The Eminem Tridentine Mass Is Coming….

Soon to be commissioned a Requiem Mass? Eminem.

I read from Father Z’s blog that a priest in England would be planning a TLM with…….. female servers. Why am I thinking “spare ribs with ice cream on top”……..?

I can think only of the following:

1) Priest is not as intelligent as he should. It happens in the best dioceses.

2) Priest is one of those who always want to make everyone happy, and ends up angering everyone.

3) Priest has recognised that the advance of the Tridentine cannot be stopped, and wants to apply a sort of “Bugnini treatment” to it. If I can’t stop it, I’ll ruin it.

4) Priest doesn’t understand what a Tridentine Mass is: a traditional mass. It is like wanting to celebrate a traditional Requiem mass, and asking Eminem to compose the music.

5) Priest loves publicity. And praise from the wymyn.

6) Priest is Archbishop Vincent Nichols.

I am curious to see how said priest imagines the rest: How about communion standing and on the hand (and Cardinal Burke be damned)? Will there be a launch of M&M’s among the pews after communion? How about liturgical dancers after the introductory rites? Or letting the faithful sing “We Are The Champions” in answer to “Ite, Missa est”?
Questions, questions…

I really can’t think what moves people to this kind of rather childish, kitsch, counterproductive initiative. The Tridentine Mass is a Weltanschauung, not a matter of regulations. You can’t have Eminem setting it in music just because, say, no one has expressly forbidden it. You celebrate the Tridentine Mass because you honour tradition, not because you want to demolish it.

These events always remind me of those old people dressing ridiculously in order not to appear “outdated” by the young generations; as a result they look even older than they are, stupid to boot, and get no respect from anyone.

Methinks, exactly what is going to happen to the above mentioned priest.

Mundabor

NCR, Heresy and Bishop Morris

Spot the difference with heretic bishops

I have already written about the removal of bishop (little b) William Morris from his diocese of Toowoomba, in Australia. The matter seemed to me so straightforward as to not even deserve a long post: a bishop is openly heretical, refuses to recant for around five years and is, as a consequence, (merely) removed from office.

There is obviously an element of novelty in terms of something being actually done, but the matter in itself should be, I thought, rather not worth the discussion.

Wrong.

A magazine astonishingly calling himself “catholic” (National Catholic Reporter is the official name; must be a remnant of times long gone) devotes to the matter its editorial. This editorial makes for astonishing reading and I wonder whether even rabid Episcopalian feminists would express themselves in the way the CNR editorial team, people in dire need of our prayers, do.

This editorial shows either the most appalling ignorance of the bases of Catholicism (which is not credible, these being professionals) or a deliberate will to defend and propagate heresy. This is not even cafeteria Catholicism. This is marijuana Catholicism, and no mistake.

Let us take some example:

1) the removal of the bishop is registered, but on the merit of the removal nothing is said. The question “is a Pope in the right when he removes an openly heretic bishop?” is not posed at all.

2) Instead, the usual comparison with the pedophile scandal is made. Whilst this might have a point in showing that the Pope (and clearly: the former Pope) might have been harsher with other bishops too, it fails to tells us why he shouldn’t have been as harsh with our Morris dancer.

3) These people appear never to have read Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. That even the discussion about women priests is forbidden (to everyone, let alone to bishops!) simply escapes them. That a Pope be authorised in view of the Church’s Magisterium to do so, evidently, too.

4) The clumsy, whining attempt at Morris’ defence is contradictory: on the one hand it is said that the bishop’s questions were, so to speak, “rhetorical” ones; on the other side it is opined that this was so just to avoid trouble. So they want us to do believe that the bishop is a heretic, but also that he shouldn’t be removed because he didn’t say that openly and the Pope has, clearly, to be stupid whilst the NCR people are intelligent.

The entire article is written in this spirit. Heresy is called “to speak freely”, and the decision to silence heresy “dysfunctional”.

I know Muslims who are more Catholic than these people, and far more likely to obtain salvation.

Please pray for these unfortunate people.

