Even Newer Mass(es) Coming Soon!

Text of the Apostolic Letter Motu Proprio “Magnum Principium” Quibus nonnulla in can.
838 Codicis Iuris Canonici immutantur


APOSTOLIC LETTER
ISSUED MOTU PROPRIO
OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF
FRANCIS
MAGNUM PRINCIPIUM
BY WHICH CAN. 838 OF THE CODE OF CANON LAW IS MODIFIED 

The great principle, established by the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, according to which liturgical prayer be accommodated to the comprehension of the people so that it might be understood, required the weighty task of introducing the vernacular language into the liturgy and of preparing and approving the versions of the liturgical books, a charge that was entrusted to the Bishops.

The Latin Church was aware of the attendant sacrifice involved in the partial loss of liturgical Latin, which had been in use throughout the world over the course of centuries. However it willingly opened the door so that these versions, as part of the rites themselves, might become the voice of the Church celebrating the divine mysteries along with the Latin language.

At the same time, especially given the various clearly expressed views of the Council Fathers with regard to the use of the vernacular language in the liturgy, the Church was aware of the difficulties that might present themselves in this regard. On the one hand it was necessary to unite the good of the faithful of a given time and culture and their right to a conscious and active participation in liturgical celebrations with the substantial unity of the Roman Rite. On the other hand the vernacular languages themselves, often only in a progressive manner, would be able to become liturgical languages, standing out in a not dissimilar way to liturgical Latin for their elegance of style and the profundity of their concepts with the aim of nourishing the faith.

This was the aim of various Liturgical Laws, Instructions, Circular Letters, indications and confirmations of liturgical books in the various vernacular languages issued by the Apostolic See from the time of the Council which was true both before as well as after the laws established by the Code of Canon Law.

The criteria indicated were and remain at the level of general guidelines and, as far as possible, must be followed by Liturgical Commissions as the most suitable instruments so that, across the great variety of languages, the liturgical community can arrive at an expressive style suitable and appropriate to the individual parts, maintaining integrity and accurate faithfulness especially in translating some texts of major importance in each liturgical book.

Because the liturgical text is a ritual sign it is a means of oral communication. However, for the believers who celebrate the sacred rites the word is also a mystery. Indeed when words are uttered, in particular when the Sacred Scriptures are read, God speaks to us. In the Gospel Christ himself speaks to his people who respond either themselves or through the celebrant by prayer to the Lord in the Holy Spirit.

The goal of the translation of liturgical texts and of biblical texts for the Liturgy of the Word is to announce the word of salvation to the faithful in obedience to the faith and to express the prayer of the Church to the Lord. For this purpose it is necessary to communicate to a given people using its own language all that the Church intended to communicate to other people through the Latin language. While fidelity cannot always be judged by individual words but must be sought in the context of the whole communicative act and according to its literary genre, nevertheless some particular terms must also be considered in the context of the entire Catholic faith because each translation of texts must be congruent with sound doctrine.

It is no surprise that difficulties have arisen between the Episcopal Conferences and the Apostolic See in the course of this long passage of work. In order that the decisions of the Council about the use of vernacular languages in the liturgy can also be of value in the future a vigilant and creative collaboration full of reciprocal trust between the Episcopal Conferences and the Dicastery of the Apostolic See that exercises the task of promoting the Sacred Liturgy, i.e. the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, is absolutely necessary. For this reason, in order that the renewal of the whole liturgical life might continue, it seemed opportune that some principles handed on since the time of the Council should be more clearly reaffirmed and put into practice.
Without doubt, attention must be paid to the benefit and good of the faithful, nor must the right and duty of Episcopal Conferences be forgotten who, together with Episcopal Conferences from regions sharing the same language and with the Apostolic See, must ensure and establish that, while the character of each language is safeguarded, the sense of the original text is fully and faithfully rendered and that even after adaptations the translated liturgical books always illuminate the unity of the Roman Rite.

To make collaboration in this service to the faithful between the Apostolic See and Episcopal Conferences easier and more fruitful, and having listened to the advice of the Commission of Bishops and Experts that I established, I order, with the authority entrusted to me, that the canonical discipline currently in force in can. 838 of the C.I.C. be made clearer so that, according to what is stated in the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium, in particular in articles 36 §§3.4, 40 and 63, and in the Apostolic Letter Motu Proprio Sacram Liturgiam, n. IX, the competency of the Apostolic See surrounding the translation of liturgical books and the more radical adaptations established and approved by Episcopal Conferences be made clearer, among which can also be numbered eventual new texts to be inserted into these books.

Therefore, in the future can. 838 will read as follows:

Can. 838 – §1. The ordering and guidance of the sacred liturgy depends solely upon the authority of the Church, namely, that of the Apostolic See and, as provided by law, that of the diocesan Bishop.

§2. It is for the Apostolic See to order the sacred liturgy of the universal Church, publish liturgical books, recognise adaptations approved by the Episcopal Conference according to the norm of law, and exercise vigilance that liturgical regulations are observed faithfully everywhere.

§3. It pertains to the Episcopal Conferences to faithfully prepare versions of the liturgical books in vernacular languages, suitably accommodated within defined limits, and to approve and publish the liturgical books for the regions for which they are responsible after the confirmation of the Apostolic See.

§4. Within the limits of his competence, it belongs to the diocesan Bishop to lay down in the Church entrusted to his care, liturgical regulations which are binding on all. Consequently this is how art. 64 §3 of the Apostolic Constitution Pastor Bonus as well as other laws are to be interpreted, particularly those contained in the liturgical books concerning their revision. Likewise I order that the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments modify its own “Regulations” on the basis of the new discipline and help the Episcopal Conferences to fulfil their task as well as working to promote ever more the liturgical life of the Latin Church.

