Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.
Matthew 10: 34-36.
In my peregrinations amongst the Novus Ordo parishes of this once Christian Country I have, fortunately, never ever been confronted with a homily (or other kind of sermon) delivered at mass by a layman. I imagine it must have happened somewhere in the past, but in my optimism I think in this country at least it must have been isolated episodes; promoted or tolerated by priests who were certainly at odd with Catholicism; possibly with a mistress on the side, or homosexuals, or pedophiles.
I was, therefore, somewhat surprised to read that in this XXI Century, and after two papacies (JP II and Benedict XVI) with some effort to restore some sanity (some and some are the operative words here), this ridiculous practice was going on in the Diocese of Rochester, in the United States (we have a Rochester here too, of historical and Dickensian memory, which I think gave its name to all the other ones). Both the text and the comments are very rich of insights.
What was more surprising? That the abuses had gone on for 40 years? That the old bishop tolerated the practice for 25 years? That the old bishop tolerated the other farce of mass absolution? That the new bishop was installed in January and needed six months to act, and said he looked at it on a case to case basis as if to say he was really, really careful not to hurt anyone? That the same man felt the need to point out his action was prompted by complaints of parishioners; without which he would, it is implied, have done perfectly nothing? That the new bishop has now released “guidelines” to explain that water is wet?
Well, everything was surprising, and again nothing was. We live in a world in which a bishop must tread extremely carefully to end horrible liturgical abuses, and feels he can only do so without any fear of an earthquake if he “listens”, “examines on a case by case basis”, and issues “guidelines”. A world in which we must be grateful for every bishop who, with a very subdued voice, tries to explain to his priests and parishioners that if they really pay attention and read carefully, they will discover they might do it somewhat better.
Predictably, this little act of cleaning of a small part of what must be, in that particular diocese, a sea of excrements reaches the press, and they punctually echo the “feelings” of some old hag who goes on record with saying that not seeing a female playing priest from the pulpit “challenges her faith”; which, whatever faith it may be, certainly isn’t Christianity.
When I read such horror stories I begin to think that even the most horrible revolutionaries here in England must feel orthodox because hey, they do not have “lay preachers” at Mass.
I wonder how not only the bishop, but at least two Popes (JP II and Benedict XVI) could go to sleep at night knowing such abuses were taking place, as it seems impossible to me that a diocese near New York could go on many years with such abuses without the news reaching the highest echelons in Rome. Notice I mention here only the former Popes, as I have no doubt the present one really doesn’t give a fig for anything but himself.
I also wonder how many souls got lost, or how many of them left the Church or stopped attending, due to the obscene circus with which they were confronted at Mass.
We need bishops who not only act, but act by saying things as they are rather than dancing on the eggshells of political correctness. Bishop Matano should have at the very least condemned the practice as a liturgical abuse, rather than pretending these are good intentioned people who must have missed something whilst reading the instruction manual.As it is, he has – for the moment – put a remedy on this from a position of weakness, and this attitude will limit his ability to act further (imagine what a cesspool such a diocese must be) as it encourages disobedience. I can’t see such exercises as helping much in the long term. It will end up to centimetres work, when we need metres.
We will never go anywhere if even the most obvious measures are made in a spirit of appeasement and fear of turmoil. We will never go anywhere as long as things aren;t called with their proper names: liturgical abuse, disobedience, enmity with Catholicism.
Let Catholicism divide the people. It’s there for that.
I cannot understand one word of this blog post.
But there was not one photo I could not immediately understand.
I had missed this, but it was posted yesterday by two readers on my comment box.
Let us stay calm (if we can; I have been trying since yesterday) and let us see what is happening here.
The faggot priest (real, or honorary) gives to the Pope a set of wooden chalice and paten. The use of wooden chalice and paten in the Mass is explicitly forbidden. It is, it can be safely said, a clear sign that the Mass in question may well be invalid, and that the celebrant does not believe in the Transubstantiation. In this case, the wooden chalice and paten are an obvious sign of defiance of Church teaching, as everything the faggot priest (real, or honorary) says and stands for.
The Bishop of Rome, disgracefully reigning, accepts the gift.
The faggot priest (real, or honorary) also give Francis a copy of his most recent book. There can be no doubt whatever the book is scandalous in its every part, and promotes sodomy exactly as his author does. Sodomy cries to heaven for vengeance.
The Bishop of Rome, disgracefully reigning, accepts the gift, too.
Not happy with thus giving an obvious, public endorsement of sodomy, Francis concelebrates Mass with the faggot priest (real, or honorary). This, he does with the man who is about to give him a wooden chalice and paten.
My adrenaline has been on alarm levels since yesterday, so I will avoid to expand much on this. I have already cancelled several lines of this post. And I don’t think any of them was untrue in any way.
The facts are in front of you. There is nowhere to hide. This is so openly the work of the Devil that I am embarrassed for your mother if you are so thick that you don’t get it.
One would hope that all those who had refused to see anything bad in this disgraceful man appointing his sodomite buddy to head of the Vatican Bank (where he still sits) would open their big blue eyes and start looking at reality as it is: a Pope who is an accomplice of, and encourages sodomy for the sake of his own approval. But they very probably won’t, because if they had had some sense they would have understood then, rather than needing this open, shocking, shameless endorsement of sodomy now.
This Pope, who thinks angels inferior to men, truly causes them to cry to heaven for vengeance. His approval of sodomy is so explicit that it cannot be made more clear. I ask you what is a Pope to do to let even the last idiot understand that he – if he is not homosexual himself – is most certainly an accomplice of sodomites. I can’t imagine any endorsement more open than this one, short of “mercifully” appearing in some “gay porn” movie.
