May 6, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – In a new interview, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò [left] has once more returned to the topic of the Second Vatican Council, the loss of Marian devotion followed by that Council, as well as the deficiencies of the Novus Ordo Mass.
Speaking with the Italian website Radio Spada – this is the second instalment of two parts of an interview (here part one) – the Italian prelate sees a satanic involvement in the decline of devotions to Our Lady after the Council and explains that “the gift of my ‘conversion’ – of my becoming aware of the conciliar deception and the present apostasy – became possible thanks to my constant devotion towards the Blessed Mother, which I have never ceased to have.” Describing how Our Lady has been undermined – even denied in her role as Co-Redemptrix – Archbishop Viganò points out that “what unites heretics of all times is their intolerance of the cult reserved for the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Marian doctrine it presupposes and of which it is the liturgical expression.”
For him, there is no doubt that the Holy Trinity “is pleased to share the work of Redemption with Our Lady,” to whom so many special gifts had been granted, including her immaculate conception and her perpetual virginity.
The prelate, moreover, discusses the problem of the Second Vatican Council and the fact that “the conciliar Church was embracing the liturgical and doctrinal positions of Protestantism.” Part of that Protestantization of the Church after Vatican II can be seen in the diminishment of the Marian devotions. States the archbishop:
The decline of Marian devotion after the Council is only the latest expression, and I would say the most aberrant and scandalous, of the aversion of Satan towards the Queen of Heaven. It is one of the signs that that assembly did not come from God, just as those who dare even to question the titles and merits of the Most Holy Virgin do not come from God. On the other hand, what son would allow his own mother to be put down in order to please his father’s enemies? And how much more serious is this abject complicity with heretics and pagans when the honor of the Mother of God and our Mother is at stake?
As can be seen here, Archbishop Viganò goes so far as to conclude that a council that led to the undermining of the Blessed Mother could surely not “come from God.”
He also makes another strong statement: in his eyes, the Novus Ordo Mass should one day be abolished. He first discusses the problem of having two forms of the Latin Rite – the “ordinary” and the “extraordinary” form – and says that it is
at least difficult to maintain that the Mystical Body can raise up liturgical prayer – which is an official, solemn, and public action – to Her Head with a double voice: this two-fold nature can signify duplicity and is repugnant to the simplicity and linearity of Catholic Truth, just as it is repugnant to God, whose Word is Eternal and is the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity.
In his view, “Christ cannot address the Father with a perfect voice – which the Innovators call the ‘Extraordinary Form’ – and at the same time with an imperfect voice, winking at the enemies of God, in an ‘Ordinary Form.’”
In light of these strong criticisms of the Novus Ordo Mass, Archbishop Viganò explains that at this point, he believes that the current situation has to be accepted for a certain time, “as a transitory phase,” in which the traditional Liturgy can continue to spread, thereby “doing much good to souls, in view of a necessary return to the One Catholic Rite and to the indispensable abolition of its conciliar version.” That is to say, Viganò thinks that the Novus Ordo Mass needs to be abolished at some point in history. He states:
Let us not forget that in the Liturgy the Church addresses herself to the Majesty of God, not to men; the baptized, living members of the Church, unite together in liturgical prayer by means of the Sacred Ministers, who are “pontiffs” between them and the Most Holy Trinity. To make the liturgy into a sort of anthropocentric event is most alien to the Catholic spirit. Source
My first reaction on reading the above was “hear hear – bring back the ‘old normal’ to the Church, as well as to our secular society, and the sooner the better. And I don’t recall much of a transition phase when they thrust the new Mass upon us, so let that ‘transitory phase’ be short and not-too-sweet.” That was my reaction – what was yours?
There’s no mistaking the sincerity of the young Protestant Evangelical in the above video. He very accurately summarises the differences between the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) and the novus ordo (NO).
One mistake which he makes – a very common mistake – is to think that “the Church” is not “one”. He misunderstands the difference between the break-up of Christendom thanks to Martin Luther et al, who left the Church, with the Church itself upon which Christ bequeathed unity from the beginning: “That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.” (John 17:21) Here Christ was bestowing unity on His Church – it was not some future goal.
However, this is, as I say, a very common misconception. Catholics make the same mistake, so we have to cut the young man some slack on this.
