jump to navigation

Revealing statements from Pope Paul VI on the TLM February 19, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Dallas Diocese, episcopate, error, General Catholic, Holy suffering, Latin Mass, Liturgy, Papa, persecution, sadness, scandals, self-serving, Society.
trackback

I’ll have to admit, I was pretty stunned when I read this quote below, extracted from Michael Davies Pope Paul’s New Mass.  What is quoted below is from a General Audience Pope Paul VI gave on March 17, 1965 – before the fourth and final session of Vatican II, but after the approval of Sacrosanctum Concilium, the document that authorized the “reform” of of the Liturgy.  At the beginning of the audience, Pope Paul VI relates two general reactions to the changes already occurring to the Mass.  His comments are first directed towards those who reacted to the changes with some trepidation or concern.  I’ll pick up there, just after he’s described those concerns in general terms. He then switches track to his analysis of those holding concerns, and what I think are some pretty amazing statements from a Pope – any Pope – regarding the concerns of the faithful and the still extant form of the Mass (my comments and emphasis):

We won’t offer a criticism of these observations [the concerns raised by people with regard to the changes already occurring to the Mass of the 1962 Missal, years before the Novus Ordo], because We would have to point [after saying he won’t offer a criticism, Pope Paul VI then turns around and does just that. And boy howdy does he] out how they reveal very little penetration into the meaning of the religious rites and give evidence not of true devotion and a true sense of the meaning and value of Holy Mass, but rather a certain spiritual laziness that isn’t personal effort on understanding and participating in order to better comprehend and carry out the most sacred of religious acts, in which we are invited, and indeed obliged, to join. [Wow. The antipathy Paul VI had for the Mass as it then existed is palpable, no?]

We will just repeat what is being said over and over again these days by all priests who are pastors of souls and by all the good teachers of religion [are the bad teachers the ones who might have concerns over the changes?].  First, it is inevitable that there be a certain amount of confusion and annoyance in the beginning. It is in the very nature of a reform of age-old religious customs that have been piously observed, a reform that is practical -not to mention spiritual – that it should produce a little agitation that will not always be pleasant. But, secondly, a little bit of explanation, a little bit of preparation, a little bit of careful help, will quickly remove the uncertainties and soon produce a feeling and a taste for the new order. For, thirdly, you mustn’t believe that after a while people are going to go back to being quiet and devout, or lazy, as they were before.

No, the new order will have ot be something different; and it will have to rpevent and strike at the passivity of the faithful present at Holy Mass. Before, it was enough to attend; now, it is necessary to participate. Before, presence was enough; now, attention and action are demanded. BEfore, a person could doze and perhaps even chat, but no longer; now, he has to listen and pray. [I find this last sentence to be totally opposite the reality of my experience, and since experience is everything, that should be a trump card, right?]

…..The assembly is becoming alive and active. Being present means allowing the soul to enter into activity in the form of attention, response, singing, action……..[That has played out in all manner of abuses as the laity play at being priest, and the bored, rote responses of those participating.]

—————————-End Quote——————————-

I could go on.  But as the audience continued, and were joined by many other such pronouncements by Pope Paul VI, it is clear that the more radical ideas for re-shaping the Mass – and intentionally denigrating the previous 1962 Missal Mass in order to “sell” the reform – came from the very highest levels of the Church.  There was a conscious, deliberate, determined effort to convince the faithful that what had been before was not only deficient, but even damnable, and that it must be replaced at virtually any cost.  Later in the audience, Paul VI espouses the idea of Mass facing the people, even though that “reform” was nowhere to be found in the Council.  There were many others, as well, that he advocated, that were nowhere to be found in the Council.  It is rather depressing to read Paul VI’s hopes for his new Mass, when compared with the reality which has come to be. He saw the Mass as the engine of his
“new springtime.”  It’s been a long, cold, dead spring.

One final note.  When he was still serving  as Vatican Secretary of State under Pope Pius XII, then Cardinal Archbishop Montini described the Mass – the then current Latin Mass – as moribund, and the Church as asleep, or possibly even dead.  That is from Vatican Council II: A History Never Written by Roberto de Mattei p. 20.

I found Pope Paul’s rather callous dismissal of the concerns raised about the ongoing changes to the Mass by very faithful, serious people, to be most amazing. I don’t think I’ve ever read such dismissive statements from a modern Pope.