Which, let me state this very clearly, I do not consider beyond him, at all.
Sodomy is a sin that cries to heaven for vengeance. A sin. That cries. To heaven. For vengeance.
If Francis had some sense in that stupid, or evil, head of his, he would avoid even thinking of giving such scandal. He would know that his being such an overt accomplice of the sin of the sodomites would attract on him the most terrible punishment, perhaps only short of those reserved to sodomites themselves (and perhaps not, because he is the Pope). If he had, he would. But he hasn’t, so he doesn’t.
I think the reality is a very sobering one: this man does not believe in God. He is, consequently, not afraid of punishment. He berates angels, because he considers them fantasy creations. He does not believe in Transubstantiation, and therefore accepts a wooden chalice and paten as a gift without wincing; actually, with his acceptance he encourages further liturgical abuses, and sends a very open signal of his lack of belief in Transubstantiation.
He is not afraid of any punishment, whether earthly of heavenly. He believes in only one thing: Jorge Bergoglio. The promotion of this agenda, of the “Humble Pope” brand is, to him, the only thing that counts, and to which everything else – from the Transubstantiation to the Blessed Virgin, from Our Lord to the most elementary teachings – must give way.
All this is then conveniently masked as “mercy”, thus clearly indicating God is, with his approval of Christianity of the past 2000 years, unmerciful.
What a disgrace of a Pope.
The bride of Christ is being raped every day, by the same man who should protect Her. The perverts of all sorts and their friends applaud, and rejoice. The tepid masses do not understand, but prefer to look the other way. The professional idiots say if the Pope rapes the Church, then it means for some reason it is right that the Church be raped. There must be things we do not know, you know… Christianity has always been so inscrutable, after all…
I know that the angels in heaven look at all this. I call on them to cry to heaven for God’s righteous vengeance on this man, relentlessly working against God in the most evident, most shameless way, and only bent on the edification of his own cult.
This is a papacy fit for the perverts, the atheists, the satanists, the heathen, and the stupid.
They are all having a party, whilst Francis rapes the Church every day.
The Holy Week is approaching again, and with it the Maundy Thursday Mass with attendant (but not compulsory) washing of the feet of the viri probandi.
It seems to me that this gives us additional clues as to how Francis thinks.
What Francis did last year was a blatant, shameless liturgical abuse. The fact that he was at that point the Bishop of Rome does not make it any less abusive; then whilst Francis can change the rules, he is bound to the existing rules until he changes them.
Francis was, therefore, subversive once in washing the feet of women and infidels in blatant violation of the law; but he was also subversive – apparently paradoxically, but actually logically – in his refusal to change them, leaving the rules as they are as he goes on doing as he pleases. The message here is very clear: if rules aren't really important, there's no real need to change them, either; and conversely, if rules are important than it was wrong for him to violate them.
This subtle but very dangerous, clearly subversive attitude will be equivocated by the Pollyannas, and it will be confused with prudence and conservatism instead. “You see? – they will say – Francis has not changed the rules concerning the washing of feet!”. No, he hasn't changed them. He prefers to trample them directly, and this is the policy he is obviously suggesting to priests and bishops the world over. With such a Bishop of Rome, every subversive priest and bishop will feel free to to do exactly as Francis did; many of those who don't will be put under pressure to follow Francis' example; but in all this, Francis will remain the brave innovator for the subversive, and the prudent conservative for the Pollyannas. Only a tiny minority of sound thinking and properly instructed Catholics will realise that this reckless behaviour is abuse of power, and encouragement to the others to do likewise. Vaya lio, indeed!
Once again we see here the workings of a Modernist mind, sowing confusion and disobedience as he avoids frontal attacks to Truth.
One year after Francis' Maundy Thursday liturgical abuse, countless parish churches will, without much trumpeting and drumming around, quietly adopt his ways. He knows perfectly well he can chip away orthodoxy one piece at a time just by way of his bad example, and this is exactly what he has been doing with his liturgical abuse and why he did it.
This is a demolition of sound Catholicism in instalments.
Something Francis has been doing from the very first hour of his pontificate.
From Rorate Caeli: emphases theirs.
Pope Francis then asked: “Are our temples places of adoration? Do they foster adoration? Do our liturgical celebrations foster adoration?”. Judas Maccabeus and the people “were zealous for God’s temple because it was the house of God, God’s dwelling place, and they went as a community to find God there, they went to adore”.
“But, I think – I say this humbly – that maybe we Christians have lost a little the sense of adoration, and we think: we go to the Temple, we come together as brothers – that’s good, it’s great! – but this is where God is. And we worship God.”
Yes. Have we?
What about the Pinocchio Mass, for example? Does it foster adoration?
Or perhaps is the Tango Mass more in tune with God’s dwelling place?
What about, for example, openly admitting past mistakes (so that they can never be used as excuses for other liturgical wreckovations) and crushing down very hard on the abominations happening all over the West?
I seem to detect a certain dissonance between words and facts, and you know which ones speak louder.
Keep praying for Francis; that he may, one day, always practice what he, at times, preaches.
After the Pinocchio Mass, another document emerges that will condemn the disgrace called Jorge Bergoglio to shame for all centuries to come.
Look at the video below and tell me which one of you, confronted with such a sacrilege, would not cry scandal and declare the priest responsible for such an impiety, and everyone willingly involved in the preparation and execution of such a monstrosity, either extremely stupid and utterly deluded, or else positively evil.