Where there is absolutely NO slack to be cut, is for those Catholics who have not returned to attending Mass since the disgraceful Government ban was lifted, but are choosing instead to stay at home and watch Mass online. I’d heard concerns expressed that this would happen and I could see the temptation but it didn’t occur to me for a second that any Catholic accustomed to attending the TLM would fall prey to such temptation. I’ve now heard of at least three such cases – and I remain incredulous.
Watching Mass online does not fulfil the Sunday Mass obligation. The notices and announcements in churches at the time of the lockdown stated clearly that “there is a temporary dispensation from the Sunday obligation” – that is, the obligation was temporarily lifted [due to the Government ban]. That ban is no longer in place. Neither is the dispensation from attending Mass in person. We are once again obliged to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation.
So, what does this readiness to skip Mass for the comfort of watching it online tell us? Well, with this willingness to miss Mass, remember, is a willingness to live without the benefit of the Sacraments – no confession, no absolution, no Holy Communion. What kind of Catholic life is that? Answer: it’s not.
If you have any thoughts on this phenomenon please share them in the comments below, but do not name names. Suffice that we try to work out what is going on here – are these “Lockdown Legacy Catholics” staying away from church out of a [human but faithless] fear of “the virus”, or is the virus merely an excuse to re-structure life in such a way that God’s law does not interfere too much with their secular lives? Were they always Catholics of weak Faith, or what… What’s the mentality – I’m genuinely puzzled. Over to thee…
And don’t forget to pray for the young Protestant man in the video – he appears to be very open to the grace of God, so it would be wonderful if he were to embrace the gift of the Faith. Our Lady, Help of Christians, pray for him!
This group takes too long to get into the discussion (at least five minutes) but once they get going, it’s very interesting indeed to hear them objecting to some of the very things which were defended and promoted by fellow-parishioners when some of us were doing the complaining. It’s also interesting to see how the standards have shifted (mostly in a downward direction). In the end, it dawns on Catholics who are truly thinking it all through, that there is no option but to move on to the traditional Mass – back to the future… It seems clear that the growth is to be found where the traditional Latin Mass is being offered, so pray for the trio in the video. They obviously mean well. I liked them as people – so much so that, but for the geography, I’d invite them out for Haggis and Neeps 😀
Anyway, in summary, below are the 15 things which the group in the video argue need to stop happening… or not; there is some disagreement within the group which offers food for thought, not least because, notably, it is the priest [“Richard” or “Rich” as he seems to introduce himself] who does the disagreeing.
1 Clapping (applause)
2 Too many Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion
3 Receiving from the Chalice (“cup”) when sick
4 Leaving seats at sign of peace to “share the peace” with people across the church
5 Socialising before (and after) Mass
6 Phone ringing
7 Not donating
8 Leaving Mass early
9 Bad preaching (lack of “fire”, not inspiring or nourishing) [worryingly, the priest in the video is open to laity, including women, preaching.)
10 Receiving Holy Communion in mortal sin
11 Dressing inappropriately – not dressing up for Mass
12 No sanctus bells
13 Genuflecting to the altar when the Tabernacle is somewhere else
14 I couldn’t hear anything specific, but the conversation went on to discuss baptism/use of “lemonade” type jug (If I’ve missed something, tell me in the comments…)
15. Holding hands during Our Father
My own predominant thought listening to the conversation was that any hope for the future in that diocese lies with the laity, as represented by the two lads on the video not the clergy, as represented by the [very nice and doubtless well-meaning] priest in the video – a manifestly modernist priest but one who likes Cardinal Ratzinger! How much more confusing can this mess get!
Share your thoughts – politely! I’ll be posting the link to this thread on their YouTube channel, below the above video, to be precise., so don’t be too hard on these good souls, who are all far too young to have been taught the Faith properly. They are typical New Catholics tailor made for the New Mass, the New Liturgy, the New Sacraments, the New Catechism, the New Rosary, the New Evangelisation, the New Morality, the New Politically Correct Pontiff, the New Canonisations, the New Commandments (minus idolatry and adultery) … and the New – you name it.
Guardian, 24 October, 2019…
A “sadistic and predatory” atmosphere and a culture of cover-up and denial in a Catholic school allowed sexual abusers to commit crimes against children for decades, an independent inquiry has found.
Senior figures at Ealing Abbey and St Benedict’s school in west London, part of the English Benedictine Congregation, were perpetrators of abuse over a 30-year period. Staff members failed to raise concerns because of a “mafia-like” atmosphere and the fear of losing their jobs.