Everything that I have decreed in this Apostolic Letter issued Motu Proprio must be observed in all its parts, notwithstanding anything to the contrary, even if it be worthy of particular mention, and I hereby set forth and I dispose that it be promulgated by publication in the daily newspaper L’Osservatore Romano, that it enter into force on 1 October 2017, and thereafter be published in Acta Apostolicae Sedis.

Given in Rome, at St. Peter’s, on 3 September of the year 2017, the fifth of my Pontificate
FRANCISCUS P.P.   

Note:  [at source, read also the Comment on the Motu Proprio by the secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments]

Comment:

The Catholic Herald sees no problem with the above – indeed, some might argue that the Herald’s assessment is somewhat naïve since few informed Catholics today have any confidence in the bishops, not to mention Pope Francis, not to damage the Mass even more than has already been achieved by the Bugnini revolution.  

The Remnant is closer to the truth:  Paragraph §4 makes it clear that the pope has now given bishops the power to determine much of the Church’s liturgical direction. “Within the limits of his competence, it belongs to the diocesan bishop to lay down in the Church entrusted to his care, liturgical regulations which are binding on all.”

This opens the door, not only to greater liberty in translating liturgical texts, but to creativity in drafting their own texts and rules. The bishops of an episcopal conference can now decide that if the faithful kneel to receive Communion, receive only on the tongue, or fail to participate in the hand shake of peace, this could be grounds to refuse them Communion.

The new motu proprio also supersedes Pope Benedict’s Summorum Pontificum, which dispensed priests from the need to obtain episcopal permission to say the Traditional Latin Mass. With the new ruling, an episcopal conference can now rule that the offering of the Latin Mass is forbidden in a given diocese, or in an entire country, so that traditional Catholics no longer have the option of appealing to Rome for help. The episcopal ruling is now Church law.” [emphasis added]

What we are seeing is a further attempt to pull the Catholic world away from the Church’s centralized authority and have a whimsical free-for-all. Francis himself, on October 17, 2015, called for a “healthy decentralization” of power in the Roman Catholic Church, including changes in the papacy and greater decision-making authority for local bishops, so this latest motu proprio is part of his plan to execute this decentralization.  END

Which commentator, in your opinion, has got it right – the English Catholic Herald or the American Remnant? (The Scottish Catholic Observer is too busy reporting on the Women’s Guild latest coffee morning to worry about incidentals like the liturgy.)   Comments invited…  

13 October: Centenary, Miracle of the Sun


The Editor of Christian Order writes…

Hierarchical disobedience/negligence/cowardice/lethargy/call-it-what-you-like, continues to amaze and appal. Even conservative prelates rarely promote the Five First Saturday Reparatory Devotions with any urgency. At best, all talk and no positive action sums up the hierarchical history. At worst — and overwhelmingly — it has been silence and negativity in the Modernistic process of marginalising, ecumenising and secularising Fatima by a thousand condescending cuts.

In effect, Our Lady’s personal instruction of Lucia, Francisco and Jacinta between May and October 1917 triggered 100 years of devotion and struggle — in roughly equal proportion: fifty years of signature Catholic devotion to Mary, followed by fifty post-conciliar years of ecumenical embarrassment apropos Marian devotion in general, and the Fatima message in particular.

Sister Lucia famously put this down to the “diabolic disorientation” that views doctrinal, moral and canonical chaos as a gift of the Holy Spirit, and the ensuing “mess” as a work of mercy.

This malign malaise appears to have reached its zenith in the person of the current pontiff. Yet we must pause to consider the plain truth of the matter: that Francis is just the latest link in the ever lengthening Modernist chain.   Click here to read entire editorial

The Editor of Catholic Truth writes…

No names, no pack drill, but in recent weeks I’ve been meeting diocesan Catholics in Novus Ordo Land on their home territory in various parishes in the central belt of Scotland, and believe me, there is just no easy or tactful way to say this: when Sister Lucia spoke of the forthcoming “diabolical disorientation” (presumably divulging something of what Our Lady had revealed, perhaps using her very words) she wasn’t kidding. Discussing Fatima, many, if not most, were shocked at the very idea that all is not as it should be – what they were hearing from us (the – literally – whole truth about Fatima) is just “not Catholic.” All incredible stuff. Talk about “upside down”; talk about “disorientation” – you got it.  Hostility on legs.  

As we approach the centenary of the Miracle of the Sun tomorrow, then, let us pray very hard for our fellow Catholics who have been given stones instead of bread these past fifty odd years and just cannot see it.  The old Faith has virtually disappeared from parish life, certainly here in Scotland.  the people don’t know the Faith; the clergy don’t know the Faith – and, from my recent experience, it seems clear that they don’t want to know it. 

Maybe, though, you have some tips to share to help restore the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Faith to our brothers and sisters in Christ. If so, let’s hear it… Because one of the sticking points in discussion has proven to be the very claim of the Church to be the one, true Church of Christ. Ecumenism has eaten deeply into the souls of the Catholic people. 

However, there is some good news:  the Fatima Scotland group,* formed to offer to distribute literature and give talks in parishes, has now offered to run Fatima Surgeries with a view to answering questions on Fatima, including the various controversies surrounding the Consecration of Russia and the Third Secret.  To sign up for one of these surgeries, please email editor@catholictruthscotland.com  in the first instance.  Your contact details will be passed to the Coordinator of the Fatima Scotland Group, who will be in touch with details of the next meeting.

Spread news of these surgeries far and wide, because there really is a serious lack of knowledge about the gravity of the Fatima apparitions at parish level. Our Lady said that the Consecration of Russia would be done “but it will be late” – and as we see the moral fibre of our societies disintegrating around us, with political leaders and terrorists threatening world peace, it is already very “late”.    It is crucial that we all do what we can to spread the Message of Fatima in what is left of this centenary year – and these surgeries offer a perfect talking point to do so. 

Our Lady of Fatima, Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us!