I do not need to call as witness St Pius X or Leo XIII. This is not merely an inappropriate event that can be spotted only by the trained eyes of a liturgist. Far from that.
Ask yourself whether one Argentinian prostitute, even only one of them, of one hundred years ago and with a minimum, a mere trace of fear of The Lord would have condoned a Post-communion Tango at Mass; just in front of the altar; two and a half meter from the Crucifix; practically in the shadow of a statue of Christ; not only in church, but in the very sanctuary.
This is pure evil. Pure evil. Pure evil.
How can one look at this obscene spectacle and not think that those responsible for it are fully, fully in the hands of Satan; either because blinded by their own pride of “church reformers”, or else because positively devoted to the destruction of what they know is holy.
The man who presided over all this – and no, I do not care a straw about whether he planned it, or wanted it: he allowed it, so he is responsible – wasn’t a stupid parish priest. He was an extremely blinded, or extremely evil, Archbishop and Cardinal.
This very man has become the Pope. Clearly, God in His mercy has allowed (not willed) this vulgar, shameless man to be elected so that even the most stupid among the sheep may finally come to their senses and see the madness of Vatican II and the resulting, utterly wordly “pacification theology” that comes with it.
You can only side with Christ or with the world, there is no alternative. The stupid (or evil) mentality of this extremely dangerous, subversive man becomes extremely evident whenever he tries to pacify the enemies – the Church and the world -, thus creating a clash of worlds that can only produce desecration, heresy and blasphemy. This clash is so evident that not to be scandalised at even thinking of what you see in this video requires an advanced degree of blindness and the prideful perversion of every concept of Christianity; or, alternatively, a cold-blooded, calculated intent to damage Holy Mother Church as much as one can.
Let us say it again, because there are things that must be said: it is reasonable to think that every Argentine prostitute of one hundred years ago, if provided with a minimum of fear of the Lord, would have shuddered at the mere idea of such a spectacle as you can see in the video. Jorge Bergoglio, the oh so modest Bishop of Rome, is obviously below such a level of morality, and I do not doubt he would call it “moralism”, or “ideology”. Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi. Francis is the best example of this, and his Lex Credendi is perfectly in tune with his Lex Orandi.
God is now clearly smashing our post V II stupidity in front of our eyes, so that even the most deluded Pollyannas can see, or have no excuses if they refuse to do it.
Open your eyes and see the evil in the face; that you may, by much prayer and penance, avoid sharing the destiny of those among these fools who will die in their prideful delusion.
Or ignore the evidence at your peril.
The sacrilege is posted on top. The Tango begins at around 26:35. Persuade yourself of the future Bishop of Rome being fully a part of this sacrilege. It’s a real Mass; homily, Holy Communion and the rest.
The two are dancing the Tango after Mass. In the sanctuary. In front of Jorge Bergoglio.
Shocking, shocking reading at Father Z's. When Father is late for the start of the Mass (apparently because he has commitments elsewhere, requiring driving) a sister starts the wannabe “Mass” herself, up to and including the Readings. At some point “Father” arrives, and he picks up from the point where madwoman has arrived.
This defies imagination: just because the priest is late, a religious sister thinks she can play priest. This reminds me of children who play Mass, though I am sure when they do the “priest” is played by a boy.
Even more absurd – and I wonder why such abuses would not deserve immediate defrocking – is that Father doesn't have any problem with that. You can almost hear him say “thank you for stepping in, Sister”.
Apparently, this happens regularly. Seriously, if Archbishop Zollitsch reads this he might think of making of this a regular feature of Mass in Germany, but on second thoughts not even Zollitsch would be as stupid as that.
Now why do I tell you all this? Because with the Traditional Mass such a madness would be inconceivable. Of course such a parody isn't a Mass, not even with the rather low standards of quality of the Novus Ordo. But if we are honest with ourselves we must see that the shameless devastation and banalisation of the Mass perpetrated by V II is what makes such a madness thinkable in the first place.
Note that the faithful present never stand up crying: “no, sister! stop! save your soul! We can wait for father to arrive, but if you start now we'll go away!”. Only one has written to Father Z with his doubts. A couple of others are certainly not at ease. Most certainly “feel” Sister is being “nice” and “helpful”. It must be so, otherwise “Father” (as long as he is one; hopefully not for long) would have been inundated with complaints and injunctions to let this stop at once.
I will put this in my little collection called “flowers of V II”; a collection containing the strangest flowers you can imagine; radioactive, or poisoning, or outright ugly.
A poster on the above mentioned blog commented with “Whiskey Tango Foxtrot”.
I agree wholeheartedly.
Many of us have seen, either live or in the evening, the images of Margaret Thatcher’s funeral. It is very clear this was supposed to be something extraordinary. The solemn beauty of the ceremony certainly did not fail to impress the viewers the world over.
Why the ceremony was so beautiful and solemn, it is very easy to say: because of the importance of the person to whom the solemnity was meant to be a tribute.
This is very easy to understand. It is, actually, ingrained in human nature. No commenter had any need to explain to his viewers why the British Government decided to go through such a complicated, expensive, meticulously planned and executed exercise.
Imagine, though, if things had gone differently. The PM steps in front of the journalists and says: “Good morning everyone! Today we celebrate the life and achievements of Margaret Thatcher. Capital gal, you know, what with one thing and the other. We’ll hop in to St. Paul now, where the archbish will say another couple of words; nothing stuffy, you know… we also have a Punch and Judy show for the children, in order for them to be introduced to politics…. it’s important, to know politics…. whatever, thanks for being here and have a nice day!”.