Since 2003, four members of staff, including a former abbot, have been convicted of multiple offences relating to the sexual abuse of more than 20 children. The independent inquiry into child sexual abuse (IICSA) said: “The total scale of abuse can never be known, but it is likely to be much greater.”
…The inquiry heard evidence over five days in February. It sought a witness statement and documentation from the pope’s representative in the UK, the apostolic nuncio, which the Holy See refused to provide.
…“The Catholic church needs to be held accountable for its criminality…” Click here to read the entire, horrifying, newspaper report
There is nobody on this blog who, on reading the above report, will even remotely seek to justify such disgraceful abuse. The behaviour of all involved is summed up simply as “evil”.
However, such shocking reports of this evil behaviour, which is the very opposite of everything Christ taught, should not, for a second, shake our faith in the four marks of Christ’s Church, which is that it is the one, holy, catholic and apostolic. The holiness of the Church comes primarily from Christ, not from the members, although when we speak of the Church as “holy” we are thinking, too, of the entire Church, from the beginning – the Church in Heaven (the Church Triumphant); the Church in Purgatory (The Church Suffering) and the Church on earth (The Church Militiant).
Those who look at such evil behaviour perpetrated by some members of the Church on earth at any given point in history and see it as evidence that the Church is not holy, are revealing ignorance of the composition of the Church, which is not confined to the visible body of the Church on earth.
This is not to minimise, in any way, the gravity of what is happening in the Church today, least of all the complicity of the Vatican in evil. We have just been discussing, on other threads, the Pope’s own complicity in the utter scandal of promoting the worship of pagan idols within the Vatican itself and various churches around Rome. The breaking of the First Commandment is about as serious as it gets for a Pope. And Our Lord has warned us that it is not only pagan idols which are to be tossed into rivers: “…he that shall scandalise one of these little ones that believe in Me, it were better for him that a millstone be hanged about his neck and that he should be drowned int he depth of the sea.” (Matthew 18:6)
“…he that shall scandalise one of these little ones that believe in Me,
it were better for him that a millstone be hanged about his neck and that he should be drowned int he depth of the sea.” (Matthew 18:6)
The questions for discussion here must, therefore, surely include
1) why on earth would the Vatican refuse to co-operate with the authorities investigating the Ealing scandal?
2) how many Catholics actually understand the composition of the Church themselves?
3) does it all come back to the failure of Catholic education across the board – schools at every level, seminaries, etc?
4) what sort of episcopal oversight is there of religious Orders within each diocese?
5) How confident can we be that absolutely everything is being done to rid the Church of this evil – abuser priests?
6) Or is this evil irrevocably linked to the loss of the supernatural within the Church since the so-called “reforms” (the rvolution) of Vatican II?
Text of the Apostolic Letter Motu Proprio “Magnum Principium” Quibus nonnulla in can.
838 Codicis Iuris Canonici immutantur
ISSUED MOTU PROPRIO
OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF
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
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]
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…
“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:
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.
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.
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…
One of the world’s top Catholic speakers is coming to Glasgow – with a mission to reboot the Catholic faith of the Archdiocese.
Chris Stefanick is currently selling out events across America in his ministry which presents the Catholic faith in all its beauty, power and truth in an engaging and uplifting way.
He has worked for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in the areas of marriage and family life, laity, and youth. This month he brings Reboot Live to Glasgow.
Glasgow University’s historic Bute Hall has been booked for Thursday July 27 for the event and organisers are hoping for a sellout.
Fr Joe Lappin, Director of Religious Education for the Archdiocese, who has been instrumental in bringing Chris Stefanick to Scotland said: “Reboot Live will be like no ordinary Church event. Chris’s dynamic presentation will bring people to tears, to laughter, and most importantly, to Christ. He presents the Gospel in all its beauty to a world much in need of the joy only Jesus can bring.
“It’s like hearing the Gospel for the first time. We all need a ‘faith boost’ from time to time. This is like no other faith event you’ve ever been to. We hope those who come along will reach out to their family and friends who have fallen away from the faith, who have lost touch with the Lord and His Church and invite them to come home.”
One attendee at a recent event said: “We can’t believe it. We had a man at the event last week who hasn’t been to Church in 50 years. I saw him at Mass yesterday. He told me he is so grateful for the event because it finally opened his heart to God. He just needed an invitation to the right thing. We haven’t felt this joy-filled leaving the church in a very long time.”