Comments

1. Raul De La Garza III (@raul_delagarza) - February 19, 2013

Interesting observations from a Pope who during his time in the papal office, I was born. I am curious as to your thoughts concerning Wiegel’s Evangelical Catholicism: Deep Reform in the 21st-Century Church book. Have you read this one?

2. Daniel - February 19, 2013

Wow that is breath taking! Since I came in the Church a couple years ago I never figured out why Vatican II was called given the destructions took place pointed out by Pope Benedict XVI (closure of monasteries, priests leaving etc). Every Pope says that is because the wrong interpretation of the Council but I would say Pope Paul VI is dead wrong on faithfuls’ participation in the Mass. The best participation is silence so you may unite yourself completely with Christ to the Father through the Spirit.

Thanks mergo for the post.

3. Kevin - February 19, 2013

I don’t know about Pope Paul VI or anyone else (and it may be evidence of the sorry state of my soul), but being a cradle Catholic, I find that I can recite the Rosary and a number of prayers while my mind is preoccupied with a myriad of worldly matters. I was able to do the same by the time I was a teen during the NO Mass. Just because there are more vocal responses, doesn’t prevent my becoming “lazy” or distracted.

tantamergo - February 19, 2013

I think it’s a universal problem. At the TLM, I find I pay a great deal of attention because it’s all different/new and I’m trying to follow along.

skeinster - February 20, 2013

Exactly. It’s a fallen human nature problem, not a liturgy problem.
Though there’s certainly more “there” there in the TLM.

tantamergo - February 20, 2013

I’m glad a good discussion got started.

Daniel - February 20, 2013

Well since I am a convert, my understanding of the Rosary was very shallow but that was the first prayer I learned. I think it is beautiful because it is meditation on the Gospels with Mary.

I remembered talking to my neighbor who was a life long Catholic about Rosary and he told me he knew someone who prays the Rosary and other prayers everyday but lives a very sinful life. I did not believe him and told him he did not read the promises attached to the Rosary. And later I observed the same thing he observed and got really confused. Then I read Pope Paul VI and John Paul II pastoral letters on Rosary and understood the Rosary is supposed to be contemplative prayers. And Jesus actually warns people who think their prayers will be answered if they just repeat many words in their prayers. So in a sense the Rosary prayers look easy to pray but in fact it demands a lot of spiritual maturity to pray properly. And I an definitely not there yet. I found it very hard to get distracted when I meditate upon the daily Mass readings. I don’t know if that has to do with my protestant background.

I want to start praying the Church’s public prayers, the Divine Office. Anyone can share his experience on this?

Thanks

Daniel

thomas - February 20, 2013

Daniel,
Good points you bring out. Many catholics are very, very unaware about how to pray the rosary properly . People just push through with only the words, saying to themselves it is just as good. They should know a number of popes have penned encyclicals about the value of meditation on the mysteries, even stating that merits are granted in the form of plenary indulgences to those who do vs. those who don’t in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament. I would say that’s proof positive for the value of meditations.

4. James Prime - February 19, 2013

The Novus Ordo must have been well underway during the 40’s and 50’s during the pre-conciliar Church. When Pope Paul VI, then Cardinal Montini as Pius XII’s Secretary of State, said, “the Church as asleep, or possibly even dead,” while the Church was robust and rapidly expanding, was probably onto something about that generation. How could the Traditional Latin Mass, the Mass of the Apostles, cherished for ages, be so utterly displaced within a generation? What did traditionalist Pope Pius XII come to realize about his modernist sounding Secretary of State and the Cardinals he selected that ultimately became members of the papal conclave choosing Paul VI?

tantamergo - February 19, 2013

Yeah, that’s what I’m reading. The modernists were never fully suppressed. Some of the more radical ones were excommunicated and left the Church, but the smarter, more insidious ones just modified their rhetoric a tad and keep pushing toward the same ends. And while Pius XII was a strong Pope in many regards, he refused to name names when condemning error and failed to stamp out the error he knew was growing all around him. Vatican II didn’t just fall from the sky – portions of the Church, especially in the hierarchy, heads of religious orders, and the more avante garde priests were already headed in that direction. Fr. Anthony Cekada condemns the entire liturgical reform from the 20s onwards, but I think that’s going too far (as he is wont to do). There were many abusive Masses that violated the rubrics of the 1945 Missal in the 50s. They were rampant in Germany, France, and the Low Countries and there were quite a few in the US.

Don’t think I was trying to say every problem in the Liturgy or in the Church since VII was the fault of Paul VI. I think he definitely contributed – unwittingly – but the problems were much broader, deeper, and older than just his administration.