Mundabor

Pope Benedict Redefines Second Vatican Council

"Mentality renovator": Archbishop Annibale Bugnini

Rather astonishing remarks from the Holy Father during his address to the participants at the Conference for the 50th anniversary of the Pontifical Liturgical Institute. Let us read the piece in the translation of Rorate Caeli (emphases mine):

The Liturgy of the Church goes beyond this same “conciliar reform” (cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium, 1), whose purpose, in fact, was not mainly that of changing the rites and the texts, but rather that of renewing the mentality and placing, at the center of Christian life and of pastoral [activity], the celebration of the Paschal Mystery of Christ. Unfortunately, perhaps, even by us, Pastors and experts, the Liturgy was treated more as an object to be reformed than as a subject, capable of renewing Christian life,

This is astonishing. Totally en passant, Pope Benedict informs us that V II was not about reforming the liturgy, but about an extremely and conveniently vague “renewal of the mentality”, and (incredibly) about placing the Eucharist at the centre of Christian Life.

It is as if the Holy Father would, with just a few chosen words, demolish the entire edifice of Vatican II by just saying that its value is not in what it was done, but rather to be sought in an extremely undefinable “renewal” which, when you take away the renewal effectively put in place (that is: the rape of the Liturgy, and the departure from staunch defence of Catholic values), means everything and nothing.

The second point is,  in his well-meant attempt to hide the shame of Vatican II – rather offensive of the pre-conciliar Church. This idea that the extremely strong and pious church of the decades up to the Fifties, marked by a respect for the Eucharist rather forgotten in our times (a Church in which the mere idea of receiving communion standing on the hands would have been considered preposterous, and in which the idea that the Mass must be an interactive circus rather the re-enactment of Christ’s sacrifice would have been considered utterly Protestant), would have not put the Eucharist in a central place is just outlandish. Frankly, I think that the Holy Father should back pedal on this, and apologise.

In his attempt to defend the indefensible (that is: to try to make sense of V II), the Holy Father goes on saying that unfortunately the Liturgy was treated more as an object of reform, than as a subject. This means, if we want to give meaning to a rather rhetorical expression, that the Liturgy has not been treated as the centre itself of the Church’s life, but as material for experiments. Which is absolutely true, but contradicts squarely what the Holy Father has said above, that the scope of V II was to put the Eucharist at the centre of pastoral life.

The liturgy is at the centre of Church’s life and the Eucharist is at the centre of the Liturgy. You can’t say that V II was made to put the eucharist at the centre of Church life and in the same breath admit that the liturgy of which the Eucharist is the absolute focal point has been neglected and mishandled. The abuse of the Liturgy is abuse of the Eucharist, and this claim of the supposed (and up to now rather unknown) aims of the Second Vatican Council is nothing more than a pious attempt to try to hide its total and utter failure by extolling some supposed and vague good intentions.

The Holy Father has understood that V II is bankrupt. Unfortunately, though, he falls short of openly saying what every sensible Catholic has long realised. Instead, he tries to redefine the Council so as to let the wasteland it left appear like nothing more than a somewhat careless byproduct of some vague, but pure, ideal.

Once again, the Holy father’s approach to the Council reminds me of Gorbachev’s approach to communism: to try to save what has openly and irremediably failed by redefining it and attempting to persuade us that it was not about its original intent, but about something different. But you know what? It wasn’t. Communism was aimed at destroying Capitalism (and religion) and substitute them with a completely new world and humanity, and Vatican II’s “renewal zeal” was simply aimed at destroying the traditional Catholic understanding of morals and liturgy and substitute it with an age of alignment between religious and secular values.

V II was there with the main aim to – not to put too fine a point on it – brown-nose to “modern times” and Protestant thinking. This, the Conciliar Fathers have done with great zeal, both during and after the Council, in the most shameless of ways.

I appreciate the fact that the Holy Father has with his statement dealt another blow to the already abundantly disgraced edifice of V II. But I do think that it is time to come clean and openly tell the truth about what has happened and why, instead of recurring to verbal gymnastics about what V II was apparently about.

The entire mentality of V II needs to be demolished and those years remembered as years of infamy and crisis the likes of which the Church has possibly never experienced during the course of Her entire existence, not even during the darkest phases of the past.

Mundabor