Fr Lappin said: “I became aware of Chris Stefanick through his website: www.reallifecatholic.com. It contains some great resources that we use with teachers and we recommend them to make use of his material in the classroom. Of particular help are his short videos which can be informative, instructional and inspirational.
The event in Glasgow can only be described as guided by the Holy Spirit. On the spur of the moment I contacted Chris by email to explore the possibility of him coming over to do some youth, teacher and parish events. In the meantime, he was planning to come to Britain on holiday with his family this summer.”
Chris Stefanick said: “One evening I was praying about going to the United Kingdom and whether to break the family holiday with some ministry work. I asked the Lord about getting to Scotland – if I was going to England, how could I reach out and present the beautiful message of the Gospel in Scotland? I left it with the Lord, went to bed and when I got up the next morning Fr Joe’s email was waiting for me with an invitation to Glasgow.”
Since that initial contact, a great team of volunteers has offered time and talents to organise the event and presentations have been made to the priests of the Archdiocese, the Head Teachers and many of the school staff to promote the event.
Archbishop Tartaglia said: “When I was in Philadelphia recently I was struck by the Archbishop of that city – Archbishop Charles Chaput’s view of the Reboot phenomenon. He said to me, ‘Chris Stefanick is recognised as one of the most creative ministers to youth and young adults in the United States. He has extended his ministry to parish communities as well. He brings deep personal faith and an exciting energy to the Reboot programme. Chris Stefanick practises what he preaches. And what he preaches is exciting and Catholic.’ With a recommendation like that I think we are in for a great event in Glasgow.” Source – Flourish
When a fellow parishioner handed me a copy of Flourish, this morning, the official publication of the Archdiocese of Glasgow, I groaned. When I saw the headline: “Reboot the faith” and read the above article, I groaned again. “One more gimmick to add to the list.” I thought. I then watched a couple of the videos, and realised that the young man, Chris Stefanick, whom I initially and very uncharitably dubbed “the new Michael Voris”, appears to be a very well-meaning person, who loves the Faith. My next thought was, “But, wait: is the Faith which he loves, the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic faith as it has been handed down to us from the apostles, or is it the changed faith that has come down to us from the Fathers of Vatican II?” So, I went in search of a video talk on the Mass and found the video below.
I’m not quite sure why, but it seems to me – I have a kind of sense, albeit having only watched it once – that Chris is a step away from the Traditional Latin Mass, if he’s not there already, but then, is it remotely likely that a TLM attending Catholic would be invited to “reboot the faith” in the highly modernist archdiocese of Glasgow? You tell me!
The following article, by Father Ladis J. Cizik is published on The Remnant site here
Saint Padre Pio was the first stigmatized Priest in the Church, sent from God to be a sign for our times. Francesco Forgione (born 1887) received the five wounds of Christ only after ordination (1910) when he began offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and became known as Padre Pio. These visible and bleeding wounds of Christ, which he had received on September 20, 1918, had disappeared from Padre Pio by the time that he completed his last Mass on September 22, 1968 – two days after the 50th Anniversary. The wounds were related to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
Padre Pio was sent as a visible sign of the Sacrificial nature of the Mass. In 1968, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass was undergoing changes in the wake of Vatican II to transform it from the unbloody God-centered re-presentation of the Sacrifice of Christ on Calvary into a man-centered memorial meal. The stigmatized Padre Pio is a sign of contradiction to this Protestantized Modernistic thinking.
Like Saint Padre Pio, all priests are ordained, in a special way, to offer Sacrifice to Almighty God, in the Person of Christ (in Persona Christi). At the Altar of the Cross, the priest stands in Persona Christi, to re-present the Sacrifice of Calvary to the faithful through time and space for all generations from the time of Christ until the end of time. Padre Pio, who was a stamped representative of Our Lord, a living Crucifix, was sent to remind us of the unique character of the priest who is ordained to offer Sacrifice, and not to ‘preside’ at a community meal. There were no banquet tables set up at Calvary on that first Good Friday.
Anyone can ‘preside.’ Only a Priest can offer Sacrifice and effect Transubstantiation, thereby changing bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ. The Divine Victim, Our Lord Jesus Christ, is then offered to God the Father by the priest as a propitiatory Sacrifice for our sins at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Saint Padre Pio, a priest forever, offered Sacrifice. He was not a ‘presider.’