*  This group is separate from the diocesan-approved Fatima Scotland group.  The group referred to above officially represents the Fatima Center, Canada (Fr Gruner RIP) apostolate, appointed to distribute literature etc in Scotland during this centenary year. 

Why On Earth Do We Need Una Voce Scotland Or The Latin Mass Society?

FR JOHN BOLLAN, St Joseph’s Parish, Diocese of Paisley writes:

“I’m conscious of a dissonance in my own mind with regards to Mass in the Extraordinary form (sic).  It appeals to me aesthetically… And yet I make excuses. Perhaps my principal concern is that this Mass should not be a vehicle of protest or nostalgia, but something free of such baggage. In other words, the Mass is no place for the grinding of axes…” Click here to read the entire article (and click on image right, to watch a Traditional Latin Mass on video).

Attempting to uncover this priest’s age (he is kinder in his remarks about the Traditional Latin Mass than priests of the older generation although unfortunately he uses the modernist name “Extraordinary Form” and appears blissfully unaware that there IS a need to “grind axes”) I discovered an interesting incidental detail: that clergy lists seem to be disappearing from some diocesan websites; on one site, for example, there is a list of deceased clergy but not the parish priests still alive and, we presume, well.  Curious.

Anyway, while reflecting on Fr Bollan’s piece on the Mass published in the Scottish Catholic Observer, consider, too, the following piece written by Ellen, a member of the Catholic Truth team:

Ellen writes…

I was shocked by the article by Joseph Shaw, Chairman of the Latin Mass Society in England and Wales, published in the Catholic Herald, 1st September, 2017.
[Ed: in which he calls for “liturgical pluralism”: “Rather than throw every parish into confusion with a new top-down reform, it is better to foster the existing liturgical pluralism, which includes the reformed Roman rite…” [ i.e. the novus ordo – the new Mass]

Both the Latin Mass Society and Una Voce Scotland were established for the preservation and restoration of the Tridentine Rite of Mass. The chairmen of both these Societies seem to have lost sight of these aims.

I am really troubled by the hatred of the Traditional Mass that we have encountered recently from Novus Ordo going Catholics. The ignorance of these Catholics is appalling; they don’t see anything wrong in their going along with all the novelties introduced and which have in turn destroyed their true Sensus Fidelis.

What horrifies me is that the above Societies are spending their time and their subscribers’ hard earned cash on promoting heresies and on the cult of personalities. They have always, from their establishment, been too subservient to their bishops in the hope of a few scraps from the table instead of fighting for the right of every Catholic to serve God in the way Catholics have worshipped since time immemorial.

I think the time has come when all good priests who say that they prefer the Traditional Mass would stand up and say this Mass only. The parishioners are so entrenched in the new ways that they would require much education but with good leadership and encouragement it could be done. When the Cure D’Ars was first appointed to that parish, no-one attended Mass; he persevered and with his prayers and holiness eventually it became a great parish. Priests today must see that the real answer to their problems is the lack of that holiness. This can only come from the Holy Mass and Devotion to the Blessed Sacrament.

We, the laity who are aware and love the Mass must really rally round and not accept anything less. And if we truly love our neighbour we must try to encourage them to seek the nourishment they would receive from the truth rather than the insipid falsehoods peddled to them by false shepherds. END.

Comment:

When she speaks of the the hatred of the Traditional Mass that we have encountered recently from Novus Ordo going Catholics” Ellen refers to various conversations we have had in the context of spreading the Fatima Message.  The minute the issue of the new Mass is raised, so are hackles, and a tangible atmosphere of animosity and, yes, hatred quickly becomes evident – and this, we must emphasise, among the older generation, who should know better.  Safer to recommend attending a Salvation Army service than a traditional Latin Mass.

It’s all about what we enjoy, what we find beneficial – the very concept of offering true worship to God  doesn’t arise.  It didn’t arise, either, in Father Bollan’s piece. His claim that “the Mass should not be a vehicle of protest or nostalgia” is only partly correct; martyrs, like our own Scottish Saint, John Ogilvie SJ, died in defence of the Mass. It was essential to protest attacks on the Mass during the Protestant Reformation (more accurately, “revolution”) as it is essential, lamentably, to protest attacks upon it now – in the form a new Mass created in the most worrying of circumstances and for the express purpose of making it acceptable to Protestants.  Pictured below, Pope Paul VI with the six Protestant Ministers who actively contributed to the creation of the new Mass –  click on the photo to read an article on the subject, and see Michael Davies: Pope Paul’s New Mass for thoroughly academic coverage of this scandal, in the context of the history of the Novus Ordo Missae.

From Left: A. Raymond George (Methodist),     Ronald Jaspar (Anglican),
Massey Shepherd (Episcopalian),
Friedrich Künneth (Lutheran),
  Eugene Brand (Lutheran),
Max Thurian (Calvinist-community of Taize).


Father Bollan is right about the nostalgia though.  There should be no need for “nostalgia” – the Mass for which St John Ogilvie and the other martyrs gave their lives should be available in our parishes on a daily basis; it’s a dead cert that there would be sufficient priests to make it available daily, had the Second Vatican Council never darkened the doorstep of the Catholic world.  As it is, we have priests here today and gone tomorrow, because the new Mass does not nourish them – little wonder that it’s easier to find that needle in the haystack than a lengthy clergy list on diocesan websites today. 

So, things have developed quickly, from the pleasure at having a new Mass in the vernacular, to hatred of the Mass that nourished Catholic souls, and raised them to sanctity for many centuries.  How come Catholics have moved so far away from the very fundamentals of Catholic life and the truths of our Catholic Faith? And how come the organisations allegedly set up to preserve the ancient Mass for us, have decided to go along to get along, after all?