Not good, you would have said. No reverence, no dignity, no respect. For Cameron to have pulled something like that would have meant to show utter disregard for the deceased.
It is indicative of the times we live in that everyone understands the death of an important Prime Minister must be treated with extreme reverence, but even people who go on to become Pope (and countless priests with them; and many of those who attend their masses) treat with utter lack of reverence the Sacrifice of One infinitely more important than every Margaret Thatcher, and insult Him with all sorts of antics – up to and not excluding dancing Pinocchios – with some pretext or other (like the “Holy Ghost”, say. I fear one day the Holy Ghost will get truly, truly angry).
There were no Pinocchios around yesterday; no puppets; no stupid music; no dancing entertainers; and no “children’s funeral”. Solemnity, beauty, and reverence wherever you turned, because they are the most natural tribute to rank and greatness, even merely human one.
Most people understand these truths naturally.
Too often, our clergy – Pope certainly not excluded – don’t.
I have written only some days ago about the clumsy attempt at explanation given by Father Lombardi for the – it must be said – liturgical abuse committed by the Pontiff on Holy Thursday.
It is with great pleasure that I have noticed today that Edward Peters’ blog trashes Lombardi’s statement in a much better way that I ever could, but lamenting in part the same disregard of elementary logic: right or wrong doesn’t depend on whether you want to “include” someone, nor on the size of the congregation.
Ed Peters actually goes further than that, because he openly accuses the Press Office of being polluted by Antinomianism, which is a heretical doctrine.
The test of Edward Peter’s blog is reported below in its entirety, and I can hardly hide from you my satisfaction at seeing that the reaction to the shallowness and approximation of the present times – and much more so, of the last weeks – is also coming from blogs of professionals.
Before leaving the word to Mr Peters’ excellent considerations, I would only like to make two small observations of my own:
1. The Pope has committed a liturgical abuse as big as a house. This must be said loud and clear if we want this mess to stop. If the same feat had been committed by any one else, the Catholic blogosphere would have been aflame in no time, and the comments would have been, erm, somewhat less than moderate.
2. Father Lombardi, as so often, gives the idea he doesn’t know what he is talking about. But it would be a mistake to think he is the one who created the problem. Lombardi, himself a Jesuit, clearly understands zippo of proper and reverent liturgy, respect for the rules, and even orderly conduct at Mass. But I am not sure the bishop of Rome is any better than him.
If the Holy Father is smart, he will show true humility, keep Monsignor Marini near him and listen to every word he says.
Not four weeks into this Pontificate, and the “new spontaneity” is causing a mess of rare proportions. Perhaps it’s time to go back to reason before the entire planet laughs at the liturgical amateurishness (and offensiveness) of our humble clergy.
Some thoughts on the VPO statement regarding the Mandatum rite controversy
The background to this controversy is the antinomianism that prevails today.
The Church is passing through a period in which the relationship between ecclesiastical law and the life of faith is widely misunderstood and the very content of Church law is often poorly explained. My attempts to address this double problem include explaining how law is important to a faith community, but even more, I try to explain what the law is at present—for one can hardly debate how ecclesiastical law ought to read if one does not know what it already says.
The controversy over Pope Francis’ disregard of a liturgical law in the Mandatum rite exposes, I think, how many others in the Church misunderstand important aspects of ecclesiastical law and how a misguided attempt to explain Church law can actually provoke more issues for the faithful than it settles.
A Vatican Press Office statement asserts:
“One can easily understand that in a great celebration, men would be chosen for the foot washing because Jesus, himself wash[ed] the feet of the twelve apostles who were male. However the ritual of the washing of the feet on Holy Thursday evening in the Juvenile Detention Centre in Rome took place in a particular, small community that included young women.”
Such language, I fear, confuses matters.
The basic meaning of a rite, and certainly the interpretation to be given a rubric like this one, does not depend on the number of people attending the liturgy. No theory is offered to show that in large congregations Christ’s modeling of apostolic ministry is intended by the Mandatum, but in small congregations his modeling of love is intended. Asserting otherwise only sows confusion for other liturgical questions. Similarly, to say that the interpretation of this rubric turns on the presence of “young women” is to make effectively universal that odd interpretation (really: how many pastoral settings consist only of males?)
“To have excluded the young women from the ritual washing of feet on Holy Thursday night in this Roman prison, would have detracted our attention from the essence of the Holy Thursday Gospel…”
This unguarded language risks being understood as “following this Church law detracts attention from the essence of the Gospel”. I cannot imagine that this was really meant, but that is basically what is communicated. I do not think there is a conflict between Church law and the essence of the Gospel, notwithstanding that Church laws, from time to time, need to be reformed (as I have suggested the Mandatum rubric should be). In any case, this problematic language exemplifies why Vatican press statements are not vehicles of official legal interpretation in the Church. Canon law makes clear who has authority to authentically interpret Church laws (1983 CIC 16 § 1, ap. con. Pastor Bonus 154 ff., and certain congregations in regard to certain matters).
“… and the very beautiful and simple gesture of a father who desired to embrace those who were on the fringes of society; those who were not refined experts of liturgical rules.”
Again, this is unfortunate language.