When it was announced that experimental changes to the Traditional Latin Mass, so loved by Saint Padre Pio, would take place in the mid-1960’s, Pio did not hesitate to request permission from Rome to continue offering the Immemorial Tridentine Mass. It is said that permission was granted in consideration of his advanced age, fragile health, and poor eyesight.
By the time the Novus Ordo Liturgy was promulgated by Paul VI on April 3, 1969, Padre Pio had been dead for six months. The full Novus Ordo ‘Sacramentary,’ with all its revised prayers, would be published in 1970 – over one year after the dead body of Padre Pio was placed in his tomb. Therefore, it can be said with certainty that Saint Padre Pio never said the Novus Ordo Mass. Hence, it is false and misleading for anyone to suggest otherwise.
Words written by two Capuchin priests, who actually knew and lived with Padre Pio, have become the genesis of fallacious theories proposing that Padre Pio said the Novus Ordo Mass. One of those priests, Father Pellegrino Funicelli, who was with Padre Pio when he died, wrote in his 1991 book, Padre Pio’s Jack of All Trades (pp. 401-402):
“In 1966-67 Padre Pio received permission from the Holy See to celebrate Mass in Latin, and seated. However, the Holy See allowed this under two conditions: That he celebrate facing the people, and that he use the new rite of the Eucharistic Prayer.”
The statements from this book, which are just now making their rounds on the internet, are deceptive. The Holy See gave permission to Padre Pio to offer the Traditional Latin Mass. This was not merely permission for a “Mass in Latin,” such as, saying the Novus Ordo in Latin. To use the “new rite of the Eucharistic Prayer” cannot mean to replace the Canon of the Traditional Latin Mass. It would be absurd to expect that an elderly, weak, frail, vision-impaired Padre Pio would be able to read the words and learn the rubrics of a new ‘Eucharistic Prayer.’ Besides, the permission from Rome for Pio and other elderly Priests was to use the entire Missal, including the Canon of the Mass – which they had presumably memorized over many decades of recitation. Father Pellegrino continues:
“… knowing the conditions, he (Padre Pio) begged the Superior to teach him the new form of the doxology. After he had seen how he should raise the paten, with the Host and the chalice, he thanked the Superior and appeared to be satisfied … During the night he called to me and said: ‘Do me a favor. Go get the chalice and the paten in the little church and let me see the new rite once again … I must perform the rite precisely as the Church desires.’”
Given what was said, one would expect to find pictures or videos of Padre Pio holding the Chalice in one hand and the Paten in the other, chanting: ‘Through Him, with Him, in Him,’ etc. Such photos and/or videos do NOT exist. There are NONE. How can this be explained?
A former aide to Padre Pio, who answered his English-speaking correspondence, Padre Ermelindo di Capua, is quoted online as saying:
“He (Padre Pio) used to say Mass according to the new order. By 1968 (when Padre Pio died) the new order was not yet complete, but had changed some things from Latin into the Italian language. He attempted to say Mass according to the new disposition of the Church. He tried to learn and adapt himself to the new rules of the Mass. There was still some Latin. It wasn’t completely changed. The Canon I don’t remember exactly.”
Padre Ermelindo’s comments, as quoted, cannot be taken to mean that Padre Pio abandoned the Traditional Latin Mass in favor of the “new order” (Novus Ordo). After his remarks came out in 2013, I corresponded with Father Ermelindo and asked him whether he had any photos or videos of Padre Pio proving conclusively that he said the “new order” of the Mass. He said that he had no such evidence.
So, how does one resolve this issue? It is often said: ‘Seeing is believing.’ In this case, ‘seeing’ for myself was veryhelpful in understanding what to make of the words spoken by Padre Pio’s fellow friars. I looked at hundreds of photos and dozens of videos capturing Padre Pio’s various Masses. Most importantly, I closely studied available video of Padre Pio’s Last Mass from September 22, 1968. If there were any novelties added to Padre Pio’s Mass, they would surely be on display in that final Mass. I found that the words of Padre Pio’s brother Capuchin friars were being incorrectly interpreted in favor of a Novus Ordo apologia.
Seeing is Believing
Seeing is believing. Here is what one can see with their own eyes concerning that Last Mass of Saint Padre Pio:
As Padre Pio was led from the sacristy, he passed between the Traditional High Altar to his left and the Novus Ordo altar/table to his right on his way to his seat (sedilia), from which he would lead the Confiteor and Gloria, and say the Opening Prayer. He would be helped out of his chair and led to the Novus Ordo altar/table, where he would offer his Last Mass facing the people. Padre Pio was obviously too weak to have climbed the three steps to the High Altar. In addition, the ‘Liturgical experiment’ of Mass facing the people from a free-standing altar/table was obviously in full swing at San Giovanni Rotondo, as it was in other parts of the world at that time.
Padre Pio was accompanied by a deacon and subdeacon indicating that this was a Solemn High Mass. Padre Pio’s Superior ordered him to offer a High Mass on this day and the weakened Pio obeyed. Note that the Novus Ordo Liturgy does not distinguish between a High and Low Mass; nor does it have subdeacons. This was a Traditional Latin Mass.
Padre Pio was wearing a white Fiddle-back vestment with a Maniple on his left arm. Such traditional liturgical garb is not worn in a Novus Ordo Liturgy.
Throughout the video evidence, Padre Pio only said the prayers of the Traditional Latin Mass, including the Canon, and spoke them in Latin. This is during the time when Priests were ordered to say the Mass in the vernacular. In my library, I have a 1966 “Sacramentary” where all of the prayers are to be said in English. Padre Pio had permission, however, to continue offering the Traditional Latin Mass from a pre-Vatican II Missale Romanum.
At the Suscipe, Sancte Pater, Padre Pio makes the Sign of the Cross with the Paten, and then allows the Host to slip off the Paten onto the Corporal. At the Sanctus, bells can be heard ringing three times at Padre Pio’s Last Mass. Both of these Traditional Latin Mass rubrics were eliminated from the Novus Ordo Liturgy.
In the Canon of the Mass there are numerous evidences that Padre Pio is NOT saying any new ‘Eucharistic Prayer,’ but is continuing to pray the Roman Canon, as he had always done. At the Quam oblationem, Padre Pio can be observed making multiple Signs of the Cross over the offerings. Just prior to the Consecration, Padre Pio made the Sign of the Cross over the Host at the benedixit in the Qui pridie prayer. Padre Pio also made the Sign of the Cross over the Chalice at the benedixit in the Simili modo prayer. Three separate bells were rung at each Consecration. Signs of the Cross were made by Padre Pio at the Unde et memores prayer. Padre Pio would not separate his thumbs and forefingers after the Consecration until after the ablutions. These rubrics, from the Canon of the Traditional Latin Mass, are NOT found anywhere in the Novus Ordo Liturgy.
As for the claim that Padre Pio practiced the “new form of the doxology … raising the paten, with the Host and the chalice,” there is NO evidence of this happening at Padre Pio’s Last Mass or at any other of his Masses. This “new form of the doxology” in the Novus Ordo replaced the “Minor Elevation” of the Traditional Latin Mass. However, in Padre Pio’s Last Mass, at the Minor Elevation, Padre Pio can be seen taking the Consecrated Host in his right hand and making Signs of the Cross over the Chalice and the Altar as is traditionally done at the Per Ip+sum, et cum Ip+so, et in Ip+so prayer. Padre Pio followed the Traditional Latin Mass Roman Canon here, and throughout the Mass, and did not succumb to the innovation of a “new form of the doxology.”
Padre Pio said the Per omnia saecula saeculorum before the Pater noster. Also, after fragmenting the Consecrated Host at the Qui tecum, Padre Pio is seen chanting Per omnia saecula saeculorum. Pio clearly said the Pax+Domini sit+simper vobis+cum while making the Sign of the Cross over the Chalice with the Sacred Particle. Both of thesePer omnia saecula saeculorum prayers, as well as the Signs of the Cross with the Fragment, all done in the Traditional Latin Mass, were excised from the Novus Ordo Liturgy.
At the Agnus Dei, Padre Pio struck his chest. He can later be seen making the Sign of the Cross with the Consecrated Host over the Paten before consuming It. These are hallmarks of the Traditional Latin Mass. Padre Pio performs the ablutions of the Chalice and his fingers with wine and water after Communion. In the Novus Ordo Liturgy, only water is used.