For,  Una Voce Scotland (UVS) and the Latin Mass Society (LMS) appear intent on organising everything and anything except a simple Low Mass in the local parish; instead they are organising sung Masses, High Masses, you name it, with members of the episcopate, including the recent visit to Scotland of Cardinal Burke, invited for the purpose of drawing large crowds, and perhaps some kind of kudos. Who knows.  What we do know is that some of us love the Low Mass, the peace, the reverence, the time to concentrate of the prayers of the Mass, the action of Calvary, but, it seems, that is not good enough for the Chief Executives who seek higher things, in a manner of (satirical) speaking.  

Perhaps it’s time to replace UVS and the LMS … or, on second thoughts,  perhaps not. Is it a case of “better the devil(s) you know…?”  Or is there any need for such groups at all, given that they are all too ready, as  Ellen writes, to accept the crumbs that fall from the episcopal table. Shouldn’t every knowledgeable Catholic simply encourage others to seek out a chapel of the Society of Saint Pius X, and go there for Mass, until they can persuade their Parish Priest to provide one in their local church? After all, it is to the sacrifice of Archbishop Lefebvre that the Chairmen of UVS and the LMS owe their living, so to speak.  But for that saintly Archbishop, there would BE no traditional Latin Mass available to us in this “post-Catholic” Catholic Church…  Below, to remind us all of that truth, is a short video clip on the subject. Then, share your thoughts…

Separating The Mass From Its Purpose…

From the Catholic Herald, 8th September, 2017…

Matthew Schmitz is right that young Catholics are more traditionally-minded. But that doesn’t always mean the Old Rite

Everyone, including Catholics, wants to figure out millennials, the much-maligned generation to which I undeniably belong. 

Last week, my fellow native Nebraskan Matthew Schmitz wrote a piece for the Catholic Herald entitled “The Kids Are Old Rite”. Schmitz argued that the younger generation today – us millennials – are trending increasingly traditional, much to the dismay of some older, more liberal generations of Catholics.

On that point, generally, I don’t disagree. I see in myself and among my fellow millennial Catholics a desire to return to more orthodox practices, teachings and ways of thinking. We saw what happened when our parents’ generation flung open Pandora’s box – sexually, religiously, morally – and we’re not loving the results. Divorce, abortion, and the breakdown of the family have had less than desirable effects on the society we’ve inherited.

In particular, the quotes from Archbishop Augustine DiNoia that Schmitz included on the subject were spot on:

My sense is that these twenty- and thirty-somethings have been radicalised by their experience … in a way that we were not.” After “God-knows-what kinds of personal and social experiences”, they have come to know “moral chaos, personally and socially, and they want no part of it”. A sense of narrow escape guides their vocations. “It is as if they had gone to the edge of an abyss and pulled back.

However, the piece implies that young people are increasingly preferring the Old Rite – the Traditional Latin Mass – over the Novus Ordo, and that the “liturgy wars” of old will now be divided along generational lines.

But based on my experience, and that of my peers, I don’t think it’s true that we’re clamouring for the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) in large numbers. I also don’t think we’re interested in reviving the so-called “liturgy wars” of old.

I have some friends who prefer the TLM, or the Byzantine rite. But they’re still the exception, rather than the norm, among my wide circle of Catholic friends that comes with living in a Catholic millennial hub like Denver.

My TLM friends think that the old rite is beautiful, but they aren’t going to go so far as to “shove it down the throats” of others, as one of my friends put it.  
 
From what I have seen, the Traditional Latin Mass appeals to some Catholics, but I don’t think it will ever become the norm again. I personally prefer the Novus Ordo Mass, because it’s the form with which I grew up and with which I am most familiar. I’ve gone to public school my whole life and have never formally been taught Latin, and so I prefer a Mass I understand.

An unscientific poll of my young people friends tends to agree – we haven’t been taught Latin like the previous generations, and we don’t see what’s wrong with a prayerful and reverent Novus Ordo Mass.

Judging by the ever-growing crowd of young people at the Novus Ordo Mass I attend weekly, at which we chant the opening antiphons in English and have incense galore, we’re looking for reverence, but at a Mass we understand.

In true millennial fashion, however, I’d like to take a moment to check my privilege.

As a daughter of the notoriously traditional Lincoln Diocese in Nebraska, I never felt the need to seek out more reverent, prayerful forms of Mass, because the Novus Ordo Masses I grew up with were lacking in neither. Similarly, when I made the move to Denver three years ago, I had little trouble finding a Novus Ordo Mass that was celebrated beautifully and reverently.

I realise that the story might be different if I had lived in other dioceses. Given the choice between the Latin or a questionable liturgical dance Mass, I’d choose Latin any day.

At the end of the day, it’s hard enough to be a young Catholic today, that I think most of us recognise that can’t let “liturgy wars” bring us down.

Do you feel closest to God while wearing a veil and chanting Latin? Great. Is the Novus Order Mass in English, with the promise of coffee and donuts afterwards, the only way to get your butt into a pew on Sunday? More power to you.

We’re just happy you’re here, because we want you to meet Jesus.    Source – Catholic Herald, 8/9/17          

                                 

Comment:

Support for the above thesis / praise for the novus ordo came from an unexpected source in last week’s Catholic Herald – none other than Dr Joseph Shaw, Chairman of the Latin Mass Society (LMS):

“Rather than throw every parish into confusion with a new top-down reform, it is better to foster the existing liturgical pluralism, which includes the reformed Roman Rite [Ed: the novus ordo, the new Mass], the Ordinariate Use, the growing presence of Eastern Catholic Rites, and the pre-conciliar Latin liturgy, now widely available once more. Among these, surely, we have something for everyone… the liturgy should not be a battlefield, it is a table at which the Catholic soul is nourished.”  Joseph Shaw: After the ‘liturgy wars’, a pluralistic truce? Catholic Herald,  1/9/17.