Hey, did you shut your blog down? It shows as private now. I liked it!

5. supertradmum - February 20, 2013

Where is the link to this? I want to look at the original Italian.

tantamergo - February 20, 2013

It’s from Michael Davies book Pope Paul’s New Mass approx. p. 590. I don’t have the book with me anymore.

6. Woody - February 20, 2013

Those who wanted to change the TLM saw a “bored” laity in the pews. If they could get the laity more involved, through vocal participation, it was thought that the mass would come alive, that the laity would look and feel closer to God. Change the language so that they knew what was being said. In effect, make it more entertaining. There are those to this day that still think that the NO venacular is still the correct way to go forward; it just needs more time. However, their theory has met reality and it has failed miserably. People have left the Church in droves. Vocations of all religious sorts have fallen. Morality within the laity is almost nonexistant. And you have more people that go to mass who, with all the changes, are still “bored.” I think what they failed to do was ask the laity, “Do you want a change? Are you bored?” The answer would most likely have been a resounding “NO!” Therefore, it appears that the those who wanted to change the TLM, those priests, they were bored. In hindsight, their pride has torn apart the Church. Just one man’s opinion.

7. Janice - February 20, 2013

These comments by Paul VI have been referred to as the “Eulogy for the Traditional Latin Mass.” I agree, the first time I read it, I couldn’t believe the way the pope referred to those in the pews. The NO always seemed to me to be change for its own sake.

8. pete - February 20, 2013

Montini was NOT a cardinal until after the election of John XXIII. Pius XII who promoted him to Archbishop of Milan AND DID NOT MAKE HIM CARDINAL LEST HE BE ELECTED TO SUCCEDE HIM. That was so because it was found out that Montini was secretely corresponding with Italian and Soviet communist intellectuals in the naive belief that such a dialogue would open them up to Christianity!
At the end of his life, looking back, he expressed regret over all the “imprudences, imprudences, imprudences”. He was one of the progressives of the time.

tantamergo - February 20, 2013

You’re right, my mistake. Corrected.

9. Frank - February 20, 2013

It seems that the “reform of the Mass” was highjacked by the periti (experts) who definitely were influenced by their Protestant brethen. Although not allowed to participate they were present during the Council sessions. Many practices in the Mass, i.e. “For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory, recited after the Our Father” is a concession to the Protestants’ version of the Our Father. The “fellowship”, hand holding and “meal aspect” of the Mass were additional aberrations to accommodate te errant theology of the protestant service. Our Mass has been downplayed from a “sacrifice” (hardly ever mentioned) to a “service”, ala protestantism. I read that Pope Paul VI cried when he saw what was happening to the minor reforms he wanted implemented. The authority of the Pope had been compromised at the Council and has ever since.

10. Rod LaRocque - February 20, 2013

I think this whole reform has been influenced by rationalism and the idea that one can legislate attitudes and opinions.
The old Church (as symbolized by the old Mass) knew that the Mass was Temple worship offerred to the Father by the priest on behalf of the people. Why the Priest? exactly because the people are not as attentive, often lazy and often uninterested. It was enough for them to at a minimum be present. This shows a traditional view of humanity.
This modern Mass now expects everyone to be doing something and involved and attentive, and what happened? The people are busy but they forgot why they are doing what they are doing and the substituted devotion for action.
They thought, as the rationalists and social engineers do, that if we can get people to do stuff they will think stuff.
It didn’t happen.
Tradition again shows it is wiser than moderns about human psychology,,,, and why not, since it is really just the shared wisdom gleened through centuries of experience.
Ah but this contradicts the assumptions of the modern world. Liberty, equality and fraternity, great mental constructs but don’t jibe with reality.

tantamergo - February 20, 2013

Good points. That rationalism figured in, I have no doubt. And it’s also difficult to extrapolate comparisons between present-day TLM participation and NO participation. I have seen utterly abysmal behavior at NOs, but never at a TLM. But TLMs tend to attract the most dedicated Catholics. I think the strange, flying about, playing at priest participation of the Novus Ordo is, however, much more prone to ultimately becoming boring and causing disinterest than the TLM. I think the traditional psychology had it right – there will always be a certain class of people who just won’t get that involved. It’s enough for them to be there and maybe engage in some devotion (but priests should always be exhorting them to more). Rather than upend the entire cart and have laity convinced they’re just like priests, trivializing the Blessed Sacrament, etc., etc.