The implication seems to be that rubrics are understandable by (and ultimately applicable only to) “refined experts of liturgical rules”. I disagree: many rubrics indeed reflect deep theological truths (and thus rubrics are often exercises in something more than legal positivism), but most rubrics are meant to be easily understandable by normal priests ministering in typical pastoral settings. It is a disservice to suggest that respect for Church law is primarily the concern of “refined experts” or that ecclesiastical law has little bearing on how believers should conduct their faith life.
“That the Holy Father, Francis, washed the feet of young men and women on his first Holy Thursday as Pope, should call our minds and hearts to the simple and spontaneous gesture of love, affection, forgiveness and mercy of the Bishop of Rome, more than to legalistic, liturgical or canonical discussions.”
I agree that Francis’ action achieved this good effect.
What I find distressing is the inability to recognize (or refusal to acknowledge) that this action also had other effects, effects that might not be so benign. I have argued that among those effects was the sowing of new confusion about the binding character of liturgical laws in general, about the influence of a pope on good order in the community, and so on. Now, to be sure, there are sound answers to these questions, but they are not easily offered in the middle of the Triduum and splashed across secular news stories and blogs. This whole matter should have been handled differently from the start.
Finally, this sort of language pits “love, affection, forgiveness and mercy” against “legalistic, liturgical or canonical discussions.” Thus accepted is the well-worn but false dichotomy between the spiritual goods of the Church and her legal traditions. Such a charge is often leveled against canon law today, but it was expressly rejected by Pope John Paul II when he wrote that Church law “is in no way intended as a substitute for faith, grace, charisms, and especially charity in the life of the Church and of the faithful. On the contrary, its purpose is rather to create such an order in the ecclesial society that, while assigning the primacy to love, grace, and charisms, it at the same time renders their organic development easier in the life of both the ecclesial society and the individual persons who belong to it.” John Paul II, ap. con. Sacrae disciplinae leges (1983) 16.
Law in the Church—canon, liturgical, sacramental, etc.—is not an end in itself, but instead serves greater ends. Yet, precisely as law, it cannot serve these purposes if it is ignored and/or explained away, two fates often suffered by law in antinomian times.
Edward Peters, JD, JCD, Ref. Sig. Ap
I have noticed that all around the Blogosphere the concerns voiced by yours truly have been also felt and expressed: if the Pope thinks he can break the rules, what prevents others from doing the same…
On reflection, it might well be that the breaking of the rules is not an unintended consequence of Pope Francis’ desire to be “pastoral” and “reach out” to the Muslims & Co., but actually the very aim he wants to achieve.
A Pope at ease with the Pinocchio Mass can’t have much interest for the observance of liturgical rules. On the other hand, being the Pope he might want to refrain from a devastating “reform of the repair”, officially undoing what his predecessor has done. Therefore, he might be thinking of simply allowing the periphery to do what it’s not fitting that the centre does, positively encouraging his own priests and bishops to break liturgical rules to make the mass more “spontaneous”, “simple”, “near to the poor” and all that jazz. The result would be a worldwide wave of liturgical abuses.
I say this because this Pope doesn’t look like a simpleton, the kind of man so much in love with “liturgical simplicity” (or with his own simplicity; one of the two) that he would act in the way he thinks best at the moment without reflecting about the consequences of what he is doing. It seems to me if this Pope does something, there is a program behind it, and a series of consequences which have been foreseen and willingly accepted, or are meant to be promoted outright.
If you think that no Pope would be as subversive as that, please reflect how probable you would have thought, one month ago, that a Pope would ever wash the feet of Muslims during the Maundy Thursday Mass.
Fasten your sealtbelt. Pray. Never believe the excited girlie screams of the sycophants at every “innovation” of the Pontiff.
Popes come and go.
The Church will bury all of them.
On the newly launched website of the new building for the St. Thomas Aquinas’ Seminary, you can see the future of Catholicism in the Western world.
Whilst the Vatican II church waffles itself into irrelevance and almost extinction, the sane parts of the Church not only resist, but grow and prosper. See the video below
to see what is happening.
It is difficult, very difficult not to see that traditional Catholicism is prospering and growing, whilst the (numerically still vaster) NuChurch is dying fast, sinking into irrelevance in the process.
The site and video explain to you nothing less than the future of Catholicism: solid, determined, serious. No laughing clowns in sight, no “daring” architectures, no waffle whatever.
Rorate Caeli not only has the video, but in a truly dramatic contrast has another blog post about the slow but perceptible decline of the Church in France. Besides the sobering statistical figures, the blog post has a rather telling photo of a huge (and, if you ask me, horrible, Le Corbusier or no Le Corbusier; see photo below) Dominican seminary now housing a dozen of seminarians.
For the dozen seminarians, the sense of decay must be palpable every hour of the day.
This is how the drunkenness of Vatican II is dying: leaving a lot of (mostly ugly) concrete in empty buildings, after deserting the Western world now under a massive attack from the forces of evil; forces of evil which the church continues to cajole and try to be friends with.
The two photos shown give a very clear idea of what the future of these two opposed vision of the Church will be, and which one of the two (the traditional, of the V II one) will survive.
The bill for the madness of the past is being presented very fast, and with the almost complete extinction of those organisations which have embraced the “spirit of Vatican II”-Zeitgeist (Jesuits and Franciscans come to mind; an awful lot of scrounging nuns; and who knows how many other minor orders) more and more bills will become due in the next decade or two.
In the meantime, serious Catholicism will continue to grow, until in one generation or two it will control the field again because of the literal, physical death of the opposing camp. A much reduced Catholicism it might be, but probably a much more effective one; than the vast majority of the hundreds of thousands of priests and religious we have now aren’t doing much for Catholicism other than muddle the waters, encourage sodomy or support same-sex couples, desecrate the mass, abet heresy, being openly simoniacal and hobnob with the enemy.