What seems to have been forgotten by these writers is  the fact that the Mass is not for us.  This appears to be an error peculiar to our times, for although there are various rites within the Church, the novus ordo alone appears designed to cater for personal whims of taste and fashion of various types – for example, popular music, lay activity.  But the Mass is not for us, in that sense.  The Roman Rite  was approved centuries ago by the Church, in the form we now term “the traditional Latin Mass”  for the purpose of offering true worship to God – not because the locals found it entertaining, or held their attention or suited their imagined “spiritual” needs. 

So, how can this concept of “pluralistic truce” be justified in the current crisis of Faith in the Church?  Is the Mass primarily a “table at which the Catholic soul is nourished” or an altar on which the Holy Sacrifice of the Lamb is re-presented to the Father in order to offer Him true worship, which is wholly orthodox and pleasing to God… Does our often superficial “enjoyment” of Mass in the vernacular, easily understood with popular music and easy on the ear and conscience homilies, trump our duty to offer the worship which has nourished saints and martyrs down the centuries, and is manifestly pleasing to God? Think: “by their fruits…” 

In summary: what’s your take on a “pluralistic truce”?    But before you answer, check out this critique of the new Mass

3rd September: Feast of Pope St Pius X…

Read (or, for now, simply dip into) two key texts for our times: firstly, the landmark encyclical of Pope Saint Pius X Pascendi (on the doctrine of the Modernists) and Archbishop Lefebvre’s Open Letter to Confused Catholics  and then share your thoughts. 

And consider this: the Pontifical High Mass in the Parish of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Balornock, Glasgow, offered by Cardinal Burke at noon today, would not have taken place but for the self-sacrifice of Archbishop Lefebvre, who refused to stand by and permit the ancient Mass to be destroyed in the name of the Vatican II “reforms”.  

To the Archbishop, in fact,  do we owe the Masses now available all over the world, which resulted from Pope Benedict’s Apostolic Letter, given Motu Proprio (on his own initiative/by his own hand), Summorum Pontificum issued in July, 2007. This Motu Proprio was issued  to fulfil a condition of the Bishops of Archbishop Lefebvre’s Society of St Pius X , who insisted that all priests must be permitted to offer the Traditional Latin Mass without any pressure from their bishops, before they, the SSPX bishops,  would resume talks aimed at ending their current “irregular” situation within the Church.  One wonders just how many of those attending Cardinal Burke’s Pontifical High Mass today, and, no doubt, marvelling at its beauty, realise that fact. 

How likely, too, is it that the organisers, or any of the priests in attendance – let alone the Cardinal himself – would remark on this key fact, in all of their conversation about the beauty of the ancient rite of Mass, and the wonder of having it available to the faithful once again, after so many years when it was effectively (and illicitly) prohibited.  

Far, far from our priests be the love of novelty! – Pope Pius X

 

Comments invited…

Francis: The “Gay”- Friendly Pope…

Does [Pope Francis] Lead us to Gay Church?
BY Jean-Pierre Dickès, 8/14/17
[http://medias-catholique.info/bergoglio-nous-mene-t-il-a-leglise-gay/9160]
[Excellent Google Translation]

The case began with the famous “Who am I to judge? ” about homosexuality. The curious reflection of a pope whose role is precisely to transmit the spiritual and moral heritage of the Church. Teaching itself dating back to the sixth commandment given by God to Moses. The justification of this practical relativism was the famous word “mercy” aimed at validating “concrete situations” in order to “accompany and integrate”. Things could have stopped there. Now we find ourselves faced with a new form of ethics which was to materialize by an avalanche of precise facts which ultimately lead to a new Church which can be called homosexual; It is a veritable apocalyptic avalanche aimed at transforming the Church and subjecting it to gender, the necessary passage of transhumanism, this ideology wanting to create a new man. It is a frontal and programmed attack against the natural order willed by God in his creation.

* We have already forgotten the famous text known as Relatio of mid-term at the synod on the family in 2014. It had been massively rejected in a resounding way. “Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community: are we able to welcome these people, by guaranteeing them a fraternal space in our communities? … Can our communities be able to provide this, accept and value their sexual orientation without compromising the Catholic doctrine on family and marriage? “It is therefore a question of “valuing sexual orientation” in this case sodomy. It was indeed [Pope Francis] who wanted to insert this abominable text in the final document of the synod.

* At the beginning of his pontificate, [Pope Francis] named a notorious homosexual, Mgr. Battista Ricca, as prelate of his own papal house and at the head of the Vatican bank.

* The famous “Who am I to judge” referred to an active homosexual for whom it is undoubtedly demonstrated that he was involved in many sodomite relationships, including a young man with whom he was caught in a blocked elevator.

* In an interview with America magazine in September 2013, Pope [Francis] laughed at the very idea of ​​disapproving homosexual conduct: “One person once asked me provocatively if I had approved of homosexuality. I answered with another question, “Tell me, when God looks at a gay person, does he support the existence of that person with love or refuse and condemn this person? ”

* [Pope Francis] has since made a great show by meeting personally and physically embracing an assortment of homosexuals and transgenders, even accepting the “marriage” of a woman claiming to be a man who “married” another woman.

* The Pope ostensibly embraced the hand and concelebrated the Mass with a Don Michele de Paolis, a notorious pro-homosexual militant priest and animator of a gay site. This is a public sacrilege. Then [Pope Francis] invited him to dinner. At the moment of the priest’s departure he had an ambiguous sentence: “Everything is possible!”  A warning quickly forgotten by all. And yet …

* [Pope Francis] refused to rule against the legalization of “homosexual unions,” “gay marriages,” or even “gay adoption” in Italy, Ireland, the United States and Malta. His excuse was that “the Pope does not place himself in the concrete policy of a country.”  But he is the first to defend immigration and to invest in the issue of “climate change.”  Eminently political issues.

* One of the rare and frank episcopal opponents of the emerging “Gay Church” is Charles Chaput, appointed Archbishop by Pope Benedict XVI. During the synod of which he was a member, he had presented guidelines prohibiting the giving of Holy Communion to same-sex couples or remarried divorcees. In the hierarchical order, being archbishop of Philadelphia, he should have been named cardinal. From consistory to consistory, [Pope Francis] challenged him. Bishop Chaput was strongly criticized by Father Thomas Rosica, attaché of the Vatican Press Office during the Synod. This priest is nicknamed the “attack dog” of the LGBT.

* The Jesuit James Martin, is a fervent defender of the gay priesthood and a fortiori unions of this nature. Normally he should have been “crossed” by the Pope. On the contrary, [Pope Francis] appointed him consultant of the Secretariat of Social Communications of the Vatican. He is the author of a book entitled “Building a Bridge”. This bridge must connect the Church to the LGBT. The teaching of the catechism is rejected; Sodomy can not be a sin. It is God who created homosexuals, so their morals can not be condemned.

* Cardinal Walter Kasper, is an arch-progressive German prelate. He headed the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity. He is the favorite theologian of [Pope Francis]. He defended the legalization of homo marriage in Ireland. For him, if the majority of the people agree with laws of this nature, it is legitimate to “recognize their rights”. In other words, it is the people who define what is true and good. The Church must align with the politically correct. Curious approach. Jesus told us that “you are in the world, but you are not of the world” (John 17: 14-18).

* Another case is that of the well-named Cardinal Reinhard Marx. Concerning “gay marriage” he said: “The Christian position is one thing. It is another thing to ask if I can respect all the laws on Christian moral concepts. Anyone who does not understand that one does not automatically lead to the other, has not understood the very essence of modern society “. A convoluted way to say that the Church does not have to defend its morality in the face of the present world.

* Cardinal Christoph Schönborn was the Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. He said, “We can and must respect the decision to form a same-sex union, [and] look for ways in civil law to protect their lives with the laws to ensure such protection.” However, he is considered a conservative. He was the one who carried the project of Amoris Laetitia on the question of remarried divorcees. The Pope considers him a “great theologian.” Who presented in his own cathedral of Vienna a gay couple who had adopted a child of black race. This couple has ordered a three-year-old girl in South Africa.

* With Bishop Vincenzo Paglia we reach the height. According to the newspaper La Croix on 17 June, he was charged with criminal conspiracy, obstructing the investigation, fraud against the town of Narni (Umbria, central Italy), misuse of credit and misappropriation Of funds. The accusation is carried by the prosecutor of Terni, Elisabetta Massini. Notwithstanding this situation, [Pope Francis] placed him at the head of the Academy for Life and the Grand Chancellor of the Pontifical Institute for Studies on Marriage and the Family. He has exploded these two institutions by introducing supporters of euthanasia and abortion. He wears sunglasses whose frame is rainbow LGBT. But above all he made a gigantic fresco of “homoerotic” inspiration in the choir of his cathedral in Terni. Pushing vice up to represent itself with the episcopal cap. This fresco was made by a notorious homosexual artist.

* The American Cardinal Blase Cupich, is an LGBT actively supported by [Pope Francis]; He announced that he was for the reception of Holy Communion by “homosexual couples;” this during his installation as archbishop of Chicago. It is based on the pretext of the “inviolable conscience.” We are in full Protestantism. For him, heterosexual adulteresses can also communicate.

* Another case is that of Cardinal Dolan. His archdiocese is full of homosexual priests. A professional player named Michael Sam publicly revealed his homosexuality in 2014. The Archbishop said on national television: “Good for him. I would have no sense of judgment on him. God bless him … The same Bible that tells us that we teach the virtues of chastity and the virtue of fidelity and marriage also tells us not to judge people. So I would say, “Well done!” For Saint Patrick, the Irish are traditionally a parade, a kind of folk parade. Dolan was named “Grand Marshall” of this parade despite the presence of a group of “gay pride” with its banners.

* Cardinal Joseph Tobin, named Cardinal by [Pope Francis] and head of the Archdiocese of Newark, New Jersey (New York suburb), gave his blessing in July to a gay pilgrimage that ended with a Sacrilegious Mass at the Cathedral. One of the militant homosexuals who participated in the demonstration called the cardinal’s blessing a “miracle.” The New York Times greeted the event with the title: “As the Church changes, a cardinal welcomes gays; They embrace a “miracle.” Tobin is a very active supporter of Father Martin named above. The same is true of Bishop Robert McElroy, Bishop of the Diocese of San Diego. This bishop is one of the recruits of the expanding corps of gay shock troops that [Pope Francis] settles in the key dioceses; He praised Martin’s book and proclaimed beyond the teaching of the catechism that homosexuality is “intrinsically disordered.” He believes that homosexuals can communicate.

* We will not return to the case of Bishop Cocopalmerio, President of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts. In what is surely only the tip of a very large iceberg, his private secretary Luigi Capozzi, was arrested amidst a homosexual orgy whose participants were drugged. Capozzi completely “shot” was hospitalized by the gendarmerie. When one looks at Saint Peter of Rome, one sees a building on the left, seat of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It was here that these great deeds unfolded. Capozzi at the request of his boss was proposed to the episcopate.

The characteristic of all these prelates is that they were promoted by [Pope Francis] with the exception of course of Bishop Chaput. There are, of course, others like Bishop Robert Barron, an American theologian who denounces the Church for condemning homosexuality.

The only conclusion to be drawn is that [Pope Francis] is preparing the advent of the Gay Church at full speed. Notably by eliminating the most conservative elements opposing him in one way or another.   Jean-Pierre Dickès

Comment

As readers will note, I’ve had to change “Bergoglio” to [Pope Francis] umpteen times in the above article.  It strikes me that those who insist on using the Pope’s family surname, not only show lack of respect for the papal office but they minimise the gravity of what this Pope is saying and doing.  If only it were “Bergoglio” saying and doing all these awful things, that would be bad enough – bad enough that any Catholic would promote homosexuality – but not as grave as these words and actions falling from the lips of a reigning pope.  Why can’t Catholics, who are rightly outraged at Pope Francis, see that they are letting him off the hook by minimising the damage he is doing to the Church as pontiff… Who cares about “Bergoglio”? 