I think a friend of mine offline nailed it. Rather than fix the real problem, which was getting people to participate better in the Mass they had, the reformers thought, rather pridefully, that they were brilliant enough to concoct a new Mass and that would solve everything, or at least be a vast improvement on what we now call the TLM. I don’t think they could even imagine how massively wrong they would be. But that’s how ideologues, like me, tend to be.

11. Father Tom Carleton - February 20, 2013

There are a few places where the translation is inaccurate and slightly prejudicial: for example, the Holy Father does not imply that all the faithful are “devout, or lazy”, but rather he implies that all were “devout or lazy” (there is no comma in the Italian, implying that all were either one or the other, but not that all were lazy.
Also in another place, he does not say “the new order”, but “a new order”; speaking, that is to say, generally about a new change.
The main problem with the blogger’s understanding of this audience, I think, is his failure to realize that the Pope is not criticizing the OLD Mass, he is criticizing the people who are criticizing the NEW Mass, those, that is to say, who do not realize that the new Mass is also the infinite sacrifice of Calvary, despite the changes in its non-essential elements. Those in this category were too attached to the externals of the Holy Mass , and, therefore, as the Holy Father rightly points out, didn’t have a full appreciation of true nature of the Holy Mass. It was Pope Paul who insisted that the first Canon in the Novus Ordo, remain the traditional canon of the Tridentine Mass. It was also Pope Paul who insisted that the words of Consecration remain the same in all the canons. When Pope Paul realized that writers were emphasizing the “meal aspect” at the expense of the “sacrificial aspect”, he brought that out in the Missal’s opening document. I don’t know where some of these people learned about the Holy Mass, but we were ALWAYS taught that the Holy Mass was BOTH the Last Supper AS WELL AS Calvary, so it justly was both a “meal” and a “sacrifice”. The reform took hold slower in Italy than in America and other parts of Europe because there was no gestapo forcing old pastors to change, and when they did change, they obediently followed the rubrics as promulgated by the Holy Father. Pope Paul himself would gradually become scandalized at all the unauthorized innovations of disobedient celebrants, pressured and egged on by liberal and out of control laity. The Holy Father explicitly gave Padre Pio permission to continue saying the old Mass, something that was generally assumed applicable to all elderly priests. Pope Paul was in fact the first Pope to publicly give recognition to Padre Pio, and, in Italy, it is said that Padre Pio told Montini that he would be the next Pope. Pope Pius XII, upon sending Montini to the most important diocese after Rome, also told him that he would one day return to Rome. The time between his appointment to Milan and the death of Pope Pius, didn’t really provide enough time to be raised to a Cardinal, which in those days usually took a few years.

Daniel - February 20, 2013

“despite the changes in its non-essential elements”

Fr. Tom how can the change from both the priest and faithful face the same direction so he can offer his and the faithfuls sacrifice to God the Father to the priest and the faithfuls face opposite direction when the sacrifice is offer a non-essential?
Any theology to support the change?

The worst part is receiving our Lord in the hand and use your finger to grab our Lord to put in your mouth for the faithfuls(priests are OK but they are different class just like the Apostles at the last supper). True story: A Catholic asked a Muslim in a inter faith meeting what is the most sacred item in Islam, the muslim replied that would be a copy of Koran in Arabic language. You would have to wash your hand and bow down to receive it. Then the Muslim asked what is the holiest for Catholics, the Catholic replied that would be the Eucharist because that is our God. The Muslim then asked you meant that is the symbol of God. The Catholic said NO the Eucharist is not a symbol but truly our God, body,blood, soul and divinity. The Muslim said I don’t believe that because no body will handle with fingers if that is real God.

It started with a couple bishops in Holland in the 60s and the Pope asked them to stop. Now most countries received the indulgence to receive our Lord in the palm.

Daniel

tantamergo - February 20, 2013

Not quite heirs of the Apostles, that is the bishopric, but the hands are consecrated, and for a period of about 1500 years – at least, more in the West – it was considered the greatest sacrilege for laity to handle the Blessed Sacrament, because they did not have that special call from God to do so. I know there were many unworthy priests, and are today, but I’d rather receive the Blessed Sacrament from Hans Kung than the most devout layperson. Let me rephrase that, I would only receive the Blessed Sacrament from Hans Kung, if that were the only choice. He’s still a priest, even if one of the worst ones.

tantamergo - February 20, 2013

Knowing a bit of some foreign languages, but not Italian, I would say that translators often disagree over details such as these. I don’t think Davies took any excessive liberties.