In their blindness, they remind me of Erich Honecker, the deluded DDR Comrade celebrating the 40th anniversary of the DDR whilst the building was squeaking in a way impossible not to notice.
Honecker’s regime did not live to see the 50th anniversary.
Whatever the challenges of the future, we can be very confident the V II madness will not live to see the 100th.
This comes courtesy of Rorate Caeli, and one must say these Episcopalians have most certainly lost their senses…
Thank God they aren’t Catholics. Considering what is happening to holy and orthodox people like the SSPX priests, they would have the Vatican steamroller driving over them in no time…
OK… forget that…
Let’s try again….
A beautiful Mass in the Spirit of VII in Brazil…. Extremely solemn Novena….
Don’t get me wrong, I think the tune is fantastic, fantastic! But I wonder whether it might be… perhaps… not totally appropriate?
To stay in tune with the youth without losing sight of our beautiful liturgical tradition, I would suggest a couple of spirited Brazilian tunes which would, with their reverence and solemnity, give a solid contribution to the great flourish of the “spirit” which we now see happening all over the world after the historic event of Vatican II. The second video in particular has what in my eyes are great suggestions for a more relevant liturgy, while the first is, alas, too much male-centred.
Either way, they would make great suggestions for relevant, inclusive post V-II liturgical music, I am sure…
There are a couple of interesting blog posts around about the “meaning” of those horrible giant puppets we see every now and then in the videos of more or less blasphemous parodies of the Mass.
In my eyes, the meaning is very simple: desecration, irreverence, trivialisation of the sacred, of the Mass and of the Consecration.
In a rigidly organised ritual like the Mass, every subversion of the ritual must pass through the subversion of the seriousness which always accompanies sacred ceremonies. If you want people not to take the Mass seriously, you must make of the Mass a circus. Excuses for this will obviously always be available in great quantities: the “children” who need to be “amused” or “entertained” (why? They can’t be already as stupid as their parents…), seasoned with a bit of waffle over the “joy” and sprinkled with a bit of “spirit”; but in the end, these exercises mean to achieve exactly what the “show” looks like: an exercise in the the desecration and trivialisation of the sacred.
A further element to desecrate the Mass must be given in the possibility – which the puppets are, no doubt, often given – to enter the sanctuary. The sanctuary is precluded to the pewsitters, but the nuChurch born of the “radiant” experience of V II cannot tolerate that there be anything seen as “off-limits”, though of course to invite the “faithful” to simply have a walk might have unpleasant consequences. What better, then, than to allow figures of “mirth” and “laughter” to desecrate a sacred space and make of the sanctuary a place of entertainment for everyone, even those who must stay out?
You will possibly now expect me to say that it is inexplicable to me how V II could be perverted to this extent.
Well, I won’t.
The puppets are not a perversion, but rather a continuation of Vatican II. They travelin teh same direction of V II, only a bit further. They are the unavoidable development of something which had all the germs of the rot in itself, which is the only reason why the rot could expand so rapidly.
How many times have you heard of these puppet-masters justifying their shows with the pre-V II church? How often with V II? Why is this not entirely absurd to their parishioners? Why do the latter not talk among themselves and say: “Father must be out of his mind: there is no way this can be presented as a development of the “Spirit” of V II”?
They don’t, because “Father” is right: this is a development of V II! If it were not, it would have been killed decades ago by those who made the Council! Instead, you will notice that those who refuse the puppets and the “spirit” of V II tend to have a very low opinion of V II itself, and those who “embrace” V II tend to embrace, in a more or less marked way, the puppets and all the antics that can be compared with them: from “laser masses” to “liturgical dances” to God knows what. The video above shows a “good” bad example, and might even have been recorded at a (wannabe) Catholic mass.
This is why the puppets are there: to destroy the sacredness, the reverence, the very idea of Transubstantiation, the very idea of belief in the Lord.
Please look at the video and tell me whether you can come to any other conclusion.
From yesterday’s SSPX communique’
“doctrinal mutism is not the answer to this “silent apostasy”, which even John Paul II denounced already in 2003.”
amidst a Church in crisis and a world which distances itself farther from God and His law with each passing day.
…waiting for the day when an open and serious debate will be possible which may allow the return to Tradition of the ecclesiastical authorities
If I understand correctly, the chap in white with the long hair is a Catholic priest, and this horror was set in scene in a real Catholic Cathedral.
In other words, this is not a movie, or a joke. This is supposed to be the real thing.
Welcome to the Church of Paul VII.
In case you want more, here is another video about the same exercise. Note how after (or during?) the “concert” what is supposed to be Holy Communion is distributed among the “faithful”, leaving one in no doubt that this is not a joke or a videomontage, but a bona fide Vatican II mass. The priest is (cela va sans dire) in full communion, and no doubt he has the bishop’s blessing.
After this beautiful “outpouring of the Spirit” (both videos from Catholic Church Conservation) , excuse me if I terrify you with the shocking images of the schismatic Mass of a splinter group of disobedient priests, who have the unspeakable arrogance to doubt all the wonderful things the Spirit is doing for the Church.
Thankfully, the bishop clearly approved the mass (or attempt of it) of the first two videos, and I am glad to inform you the splinter group is not in full communion, and the Holy Father is allegedly very cross with them. They are disobedient, you see.
Perhaps they should buy an electric guitar and start staging such “masses”?