Anyway, comments invited.  Do you agree with the author that Pope Francis is “preparing the advent of the ‘Gay  Church’ at full speed” or is there another explanation for the facts detailed in the above article?  But please – it was irritating enough having to keep deleting “Bergoglio” and typing [Pope Francis] in the article, do not make extra work for me by using the Pope’s family surname in your comments.  Please and thank you!  

Growing Catholic Identity Crisis…

Editor writes….

Since Pope Benedict XVI’s motu proprio, Summorum Pontificum, permitting all priests to offer the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) without seeking permission from bishops, there has been a kind of “traditionalist identity crisis” within the Church, where “conservative” priests and people have taken to the ancient Mass and, coupled with their orthodox adherence to the natural moral law on “life” matters (contraception, abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality etc), thereby consider themselves to be “traditionalists” – straight down the line Catholics, the real McCoy.  It is not, however, that simple.

Often, these same Catholics hold positions that are absolutely at odds with the truths of the Faith.  Many, if not most, are outright papolatrists – they will not accept that there are limits to papal authority and they are in denial about much of the scandal caused by Pope Francis.  Then again, others take the opposite view:  he is so bad that he  can’t be  a true pope, so the papal seat is vacant – sedevacantism.  Or, they jump on the latest bandwagon, support the latest fad, “Benevacantism”  where the claim is that Benedict is still pope because not only is Francis so bad that he can’t be a true pope, but Benedict was forced to resign, so Francis’ election must be invalid.   None of these positions fits the “traditional Catholic” profile.  Some  – believe it or not, including folks in the above categories – still attend the novus ordo Mass, even on weekdays when there is no obligation, and argue that they have to attend on Sundays, under pain of mortal sin, if unable to get to the TLM.  

Most of the Summorum Pontificum priests still provide the novus ordo, although I am aware that, certainly in a number of UK-wide cases that have come across my desk,  there are priests would much prefer not to do so and who keep those Masses to a minimum. The majority, however, remain “on diocesan message”, their “traditionalism” filed in the box marked “Making the TLM  available for those who want to attend” – and  they’re not exactly setting the heather on fire with forceful sermons on the topic, exhorting their parishioners to switch to “the old Mass”.

Finally, there are self-styled “traditional” Catholics, priests and laity, who go along with various novelties introduced in the post-Vatican II era, and even support various controversial (to say the least) initiatives within the Church, new movements such as the Charismatics, the Faith movement and the  Neocatechumenate.  Some who dislike the new Mass, like the new Rosary, and they may read books which a truly Catholic mind would bin. 

Time, then, perhaps, to reflect on the precise nature of Catholic Tradition.  In his Open Letter to Confused Catholics, Archbishop Lefebvre (SSPX Founder) spells out what it means to be a Catholic – and there’s no getting away from the fact that truly traditional Catholic priests follow the exhortation of Pope Saint Pius X: “Far, far from our priests, be the love of novelty.”   And truly traditional Catholic laity keep the clergy’s feet to the fire on this, to minimise the risk of being led astray, albeit by well-meaning priests who are not sufficiently “traditional” in their souls to recognise the dangers inherent in the modern Church.  Below, a superb definition of Catholic Tradition – comments welcome, but note: do not name any priests or lay people whom you may consider to be in the “identity crisis” category. This thread is to remind us all, each one of us, what it means to be a faithful Catholic – that we must all adhere to Tradition, as defined below. So, unless you’re identifying your own infidelity, no names, no pack drill! 

Archbishop Lefebvre writes…

Modernism is indeed what undermines the Church from within, today as yesterday. Let us again quote from the encyclical Pascendi some typical features which correspond with what we are experiencing now.  “The Modernists say that authority in the Church, since its end is purely spiritual, should strip itself of all that external pomp, all those pretentious adornments with which it parades itself in public. In this they forget that religion, while it belongs to the soul, is not exclusively for the soul and that the honor paid to authority is reflected back on Christ who institutes it.”

It is under pressure from these “speakers of novelties” that Paul VI abandoned the tiara, bishops gave up the violet cassock and even the black, as well as their rings, and priests appear in lay clothes, usually in a deliberately casual style. There is nothing among the general reforms already put into effect or insistently demanded that St. Pius X has not mentioned as the “maniac” desires of the modernist reformers. You will recognize them in this passage: “As regards worship (they want) to diminish the number of external devotions or at least stop their increasing… Let ecclesiastical government become democratic; let a share in the government be given to the junior clergy and even the laity; let authority be decentralized. Reform of the Roman Congregations, above all the Holy Office and the Index… Finally there are those among them who, echoing their Protestant masters, seek the suppression of priestly celibacy.” Notice that the same demands are now being put forward and that there is absolutely nothing original. As regards Christian thought and the formation of future priests, the intention of the reformers of St. Pius X’s time was the abandonment of scholastic philosophy among the obsolete systems.” They advocate “that young people should be taught modern philosophy, the only true philosophy, the only one suitable for our times… that so-called rational theology should be based on modern philosophy and positive theology on the history of dogmas.” In this respect, the Modernists have got what they wanted and more. In what passes for seminaries, they teach anthropology, psychoanalysis and Marx in place of St. Thomas Aquinas. The principles of Thomist philosophy are rejected in favor of vague systems which themselves recognize their inability to explain the economy of the Universe, putting forward as they do the philosophy of the absurd. One latter-day revolutionary, a muddle-headed priest much heeded by intellectuals, who put sex at the heart of everything, was bold enough to declare at public meetings: “The scientific hypotheses of the ancients were pure nonsense and it is on such nonsense that St. Thomas and Origen based their systems.” Immediately afterwards, he fell into the absurdity of defining life as “an evolutionary chain of biologically inexplicable facts.” How can he know that, if it is inexplicable? How, I would add, can a priest discard the only explanation, which is God?