I know exactly what the audience is about. But I would say that in the process of trying to refute criticisms of the changes ongoing in the Mass – again, this is well before the Novus Ordo – Pope Paul VI let slip some revealing comments. It is well known that as Father and Bishop Montini Paul VI was offering illicit Masses and had been directed to stop, but did not do so. It is well established that he was very sympathetic to the liturgical movement, even its more radical side. Yes, he did some things to maintain some semblance of the 1962 Missal in the Novus Ordo, but whether those things were enough is debated by many, as is the overall direction of the reform.

Your defense of Pope Paul VI redounds to your charity, but I think it stretches the reality of things a bit. There is a great deal of question whether the Forward of the General Instruction adequately counteracts the heavy emphasis on the worldly elements in the rubrics themselves, such as the great emphasis on the “additional real presences” in the meal aspect, the Word of God, the individual participants, the gathering of the community, etc. It’s like so much of VII, what you interpret from the documents depends very much on your preferences and viewpoint, and there hasn’t been a single ‘hermeneutic” established to prevent abuse. In essence, it is very possible to make of the GIRM what you will (and I know this is argued, that there is only one right interpretation, and I agree with that, but practicly speaking this openness to interpretation has led to all manner of abuse).

I don’t know, anymore, if it can be reasonably argued that the fact that less than 1/3 of even practicing Catholics believe in the proper Real Presence anymore can be laid solely at the feet of abuse. I really tend to doubt that it was radical laity who drove the abuses. In 1978, a Gallup Poll in the US revealed that something like 70% of US Catholics would have preferred to go back to the previous Mass. I still have that newspaper clipping somewhere, my father-in-law saved it. That there were radicals who drove abuses of the Novus Ordo has been established ad nauseum, but I increasingly believe that there are fundamental problems with the Novus Ordo itself that leaves it prone to abuse. Abuses such as Mass facing the people, EMHCs, Communion in the hand, Communion under Both Kinds, etc., etc. None of those were authorized by VII.

I don’t think we’re going to solve this debate today.

12. supertradmum - February 20, 2013

Tanta, I read that book years ago and it is in a box in Illinois and I am in Kent. I cannot recall thinking it spun, or spinned the way you have put it here. Although I agree that the NO has caused tons of problems, I did not think in reading either Davies or others on this topic that he was specifically anti-Latin Mass. Numbers were dropping of already, but the NO, especially in post-War Europe.

Of course, Vat II did not authorize the horrific changes, but we must separate the issues.

I think, however, history is on the side of us traddies and we shall see the complete restoration of the TLM as the traddies will be the only ones going to Mass-IMO

tantamergo - February 20, 2013

I think you’re mostly right. Davies didn’t spin the audience at all, it’s presented as text, straight up, no commentary. Whatever spin there was, was my own.

13. supertradmum - February 20, 2013

sorry about errors, he is of course Paul VI and I meant to write before the NO, not but….sorry very tired.

tantamergo - February 20, 2013

No worries, thanks for your comment!

14. Father Tom Carleton - February 21, 2013

In a way, this discussion points out the main difficulty. What are we suppose to be doing? Following our shepherd. How few, however, are interested in doing that. We are not listening to our shepherd. We do not know our shepherd directly. We’re only interested in knowing him indirectly by means of someone else, perhaps someone who has his own agenda. In this case, we are following Michael Davies. I respect Michael Davies and I certainly don’t think he would have tried to falsify the Holy Father’s words; but Michael Davies is not our shepherd, and Michael Davies only quoted the Holy Father in brief passages that seemed to support his purpose. The Holy Father spoke continually for almost 15 years, but most weren’t listening. They were reading NCR, the CFM, the excommunicated Abbe di Nantes etc. etc.; so they never really took the trouble to listen to their shepherd. If they had listened to their visible AND audible shepherd they would have gotten to know their Lord and Prince of shepherds, because he spoke of Jesus with a love and a power that few have ever matched.

thomas - February 21, 2013

Father,
You are assuming that EVERYTHING the shepherd does is for our benefit? Results from vcii don’t bear that out. Vc ii was and still is defended to the hilt, yet the shepherd insists it was the media’s fault, jpii failed to correct the “proper” interpretation, as this current and soon to be abdicated pope failed as well. We Catholics have been hearing this “there’s another interpretation” thing for years. In the meantime, an apostasy has been occurring , and the loss of millions from her church is the price paid.