This would mean they are obedient to the Pope, surely?
Forgive my stupidity, I had failed to understand that the SSPX is the real problem afflicting the Church today. The only words I can say to my defence are:
Saint Michael the Archangel,
defend us in battle.
Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil.
May God rebuke him, we humbly pray;
and do Thou, O Prince of the Heavenly Host –
by the Divine Power of God –
cast into hell, satan and all the evil spirits,
who roam throughout the world seeking the ruin of souls.
After the tragedy in Tuscany, you could have bet your pint that some alternative priest would have profited to put himself at the centre of the attention and at the same time show how little respect he has for the Mass.
The feat has been perfectly achieved in the Isola del Giglio (along whose coast the Costa Concordia ran aground). In order to make of the thing an exercise which would put the attention away from Christ to direct it on the usual “gandhism” of these occasions and, of course, on himself, the celebrant of Giglio’s main church thought it fitting to put on the altar the following offerings: a life vest, a rope, a rescue helmet, a plastic tarp and some bread.
This is not even Mass as a sacred ceremony. This is a macabre vaudeville without paying the ticket.
But if we reflect attentively, isn’t this what is wanted with the Novus Ordo? Is it not so, that the desire to entertain the poor souls rather than inspire and elevate them is very high in the priority of the new rite?
What else if the meaning – even when things do not degenerate to such level of parody – of the gifts to be brought to the altar? Were the prayers offered in the Tridentine not good enough? Do we really need the cheap piece of entertainment in 3D, with some (alas, it seems to me, rather often, sanctimonious) people feeling the lead actor for a minute? What is the aim of all these antics, if not distract or positively lead away from what the Mass is about in the first place?
But you see, the priest who had the brilliant idea of being the hero of the simple for one day probably understood the Novus Ordo better than we did. He understood, namely, what the Novus Ordo was introduced for: to entertain the people in the pews and let them feel they are “actively” participating.
The rest follows automatically. If “participation” is a value, then you can have the football during the World Championship, the engine on Formula One days, and whatever other idea lets the people feel they are “sharing in the Mass”. It follows from the premise like the day follows the night. How can, then, the commingling of sacred rite and unholy show be criticised? Isn’t it all meant to let people “share in the experience”?
The Novus Ordo is what would happen if you asked a bunch of children how to change the Tridentine Mass. They’d take away the “boring” bits, make all more “entertaining”, require active participation as they did with the merry-go-round, and mix it with elements of their everyday life so it doesn’t become too much of a bore. Clap your hands, everybody! Ah, and they’do it as similar as they can to what their friends from the other school do; so you can all meet together before the football match.
If I had been one of the unfortunate souls who lost their lives in the tragedy of the Costa Concordia, I’d feel as if they had drawned me for a second time.
At Rorate Caeli, they have defined the events in a beautiful way:
No shame. No rules. No sobriety. No propriety. No sense of ridicule. No respect for God, for the living, and for the dead. Novus Ordo.
One looks at this video from Gloria Tv and can easily understand why in Austria there will never be problems with heresies, and uprisings of priests and deacons.
The Gregorian Chant is solemn, and beautiful. The atmosphere full of sacredness. The celebration so reverent. The rubrics are followed to the littlest detail. Note the complete orthodoxy of the vessels, which are rigorously in gold or silver, as prescribed. The very traditional host is protected from every kind of desecration (being little, one doesn’t need to break it and there’s no risk of crumbles falling around).
With such beautiful orthodoxy, we can rest assured that heresy and rebellion to the Magisterium will never set foot in Austria. How do they say? Oh yes,
Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi.
I have written last year about the scandalous Mass allowed every year by the every inch as scandalous Archbishop of Vienna, Cristoph Cardinal Schoenborn.
The event might happen – and is, in fact, scheduled to happen – again this year, unless sincere Catholics the world over manage to let Cardinal Schoenborn either see the light, or get a well-deserved slap from Rome.
Click on the link for the details. Mind, though, that this is rather strong stuff.
You can sign Gloria.tv’s petition here
If you feel like wasting some time, you can politely complain (in English too) by the Archbishop at firstname.lastname@example.org
You can write to the Congregation for the Clergy denouncing these scandalous shepherds at email@example.com
The email of the Papal Nuncio in Austria is: firstname.lastname@example.org
Or you can write to the Holy Father himself at email@example.com
Come on folks, let’s do this. The mass will be stopped or not as the case may be, but the stronger the uproar, the more difficult it will be to go on with such scandals.
In addition, please consider that Schoenborn is, in theory at least, papabile and the public uproar will certainly not help him when the time comes.
First of all, let me get my letters right….. just wait a moment while I google…… vediamo un po’……. aaaah, ecco qua! ……. EMHC, Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion! [but also: Emergency Mobile Health Care, Eynsford Model Helicopter Club and Helmhurst Memorial HealthCare (Illinois), says google….. why are you Anglo-Saxons so obsessed with abbreviations ?!].
Now that we have the right definition of the “eucharistic ministers” (vulgo: wannabe priests/esses), we can start talking seriously about their complete uselessness. The latter is amply clear from the following:
1) The Church has worked rather successfully for, let me see, about two thousand years without, erm, EMHCs. I myself became forty without even knowing of their existence, and without even suspecting it; and I could still call several hundreds masses as witnesses of my opinion. You stop attending for a couple of decades, and very strange things happen….