The Modernists would be set at naught if they had to defend their elaborate theories against the principles of the Angelic Doctor, the notions of potency and act, essence, substance and accidents, body and soul, etc. By eliminating these notions they would render the theology of the Church incomprehensible and, as one reads in the Motu Proprio Doctoris Angelici, “the result is that students of the sacred disciplines no longer even perceive the meaning of the words by which the dogmas which God has revealed are propounded by the Magisterium.” The offensive against scholastic philosophy is a necessary preliminary when one wants to change dogma and attack Tradition.
But what is Tradition? It seems to me that the word is often imperfectly understood. It is equated to the “traditions” that exist in trades, in families and in civic life: the “bouquet” fixed to the roof of a house when the last tile is laid, the ribbon that is cut to open a monument, etc.  That is not what I am referring to:  Tradition does not consist of the customs inherited from the past and preserved out of loyalty to the past even where there are no clear reasons for them. Tradition is defined as the Deposit of Faith transmitted by the Magisterium down through the centuries.  This deposit is what has been given to us by Revelation;  that is to say,  the Word of God entrusted to the Apostles and transmitted unfailingly by their successors.

But now they want to get everyone inquiring, searching, as if we had not been given the Creed, or as if Our Lord had not come to bring us the Truth once and for all.  What do they claim to discover with all this inquiry? Catholics upon whom they would impose these “questionings,” after having made them “abandon their certainties,” should remember this: the deposit of Revelation concluded at the death of the last Apostle. It is finished and it cannot be touched until the end of time.  Revelation is irreformable.  The First Vatican Council re-stated this explicitly: “for the doctrine of faith which God has revealed has not been proposed, like a philosophical invention, to be perfected by human ingenuity; but has been delivered as a divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ (the Church) to be faithfully kept and infallibly declared.”

But, one will object, the dogma that makes Mary the Mother of God only dates back to the year 431, transubstantiation to 1215, papal infallibility to 1870 and so on. Has there not been an evolution? No, not at all.  The dogmas which have been defined in the course of the ages were contained in Revelation; the Church has just made them explicit. When Pope Pius XII defined in 1950 the dogma of the Assumption, he said specifically that this truth of the assumption into Heaven of the Virgin Mary, body and soul, was included in the deposit of Revelation and already existed in the texts revealed to us before the death of the last Apostle. We cannot bring anything new into this field, we cannot add a single dogma, but only express those that exist ever more clearly, more beautifully and more loftily.
That is so certain that it forms the rule to follow in judging the errors that are put before us every day, and rejecting them with no concession. As Bossuet forcefully wrote: “When it is a matter of explaining the principles of Christian morality and the essential dogmas of the Church everything that does not appear in the Tradition of all time, and especially the early times, is from then on not only suspect but wrong and to be condemned; and this is the principal basis on which all the holy Fathers of the Church, and Popes more than anyone, condemned false doctrines, there being nothing more odious to the Roman Church than novelties.”

The argument that is pressed upon the terrorized faithful is this: “You are clinging to the past, you are being nostalgic; live in your own time!” Some are abashed and do not know what to reply.  Nevertheless, the answer is easy: In this there is no past or present or future.  Truth belongs to all times, it is eternal.

In order to break down Tradition they confront it with Holy Scripture, after the manner of the Protestants, with the assertion that the Gospel is the only book that counts. But Tradition came before the Gospel! Although the Synoptic Gospels were not written nearly as late as some would have us believe, a number of years had passed before the Four Evangelists had completed their writing; but the Church already existed, Pentecost had taken place and brought numerous conversions, 3000 on the very day the Apostles came out of the Upper Room. What did they believe just at that moment? How was Revelation transmitted if not by oral tradition? One cannot subordinate Tradition to Holy Scripture, still less reject it.

But do not imagine that, adopting this attitude, they have an unlimited respect for the inspired text. They even dispute that it is inspired in its entirety: “What is there in the Gospel which is inspired? Only the truths that are necessary for our salvation.” In consequence, the miracles, the accounts of the Holy Childhood, the actions and conduct of Our Lord are relegated to the category of more or less legendary biography.  We fought in the Council over that phrase: “Only the truths necessary for salvation.” There were some bishops in favor of reducing the historical authenticity of the Gospels, which shows the extent to which the clergy is corrupted by neo-Modernism. Catholics should not allow themselves to be imposed upon: the whole of the Gospel is inspired and those who wrote it had the Holy Ghost guiding their intelligence, so that the whole of it is the Word of God, Verbum Dei. It is not permissible to pick and choose and to say today: “We will take this part but we don’t want that part.” To choose is to be a heretic, according to the Greek derivation of that word.

It remains no less a fact that it is Tradition that transmits the Gospel to us, and it appertains to Tradition, to the Magisterium, to explain to us the contents of the Gospel. If we have nobody to interpret it for us, we can reach several completely different understandings of the same words of Christ. We then end up with the free interpretation of the Protestants and the free inspiration of the present day charismatics which leads us into pure fantasy.

All the dogmatic councils have given us the exact expression of Tradition, the exact expression of what the Apostles taught. Tradition is irreformable. One can never change the decrees of the Council of Trent, because they are infallible, written and published by an official act of the Church, unlike those of Vatican II, which pronouncements are not infallible because the popes did not wish to commit their infallibility. Therefore nobody can say to you, “You are clinging to the past, you have stayed with the Council of Trent.” For the Council of Trent is not the past. Tradition is clothed with a timeless character, adapted to all times and all places.  Source