I’m not sure I agree with you. Of course, there is “to whom shall we turn to”? It is a dilemma. The shepherds should admit that a big mistake was made and move on.

Daniel - February 21, 2013

Fr. Tom

What is NCR? CFM?

It is very true most of the time the Holy Father was totally ignored most of the time.
Pope John Paul II encouraged bishops to allow priests offer Latin Mass, most if not all bishops just threw it in the trash can. Then Pope Benedict XVI bypass the bishops and let the priests celebrate the Latin Mass without the approval of the local bishops and even empower the laity in such a way that the local church has to offer the Latin Mass if there is a community of faithfuls ask for it. The main problem now is many priests are not trained to celebrate the Latin Mass. So if there was no rupture in the first place the big ship of the Church can be put back to her right path much faster.

In my Los Angeles Diocese there is only one parish offers weekly Latin Mass. If Pope John Paul II explained the Latin Mass like Pope Benedict XVI did the local bishop probably would not dare to order EWTN to celebrate mass with the priest and the faithfuls face opposite direction. And if the practice of faithful using finger to handle our Lord was stopped at Holland it would not have been spread out. Now Pope Benedict XVI has set an example himself and only allow holy communion in mouth and explained to the media why he changed the practice but for five years now all the bishops seem to be blind and refuse to follow Christ’s Vicar.

Father Tom Carleton - February 22, 2013

A lot of problems, a lot of very sad, tragic problems, but we have to careful about blaming them on V II. Sunday Mass attendance and the seminaries in Europe were already in decline before V II, and that is why there was so much desire for a fresh beginning. Protestant churches had already emptied, and they didn’t even have a council to blame it on. There were a lot of societal changes occurring like the sexual revolution, the increasing debasement of TV programming and movies, the increasing facility of divorce etc., etc.. The Church was not to blame for all of this collapse in Christian culture. When I was a kid, huge numbers of people went to the cemetery on Memorial day to honor their dead, now they have barbecues or open their cottage etc. etc.

tantamergo - February 22, 2013

It’s a tangled web, for sure. But our Holy Father has made very clear he thinks the Liturgy as it exists in most places is in an abysmal state and that the “reform” is in desperate need of its own reform, and he has pointed towards the TLM as a basis of comparison, or perhaps a source to be mined for the reform of the Novus Ordo. My personal experience has led me to find great spiritual solace in the TLM that I have not experienced with the NO. This goes well beyond the Mass, which is the Source of everything, but belonging to a traditional community has given my family and I a taste for what a faithful Catholic experience truly dedicated to the pursuit of virtue and eschewing of vice can be like. I don’t think it’s a complete representation of what parish life was like, say, 100 or more years ago in a good, vibrant parish with holy priest and well-offered Sacraments, but it’s a start.

The culture definitely is part of the problem, but are we not to be the light of the world? Cannot Grace overcome all things? When you said earlier that laity had driven priests to embrace radicalism in the Liturgy and other areas, my first thought was, is it not the role of the priest to lift up, to overcome the world by showing the people the great joy and peace that comes from an authentic Catholic life? I hate to even have to use terms like authentic, or orthodox, but, frankly, that’s where we’re at as a Church, a large majority of nominal Catholics simply aren’t. And the laity share much of the blame – St. John Eudes says we get the priests and bishops we deserve – but there has been a great abandonment of Catholic belief and practice amongst the clergy and bishops, and that, to me, has been the dominating influence in the collapse of faith.

Father Tom Carleton - February 22, 2013

Let those letters stand for any publication (left or right ) that is attacking the Holy Father. When I grew up, real Catholics assumed that someone who attacked the Pope was the devil.

tantamergo - February 22, 2013

Well, that might have been part of the problem. So long as Popes were holy and orthodox, that was exactly the right position to take, but if there ever came along a Pope like those of the Renaiisance or early Middle Ages, where abuses were often so egregious as to defy belief, then that automatic deference could be extremely dangerous. All it would take is one radical Pope to shift the Faith in very dangerous directions, causing incredible harm. Is that what has occurred in the last 50 years? I don’t know for certain, but there is certainly evidence out there that is disconcerting.

15. Father Tom Carleton - February 22, 2013

Take the election of Kennedy (before the Council); it began a cult of youth and the disdain for the wisdom of elders: the “don’t believe anyone over 30” mantra. The opening of the Council was filled with hope and expectation, but no matter what the specific results, it was not going to be able to stop the tidal wave of cultural (or non-cultural) changes that were attacking society from all sides. These would have occurred, and so if the Council had not happened, people would be saying: “see we told you so, if we had updated like we told you, none of this would have happened. Only the Holy Spirit and our prayer and fasting can cast out this kind of devil.
The present liturgy includes all Gospel: “Man lives by every Word that comes from the mouth of God”. That’s one change that was good!