In the permission that Padre Pio received to continue offering the Traditional Latin Mass, it is generally agreed that he was given specific permission to use the Mass of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary throughout the year. In Padre Pio’s Last Mass, the Proper Postcommunio prayer for the Immaculate Conception at the end of the Traditional Latin Mass can clearly be discerned:“Sacramenta quae sumpsimus, Domine Deus noster, illius in nobis culpae vulnera reparent; a qua immaculatem beate Mariae Conceptionem singulariter praeservasti. Per Dominum…”
Having provided evidence that Padre Pio’s Last Mass was indeed the Traditional Latin Mass, there were however, at least two innovations that occurred: Mass on an altar/table facing the people; and the subdeacon read the Epistle in Italian from a pulpit facing the people. In addition, although they may have been edited out of the videos that I viewed, there was no evidence of the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar or the Last Gospel, noting that these were typical omissions during the post-Vatican II time of ‘experimentation.’
The Mass was changing throughout the world and before Padre Pio’s own eyes. As a weakened, nearly-blind Religious Order Priest, subject to obedience to his Superior, and not strong enough to offer effective resistance, Padre Pio was led by the will of others and was physically directed throughout his Last Mass. Weakened as his vision was, Padre Pio could see enough to know that it was time for him to leave this world. In fact, that very day of his Last Mass, his tomb was blessed and he would die at 2:30am the following morning, September 23, 1968.
For nearly all of Padre Pio’s life on earth he offered the Traditional Latin Mass exactly according to the Roman Missal of the Great Pope Saint Pius V, which priests had used for centuries without change, prior to the time of Vatican Council II. When he fell victim to the ‘Liturgical experiments’ prior to the introduction of the Novus Ordo Mass, his stigmata began to, and eventually, disappear – just as the Sacrificial nature of the Mass began to disappear.
As a dying old weakened man with failing eyesight, Padre Pio was like a lamb being led to slaughter at his Last Mass. Padre Pio would be the perfect imitation of Christ, ‘in Persona Christi’ to the extreme, to the very end. As a weakened Padre Pio was led by a group of men to the altar/table to ‘face the people,’ he was exposed to the crowd and put on public display, much like Our Divine Lord Jesus was as He hung dying on the Cross at Calvary. As the Son of God’s side was pierced by a lance and the last drops of His Precious Blood drained from His Body, so too was it claimed that after that Last Mass, Padre Pio’s body was practically devoid of blood.
Padre Pio collapsed at the conclusion of his Last Mass and had to be carried off into the sacristy, to his cell, where he was soon to pass from this world with his last words, “Jesu et Maria”(Jesus and Mary) on his lips. As the Traditional Latin Mass faded from this world, replaced almost everywhere by the Novus Ordo Mass, so too did Saint Padre Pio make his painful exit from the sanctuary. The priest acting ‘in Persona Christi’ at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass would be replaced by a ‘presider’ at a ‘community meal.’
However, just as Jesus rose from the dead, the Traditional Latin Mass, the Mass that would not die, is making a comeback. God would not permit the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, instituted by Him and offered to Him, to disappear from this world. Padre Pio, the Saint of the Traditional Latin Mass, continues to be an inspiration and an intercessor for all priests and seminarians who are called by God to dedicate their lives to the Mass of the Ages.
There always was, and still is, a remnant of the faithful who stayed with the Traditional Latin Mass. Always remember, and let no one ever discourage you: “…At the present time there is a remnant left, selected out of grace” (Romans 11:5). We are that remnant. Saint Padre Pio is our saint.
We often receive emails asking questions about the state of the Church and how to deal with it. I’m afraid that I sometimes feel impatience with certain enquirers, especially if they are members of the older generation, when we were all taught very clearly that our Catholic Faith could never contradict Reason. Therefore, it seems to me, any (older) person of average intelligence should know, through their Catholic sense, that everything, from the introduction of a new Mass right up to and including Amoris Laetita, cannot be from God. In any event, I replied to the most recent enquirer – who is a younger Catholic, really seeking answers to questions others have asked – by sending some suggested reading. I think, however, that these latest questions might spark some very knowledgeable and interesting responses from our bloggers, so I recommended that our enquirer wait while greater minds than mine go to work…
Catholic Truth Question Time
(1) Were there things in the Church that were needing ‘fixed’ at the time the Second Vatican Council was called?
(2) Was the Mass in Latin alienating to people and preventing them from becoming close to Our Lord? Note: I would like to know where to find evidence to back up my opinion that this was not the case – apart from statistics which show that the Church was thriving in the 1960s
(3) Where did the initiative to change the Mass come from….did the faithful want it? And if it did come from an infiltration of Freemasons in the Church how can we prove this e.g. I have heard that Bugnini was a Freemason but where is the evidence?
Well, folks? To work!