardism?

7. Is the Faith and Morals of the Church as described in the 1990’s Catechism of the Church backwardism as well as Humanae Vitae?

8. Is reading only Scriptures at the Liturgy of the Word or the Divine Office without including readings from other divinely revealed sources, like the Koran, backwardism? 

9. Are only Christian prayers at Mass a form of backwardism when we could include Hindu and Buddhist prayers too?

10. Is it backwardism to believe that the Sacrament of Holy Orders for the Anglican Communion are totally null and void?