2) At least here in the United Kingdom I have never seen a (oh dear…) EMHC (vulgo: wannabe priest/ess) who really was of any use. They simply stand there and look at the people…….. queuing to receive from the priest. It is very amusing to observe the expression they take: feigning dignity and importance whilst, no doubt, feeling utterly stupid. As they well should.
3) I have heard that (let me look again….) EMHCs would be necessary to avoid long queues. This is complete nonsense. Firstly, modern church attendance is such that communion is made in a handful of minutes most of the times, and this particularly in those churches who choose to have such helpers. Secondly, even in case of copious attendance I can’t imagine communion distribution to go on for more than, say, fifteen minutes at the longest. Thirdly, the very few people who approach the wannabe priest (out of pity, I suppose) very often do so after they have received communion from the priest, that is: merely in order to receive under both species; the time saving is, therefore, simply not there. Fourthly, do you think that in the past two thousand years mass attendance was scarce, but it exploded after V II? Thought not…
4) The eucharistic minister confuses the faithful. If they are travelling, they might think that they have mistakenly entered an Anglican church (easier than you’d think: some of them carry the inscription “Catholic church” and are decorated in a more Catholic way than many Catholic churches…..). The more so, if following things happen: a) tabernacle not in sight; b) no altar railings; c) priest strangely dressed; d) naked altar. In my experience, the presence of wannabe priests/esses makes some or all of these elements rather probable.
5) The wannabe priest is, more often than not, a wannabe priestess. That’s all you need to know, really.
From the anecdotal evidence of my own attendance at such masses, I give to this strange flowering of V II (that is: originally a liturgical abuse originated by V II-thinking; not even the “conciliar fathers” had arrived as far as that….) another fifteen years, maximum twenty.
I might be wrong. Still, don’t bet your pint that I am: look at how much has happened in six short years of B XVI pontificate, and prepare to say hello to the (moment, please… ) EMHCs.
They won’t be missed.
Father Z has, some time ago, posted an interesting post about a Catholic churchgoer explaining why she might renounce communion on the tongue.
What could have seemed the usual rant of an oldish feminist now deciding that communion on the tongue is too much identified with “Catholic Crusaders” turned out to be a real and well-meant concern of desecration of the host due to the inability of many “extraordinary ministers” to cope with communion on the tongue.
I’d like to give my short comment in the usual intolerant and crusader-like way.
1) If you ask me, the lady’s mistake was that she chose to receive communion from an eucharistic minister in the first place. As the priest is always there giving communion a Catholic who wants to receive on the tongue should actually do the obvious thing and queue on the priest’s line, whilst the “communion in the hand”-crowd will be left, if they really really want, to the eucharistic minister(ess).
2) The priest can certainly be blamed for not properly training the eucharistic ministers but in all honesty, not many priests expect one who wants to receive on the tongue to queue on the eucharistic minister’s line. I was surprised to read that something like that happens at all.
3) My personal experience is that on such occasions (where eucharistic ministers are present) the queue to receive from the priest is much longer than the ones to receive from the eucharistic ministers and I have seen scenes that were authentically embarrassing for the latter. Nowadays, eucharistic ministers are as much in fashion as bell bottom jeans. Thank God for that.
4) It goes without saying that the recovery of sound Catholic practice goes through the abolition of eucharistic ministers, a sad and ridiculous leftover of years of theological drunkenness and liturgical abuse. The same goes for the communion in the hand, something reminding me more and more of Donald Trump’s hair or Elton John’s clothes.
A conservative Catholic should, in my eyes, vote with his own feet and receive communion in the same way as countless generations before him have done.
It is not about better training the eucharistic minister. It is about getting rid of (well) her.
Bored of the Catholic Mass?
Can’t stand sitting there in the pew without anything practical to do?
Think you are just wasting your time?
Fancy a “Costume Mass”, where you can sport your new western costume?
No time in your life for sensible things like smoking, eating and drinking beer?
Or perhaps not a Catholic, but you’d like to have a Catholic Communion – for a change – nevertheless?
We have what you want! Cardinal Schoenborn is your friend! This year he has expressly authorised (for the third time) our new and beautiful…… Western Mass!
Look for yourself on Gloria.tv how modern, relevant, hip and FUN Catholicism can be!
“Things cannot remain as they are”. This is not I, dear friends, saying so. Who am I to say such things? Why would you ever believe me? No, this is the Cardinal himself! What a jolly good fellow he is…..
Come visit us next year! You’ll be able to sit at a table in a pleasant Biergarten whilst a western band plays some beloved evergreens. You’ll be able to take a sunbath with your little child, have a chat with your friends and in general have a lot of FUN, all whilst the Mass goes on. No time losses, no boring queues, no having to listen, no inconvenient fast times anymore! You’ll exchange the “sign of peace” across the tables. At Communion time, just go up and get your host in your hand; try not to have ketchup on them but hey: you’re eating, right? Just please stand up when the priest asks you to, you’ll feel very pious. And oh, please do, do try to be somewhat silent during Communion. We are very reverent.
Look at the video: how happy everyone is! How satisfied! Particularly the priest, entertaining you about the necessity to “change the way the Church does things” and to “reach out to everyone”. Capital fellow. So nice.
If you’d like to participate next year, please do give a look at the video and see that we are not telling lies. The video is in German (Austria, again; lots of fans in the area; beer is good, too), but we trust you’ll have a clear picture of what is happening anyway.
Before you look at the video, please send the children to bed and do not show this to sincere Catholics of an advanced age, or with a heart condition. We must take care, in a non-judgmental manner, of our less fortunate brothers who are unable to understand that we have to change and reach out to everyone.