16. Per Mariam - February 23, 2013

Just as you don´t “measure” the sanctity of a person for the “number” of works he/she made, you don´t judge a reform just for the numbers. It doesn´t mean anything to a religious person.

It doesn´t matter.

You evaluate the reform for the EFFECTS/CONSEQUENCES/FRUITS of that reform in the society, and souls in general.

Souls general, after the V2 reform, left the Church. Not before.

Society, after V2 reform, has been occupied in legalizing SIN: abortion, homo-marriage, and the list goes on.

So, there´s a real connection between the V2, the new mass, the changes in the Church, and society. If you don´t see it, let´s pray to Our Lord: Domine, ut videam!

The catholic influences Culture, not the other way. The problem is when the catholic people succumbs to the 3rd tentation, so they compromize with the modern world. They value more what people thinks than what God thinks (human respect).

What it had to be expected from V2 was a condemnation of the modern world (communism, marxism, gramsci, TV, movies, eugenesia, drugs, ie, A CLEAR AND CONCISE CONDEMNATION OF THE WORLD). And that didn´t happen. That was a huge problem.

The changes in the lex orandi WERE essential. Take your 1962 Missal and the Novus Ordo. Compare the prayer in the offertory and the consacration.

What did the reformers take?

Why did they take it?

Did they take some “non-essential” prayers?

What did they add?

Let´s remember: LEX ORANDI, LEX CREDENDI. If you change the way you pray, you affect the way you believe.

Finally, why did they change the lex orandi?

You didn´t need a new lex orandi IN 1969.

You didn´t need ecumenism in 1962.

You needed SAINTS, not HIPOCRESY, NOT FARISEISM, just as we need now.

Father Tom Carleton - February 23, 2013

Per Mariam wrote:
“What it had to be expected from V2 was a condemnation of the modern world (communism, marxism, gramsci, TV, movies, eugenesia, drugs, ie, A CLEAR AND CONCISE CONDEMNATION OF THE WORLD). And that didn´t happen. That was a huge problem.”

All of these errors had received in the 20th century ample and detailed papal condemnation (including by Pope John) in specific documents treating these subjects.
Good Pope John did not want a council about Karl Marx , Sigmund Freud or anybody else. He wanted a Council about JESUS CHRIST. I think Our dear Lord deserves His own Council. The Pope wished to present the Gospel message not as a reaction against someone else’s errors, but on its own terms, as the true answer to life. The Gospel is the Truth itself, it is not a rebuttal. The message of Christ is not something negative, it is something positive.

17. Father Tom Carleton - February 23, 2013

Tantamergo You write:
<>

We must keep in mind that it is not given to us to judge the shepherd. As Canon Law states it: “Nemo judicat Papam”. Once you admit that we judge the Pope, then we are the pope, each one of us. We have one choice: either to follow the voice of the shepherd or not follow the voice of the shepherd. In these decades there has been no real credible reason why that question would even arise. The Popes in modern times have been devout upright men, above reproach. The Bishops at V II were mostly appointed by Pope Pius XII. There were, among them, many eminent men known for their theological acumen. The documents were signed by men like Cardinal Ottaviani, Cardinal Siri, Bishop Sheen (even Archbishop Lefebvre) etc. etc.. If the documents contained errors, then these men betrayed the faith.
I also point out, that the rise of the drug culture among the youth also had a lot to due with the dramatic decline of Christian belief and practice. You know many people in the traditional movement today, were in fact active participants in their rebellious youth,of all of this apostasy, that have, in their later mature years come to realize that they made a mistake.

18. Per Mariam - February 24, 2013

Again, the problem with modernism, as Garrigou Lagrange Op explained us is HUMAN RESPECT, which is rooted in pride.

They “seems” not to care about what Our Lord said: “Seek first the kingdom of God and His justice.” They prefer “and all these things shall be given you besides”.

Obviously, they didn´t deny explicity with words, but in the actions…

About communism, let´s see what an OPUS DEI priest (a conservative) said:

He is Father Rovira, first director of Church History in the University of Navarra.

In his book “The Catholic Church in the second part of XX century, he mentions “the Pact of Metz”.

He said that this agreement (He supposed the conversations were between Cardinal Tisseran and metropolitan Nikodim) implied that the Council would refrain from any explicit condemnation of comunism.

It´s also said that when the conciliar fathers discussed about atheism, several bishops asked for a formal condemnation of comunism. But it was known the oposition of Paul VI to this.

Only God can judge this decision, but (again) we see the consequences: all the gramsci cultural revolution, feminism (which is, by the way, rooted in marxism) spreaded everywhere, even in the church.

“Good Pope John did not want a council about Karl Marx , Sigmund Freud or anybody else”

Of course, he didn´t want it, and again that was the problem. He said it clear in his address at the opening of vatican council in 11/10/1962:

In the daily exercise of Our pastoral office, it sometimes happens that We hear certain opinions which disturb Us—opinions expressed by people who, though fired with a commendable zeal for religion, are lacking in sufficient prudence and judgment in their evaluation of events. They can see nothing but calamity and disaster in the present state of the world. They say over and over that this modern age of ours, in comparison with past ages, is definitely deteriorating. One would think from their attitude that history, that great teacher of life, had taught them nothing. They seem to imagine that in the days of the earlier councils everything was as it should be so far as doctrine and morality and the Church’s rightful liberty were concerned. We feel that We must disagree with these prophets of doom, who are always forecasting worse disasters, as though the end of the world were at hand.”

These statement is not rooted in reality. E.g.: the end of the diaspora in 1948. This is a clear “sign of the times” which is from sacred Scripture. Didn´t he know that?

What about the message of Fatima/La Salette?

Then, he said: “Present indications are that the human family is on the threshold of a new era.”

Yes, a new world order.

Yes, a new era to sacrifice innocent people: almost 55.000.000 babies killed since 1973 only in USA.

Yes, a new era of apostacy.

Sorry, the prophets of doom where right.

Yes, a new era of no condemnation

You have Cardinals who said that it´s ok to use an abortive pill after a violation. And not even ONE bishop or priest condemn this thing. Where is the CDF?

If you are a good sheperd, you care about what is good for your sheeps. But also, if you see that the sheeps go to drown in a river, you´ll do everything possible to avoid it.

If you´re a father you teach your sons what is right and what is wrong. That´s is your responsability.

“I think Our dear Lord deserves His own Council.”

Well, let´s see what Paul VI said in the clausure:

“Yes, the Church of the council has been concerned, not just with herself and with her relationship of union with God, but with man—man as he really is today: living man, man all wrapped up in himself, man who makes himself not only the center of his every interest but dares to claim that he is the principle and explanation of all reality”

“The religion of the God who became man has met the religion (for such it is) of man who makes himself God. And what happened? Was there a clash, a battle, a condemnation? There could have been, but there was none”

“But we call upon those who term themselves modern humanists, and who have renounced the transcendent value of the highest realities, to give the council credit at least for one quality and to recognize our own new type of humanism: we, too, in fact, we more than any others, honor mankind.” (ADDRESS OF POPE PAUL VI DURING THE LAST GENERAL MEETING OF THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL. 7 December 1965)

Our new type of humanism?

The cult of men?

And God?

How wonderful are the words from Dom Bosco: da mihi animas caetera tolle. These are the words from a Good Sheperd. He lived according to these words.

Father Tom Carleton - February 24, 2013

The humanism of Pope Paul VI was indeed based upon MAN: the GOD-MAN. Please let us not forget the humanity of Christ. It was in fact God’s plan that we would be able to learn from man; that’s why He became incarnate! You can create a straw-man of “humanism”, but it just shows that you have not read the teachings of Pope Paul VI.
We indeed were on the threshold of a new époque, many have used the inovations of the new era for good; the majority certainly have not. It seems that God does not deprive the good of blessings, simply because others abuse these very gifts of God. They shall be all the more held accountable for this abuse of the blessing of God.

You write:
“Finally, why did they change the lex orandi?
You didn’t need a new lex orandi IN 1969.”

Just about all the prayers and formulae of the NO can be found in ancient liturgies.
From the voluminous writings of Saint Augustine, one can glean how the Holy Mass was offered.
The Mass of the NO is, in fact, very close to the way that Saint Augustine celebrated the Mass 1600 years ago in his cathedral of Hippo.

19. thomas - February 24, 2013

>>>”The Mass of the NO is, in fact, very close to the way that Saint Augustine celebrated the Mass 1600 years ago in his cathedral of Hippo.”
Don’t you mean Martin Luther?


Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: