jump to navigation

TLM under threat from Francis? January 13, 2017

Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, Basics, disaster, Francis, General Catholic, horror, Latin Mass, persecution, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the struggle for the Church.
trackback

I have long suspected – and I think I have opined to this effect here on the blog in the past – that with the direction of Francis’ tenure as Bishop of Rome so apparent, Summorum Pontificum could not long be left standing.  The architects of the revolution in the Church did not accidentally make a full-on assault on the Mass their first priority.  They knew that was the key to changing people’s beliefs and ultimately to changing the Church into the worldly, secularized construct they so ardently desire.  The Mass has always been the key to the life of the Church.  It is the living embodiment of absolutely core elements of Catholic belief.  Change it, and anything is possible.

The last 50 years have been a clear witness to this.  The Church has been changed in ways that Catholics of prior generations could neither imagine nor believe – the vast majority would in fact be utterly aghast at what passes for liturgy, doctrine, morals, ecclesiology, etc. in vast swaths of the Church today.  Forcing changes on the Mass – whether to “modernize” it as was claimed, or to make it less “offensive” to protestants, or to simply wreak a revolution – was a master stroke by those who knew the Church well enough to know where to wound her most grievously.

Summorum Pontificum is a deadly threat to the entire post-conciliar construct.  I know there are readers who haven’t jumped on the TLM train, and I understand some of their particular reasons, but overall, allowing the TLM to exist outside a few isolated, persecuted ghettos, to allow it to spread, even with all the roadblocks and obstacles constructed by most dioceses against it, to allow it to be perceived as “normal” and “equal” to the Novus Ordo is to allow a counter-revolutionary element to exist in the Church of the highest effectiveness and the gravest import.  Over time, the revolutionaries know that even slightly free existence of the TLM will eventually cause the complete destruction of their Great Facade, the modernist-progressive construct successfully imposed on the Church in the 60s and 70s.

It simply cannot be allowed to exist, to be seen as an equally normative expression of the Sacred Liturgy (even though, in reality, it is the new Mass that is the oddball).  At some point the permissions granted under Summorum Pontificum and Universae Ecclesiae – as unfairly implemented and unreasonably blocked as they have been – MUST be repealed.  Already opposition is building to the Franciscan attempt to replay the revolution.  Even secular sites are noting this (OK, it is Damien Thompson, but what about this observation from the “manosphere?”).  The hope that Francis would mark a new period of progressive pontifical ascendancy may be misplaced.  Thus, the time to act is now, no matter how politically explosive this act may be, no matter how much of a repudiation of the signature achievement of the still-living former pontiff it would mark.

Thus, I was not surprised at all to read this post from Rorate:

This from the latest blog post by Italian vaticanist Sandro Magister (along with Marco Tosatti, the top vaticanist in the current pontificate):
There are those who fear that after the demolition of “Liturgiam Authenticam,” the next objective, of this or another commission, will be the correction of “Summorum Pontificum,” the document with which Benedict XVI liberalized the celebration of the Mass in the ancient rite.
The time to agitate is now: Traditionalists around the world must make clear the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum (which was not an act of “mercy,” but a mere recognition of justice and logic) cannot be touched.

I agree.  While overall I fear the difficulty of moving the committed ideologue, especially one with as many Machiavellian instincts as this one, I do think sufficient noise might scare them off.  I’m not certain what the best approach to achieve that is.  I’m open to suggestions.  Flood the Vatican with letters?  Go crazy on social media?  Enlist the aid of sympathetic alternative media with a large following? Deck the USS Missouri out in thousands of fiddlebacks and float it up the Tiber?  All of the above…….

Prayer and penance must be at the root of all such efforts, as in all things.  I don’t know how many times I have doubled down on my prayers for Francis and the prevention of any havoc in the Church, but it looks like it’s time again.
Advertisements

Comments

1. Tim - January 13, 2017

I believe your fears are justifiable. Francis will eventually target the FSSP and the ICK. Pray that Bishop Fellay stands firm! As time and shenanigans go by the SSPX will have a population explosion.

Tantumblogo - January 13, 2017

Shoot. I meant to add that to the post, I don’t think this will stop at SP, but will extend to Ecclesia Dei and they will come under heavy threat. a la Campos.

2. Magdalene - January 13, 2017

If this pontificate continues I also think that more faithful Catholics and Traditions will be in the target area. The demolition of holy things will continue as fast and as far as possible until the Lord Himself intervenes. We already know that letters to the Vatican mean nothing; who would you send them to? While there are some faithful prelates, they are also under the gun. A rosary campaign to the pope? He will denigrate the effort. Truly it is prayer and fasting as the spiritual weapons needed for there are no human weapons to stop the present train wreck with the power concentrated at the helm and many lesser powers in agreement with making the RC Church another protestantized ‘community’ that compromises and pleases the ‘world’.

3. Rebecca - January 13, 2017

As a relatively newbie Catholic I’ve never experienced anything but the Novus Ordo mass. I was blessed in that my parish priest kept it as traditional as possible. I just loved mass at my parish. However, having attended other masses at different parishes I can see why those used to the traditional mass would be so upset. Don’t you think there is a middle ground? Couldn’t they just tighten up the Novus Ordo mass without returning to Latin?

Tantumblogo - January 13, 2017

I don’t think so. Read Pope Paul’s New Mass by Michael Davies, Iota Unum by Romano Amerio, and Work of Human Hands by Fr. Anthony Cekada. There’s another excellent book I can’t recall right now. These would provide a solid background on the foundational problems with the Novus Ordo, which are extensive. Or listen to any of Fr. Michael Rodriguez’ many sermons on the subject.

Better than merely reading about it would be to experience the TLM if at all possible. You need to go at least 3-4 consecutive Sundays, if possible, to overcome the initial differences and begin to appreciate it. Preferably this TLM would be at a parish administered by the FSSP, ICX, or SSPX. I suggest “even” the SSPX because there is a huge difference between a parish that offers the TLM occasionally, and one that is specifically dedicated to being traditional Catholic. The differences in reverence, focus on the Eucharist, catechesis, and overall sensus fidelium are simply too great to convey. They have to be experienced. There are very solid Novus Ordo priests out there, who do a respectable job of making the Novus Ordo more reverent and who can teach pretty solid catechesis, but even these rare individuals generally do not rise to the standard I’ve experienced in most TLM parishes. There is an entirely different ethos, or sense of the Faith, in traditional Catholic parishes. Sometimes these can come with unfortunate baggage, perhaps a bit of arrogance on the part of some of the laity who attend or some attitude that may come from long years of frustration and persecution, but really, these are rather rare. Every TLM parish I’ve assisted at has been filled with warm, wonderful, convicted people who really want to be good, pious souls. There are exceptions anywhere, but don’t let the scare stories keep you away.

I know this sounds like “rah rah my side is awesome.” In this badly fractured and wounded Church there is no perfect safe harbor, but I followed the path from typical Novus Ordo, to a much more reverent Novus Ordo, to the TLM over a period of 4 or 5 years and I have never regretted it. The Latin is really no big deal, people think it’s a huge hurdle but with hand missals readily available in every parish I’ve been to, it’s really not a significant issue. In fact, the vast majority who experience Latin in the Mass come to love it and really see it’s value as a universal language for the Church.

Tim - January 14, 2017

EXCELLENT. COMMENTARY.

LaGallina - January 15, 2017

Father Gregory Hesse (RIP) is also a great source for explanations on the new Mass vs. the Traditional Mass. His videos can be found on YouTube and his CDs can be purchased on oltyn.org, John Vennaris website. BTW, does anyone know how John V is doing? And whether oltyn.org is shipping orders?

Rebecca - January 15, 2017

Sounds like good advice. Thank you.

Tantumblogo - January 16, 2017

I remembered the other book. The Banished Heart by Dr. Geoffrey Hull.

But I thought about your situation some more, and depending on what you mean by “newbie” Catholic, I do encourage you to take your time. You’re probably processing a great deal and trying to find perfection can probably wait for good enough right now. Depending on how firm you feel in the Faith and what your heart tells you you’ll know what to do – whether to stand fast with your present situation or look for something different and perhaps better. I think you’ll find that as you grow you’ll know if and when you need something that might have more substance, like St. Paul’s reserving the meat of Faith for those really solid instead of the milk of the neophyte. I pray this does not sound smug, it’s what I went through and I’m just trying to share.

Camper - January 13, 2017

I’m not an expert, but the Council of Trent asserted that anybody who tried to change the Mass at all was anathema and therefore excommunicated, so all the post-conciliar bishops except for the SSPX, etc. are anathema. But why would you take seriously the Council of Trent? After all, I’m in the SSPX!

SSPX confessions have been declared valid by the Unholy Father now for about 14 months. They’re valid without his permission because of supplied jurisdiction, which I understand has also been approved by the Vatican before the Unholy Father came on the scene (Francis, of course.) Don’t have a reference for you on that one, unfortunately. BTW, welcome to the Church. Quite a rollar coaster, huh? I’m a convert going back a decade. Hope you stick with this blog. I also strongly recommend Mundabor’s blog. God bless.

Richard Malcolm - January 14, 2017

“I’m not an expert, but the Council of Trent asserted that anybody who tried to change the Mass at all was anathema and therefore excommunicated, so all the post-conciliar bishops except for the SSPX, etc. are anathema.”

You know, if you want to push that position in its most literal sense, Pope Pius XII would be in deep trouble as well. He made *far* more changes to the missal than all the other Tridentine era popes put together.

Camper - January 16, 2017

Why not? I think the popes going back to Leo XIII, whose letters revealed that he was obsessed with the glory of his family, not holy matters, have been modernists by approving of Rerum Novarum. After all, the Syllabus of Errors condemned all modern novelties, and the welfare state, recommended by Rerum Novarum, is a modern novelty. Can’t be approved according to the Syllabus.

Richard Malcolm - January 16, 2017

Well, then the question becomes: “Where do you draw the line?” Being “obsessed with the glory of one’s family” (however disappointing in a pontiff) can’t be a disqualifier per se or we would have had no pope for long stretches of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance.

I’m unclear what the objection is to Rerum novarum, or why it constitutes a modern novelty. There are certainly tensions in its attempt to incorporate natural rights into a Thomistic analysis, but to say it’s modernism (an argument with which St. Pius X, who made the first real effort to define modernism, obviously did not agree) is hard to sustain.

But if you want to mount a criticism of all the 20th century liturgical changes put in place by Popes even before Vatican II you will (as I commented below) get no argument from me.

Camper - January 18, 2017

All the 19th century popes until Leo XIII were opposed to all of the novelties coming out in the century, including the welfare state. Austria had some handouts starting with Maria Theresia, but I think they were confined to Austria. Anybody who seriously denies that by 19th century standards, welfare was a novelty is not being intellectually serious. The UK didn’t get the dole until 1906.

Do you know the record of St. Pius X? I don’t think he wrote much (if anything) about the welfare state. I think he was silent on it. Besides, the Church then didn’t realize that not every jot and tittle out of the Vatican wasn’t infallible. My point about Leo XIII’s obsession was that he was not a holy Pope and therefore, we should be skeptical of what he taught. It led, after all, to the hierarchy being infested with leftists. Properly speaking, our attitude should be, “Oh sure, we agree ;). But then why did all the 19th century Popes before LXIII disagree? Why was it their staunch policy?”

Richard Malcolm - January 18, 2017

Hello Camper,

I don’t think it’s fair to read Rerum novarum as a program for the modern welfare state. Its most ringing proposition is, in fact, that there is a sacred right to private property. There’s no explicit provisions in it for a welfare state, and most of the discussion of working classes emphasizes the dignity of work.

I think there are tensions in importing a rights framework into the Church’s traditional Thomistic understanding of anthropology, as the late Fr. Ernest Fortin pointed out; but that’s a quite different concern than the one I think you seem to have.

St Pius X wrote no social teaching encyclicals – probably felt no need, since Leo XIII had covered the ground so extensively, and he had bigger fish to fry. Pius X *did* favorably cite Rerum novarum in his letter to the French bishops Notre Charge Apostolique, in which he suppressed the lay group Le Sillon: “Leo XIII laid down for Catholics a program of action, the only program capable of putting society back onto its centuries old Christian basis.”

Was Leo XIII a holy pope? Fair question. I think there’s evidence for it, even beyond his obvious spiritual writings (eight encyclicals(!), all quite moving, on the Holy Rosary) – which is not to say he was perfect. He is not canonized or beatified, so you’re not obliged to think so, however. I think the growing infestation of modernists and proto-modernists (not least the proteges of Rampolla) in the hierarchy was already underway even before Leo’s election, and would have continued in some real fashion regardless of who had been pope in 1878-1903 – it was a natural effect of a secularizing western society, alas.

Camper - January 21, 2017

This is my favorite topic. The Angelic Doctor, St. Thomas, teaches in I-II, Q. 96, Art. 4 of the Summa that burdens that government puts on society must be equal in proportion. This rules out the graduated income tax and the government policies that come from it. Rerum Novarum taught Catholics that they should allow a welfare state. I’ve read it. Have you? It’s contrary to what St. Paul taught, which is in the Bible and wasn’t contradicted, to my knowledge, for some 19 centuries or so. (he who shall not work shall not eat.) The Popes were opposed to this sort of thing, culminating in the Syllabus of Errors in 1864, which plainly condemns economic and political novelties.

Camper - January 21, 2017

Tradition in Action.org states somewhere that no one is seriously considering canonizing Leo XIII because of his obsession with his family’s glory. One could search for Leo XIII on their website.
Rerum Novarum is just democracy overtaking the Church. The ancients through relatively modern thinkers, such as the Duke of Wellington and Prince Metternich, have warned against the ruin that democracy brings, particularly Plato in _The Republic_. Not everything that Popes say is infallible; in fact, it would appear that the Pope is infallible only very rarely. This Pope is obviously a leftist low-life who has never in his adult life believed the Magisterium.

The bishops began to be quite left-wing after Rerum Novarum. Catholics developed a reputation for tyranny in America after Rerum Novarum that they had retained from previous times due to such potentates as the Kings of Spain and France (Louis XIV) beforehand. This general reputation for immorality, which comes partly from our political reputation, is one of the main things that makes it so hard for Catholics to evangelize.
I forgot to mention that Leo XIII got his thought for Rerum Novarum from a certain bishop of Mainz, who was a disciple of a disciple of Marx. That’s right: Rerum Novarum ultimately comes from Marx.

Richard Malcolm - January 21, 2017

Hello Camper,

“Rerum Novarum taught Catholics that they should allow a welfare state. I’ve read it. Have you?”

Actually, I did my MA thesis on it.

I think I must respectfully disagree that Rerum novarum is any clear prescription for a welfare state. The passages that *might* be read most in that direction are secs. 16 and 31-32, but honestly, any attempt to do so flies in the face of the main thrust of the encyclical, which is at pains to bat down socialist agendas and uphold the importance of private property along with the rights of workers to associate, etc.

My reading of commentary by Zigliari, Ketteler, Taparelli and Leo himself in the leadup to its composition bears out the sense that to the extent that they thought about state action at all in this regard, it did not amount to more than the sort of poor relief programs long employed by Catholic states, with perhaps some interest in Bismarck’s old age pension program – though there’s not even a mention in RN of state pensions per se. Popular and scholarly Catholic commentary in the first years after RN’s publication that I have seen do not seem to move past that, though once we move into the interwar years there’s growing interest in aggressive state action – though I think that’s more than mere extrapolation from RN, and has to be attributed more to the influence of secular thought. Which leads me to…

“…The bishops began to be quite left-wing after Rerum Novarum.”

This varied by country, but to the degree it was true, I think it also has to be ascribed mostly to secular influence, directly (as in subversive penetration) or indirectly. To the extent that we find men such as Rampolla in prominence under Leo XIII, I tend to think the late Fr. Hesse is in the right of it in attributing it to the ability of such men to prevaricate, along with Leo’s too-trusting nature.

I really do think that what really hurt the Church the most in this regard is the collapse/subversion of traditional Catholic states in the first half of the 20th century. What replaces them in that period are Anglo-American style liberal states on the one hand, or communist ones on the other, with an interlude of fascism or quasi-fascism (Peronism in Argentina, etc.) in some. It became much harder for the Church hierarchy to resist those strains of thought as a result, alas.

“…a certain bishop of Mainz, who was a disciple of a disciple of Marx.”

I think you are thinking of Wilhelm von Ketteler, Bishop of Mainz in 1850-1877 (note that he died a decade and a half before RN was published). I don’t think that is quite fair to his views. His key work on this question, Die Arbeiterfrage and das Christentum, appears three years before Das Kapital. And his general posture is a real skepticism toward state solutions to the “social question.” His preference was really for the old guild system.

Camper - January 22, 2017

You certainly have made some interesting points. Still, I’m opposed to government poor relief as something that traps the poor, takes their dignity away from them, and taxes society. Better for them to be working, even if only for a low wage, and to get private charity, then to put them on the dole, which involves moral hazard. I count the dole as being a welfare state. It has been a while since I read RN, but I specifically remember it recommending allowing the poor to be put on government assistance, which I count as the welfare state. That’s contrary to what St. Paul wrote in the Bible.
Secular historians, based on what I was taught in World History in the 10th grade, believe RN to be a major shift in Catholic teaching.
I thought it was Kettler, and just because he wrote before Marx doesn’t mean that he wasn’t influenced by Marx. I understand him to have been a disciple of a disciple of Marx. Maybe it was somebody else. I believe that the one I’m thinking of was referenced by BXVI in his encyclical Caritas in Veritate. I’d like to continue this discussion in a newer thread once this thread is closed.

Camper - January 22, 2017

Maybe you win the argument. I’ll have to go back to the drawing board to formulate a better one. Please send me an email.
camper15@gmx.com. I don’t check this email regularly so you’ll have to post a message here that you did so.

Camper - January 22, 2017

I think my better argument would have to be based on the idea that a tax-funded dole is always damaging to the social fabric – countries that have no dole will be more vigorous and more apt to conquer the states that have a dole. Catholics need to be generous to the poor, but I strongly am opposed to a tax-funded dole.

Richard Malcolm - January 22, 2017

“Still, I’m opposed to government poor relief as something that traps the poor, takes their dignity away from them, and taxes society. Better for them to be working, even if only for a low wage, and to get private charity, then to put them on the dole, which involves moral hazard. I count the dole as being a welfare state.”

I think you’re on the right track, though I think distinctions have to be made. In the early modern poor relief systems – Catholic and Protestant – a distinction was drawn in law between the able-bodied and the infirm. The former were expected to work for support – in England, this took the form of workhouses, for example. The infirm without visible means of family support, could be dispensed of such requirement.

Of course, before the Reformation such support came mostly from monastic and other Church religious foundations. In England and the other Protestant lands, of course, that was annihilated in short order, and it was some time before they came up with state mechanisms to take the place of what they had destroyed. In Catholic lands, the Church retained much of that role for a while longer, at least until the 19th and early 20th centuries.

Leo XIII in RN spends a great deal of time on the dignity of work, and the respect owed to it – “As for those who possess not the gifts of fortune, they are taught by the Church that in God’s sight poverty is no disgrace, and that there is nothing to be ashamed of in earning their bread by labor.” (RN 21). The pity is that too many Catholic thinkers who followed in his wake (including an incumbent pontiff) insisted on reading it through secular, socialist lens. But obviously that’s been done to lots of other Church documents, too (even the sound ones).

Camper - January 22, 2017

The problem with offering public money to the infirm is that, first of all, the class of people who are infirm will tend to grow, particularly in a democracy, and secondly, it removes opportunities for charity from those with money. It makes the society weaker. Ultimately, only people can make the lives of the poor better, as the recent debate (1994) about the welfare state has revealed. In America, the number on “social security disabliity” has exploded and is bankrupting the national pension system. Offering money to the infirm is a moral hazard. Often these people can do something productive, but the job is destroyed and replaced with a handout. With the advent of the Industrial and Nuclear Revolutions, the only temporal thing one needs to fear is big government, which causes demographic crises.

Richard Malcolm - January 14, 2017

(P.S. And just to be clear, I’m not criticizing you here. I’m not a fan of *any* of the 20th century changes to the Roman Rite. I’d just as soon go back to 1939 and start from there.)

Rebecca - January 15, 2017

Thank you1

Richard Malcolm - January 14, 2017

Latin matters – but it’s still not as important as the substance of the Mass itself – the prayers, the lectionary, the ordinary, the calendar, and the rubrics. And all of these were radically changed in 1969.

To put it another way, I would sooner have the TLM in a reasonably faithful vernacular than I would the Novus Ordo in 100% Latin.

michael - January 17, 2017

What do you think of the Anglican Rit?

Camper - January 18, 2017

I went to it for some fifteen months, and it isn’t horrendous. I strongly recommend, however, the Traditional Latin Mass. Again, I am no liturgical expert, but the environment and doctrine is far better at the Latin Mass. Some Anglican Use priests have as little discipline as the Novus Ordo ones do, which is reason enough to shun them. The priests who were trained for seven years in traditional seminiaries are far better trained. They make much better preachers, advisers, and confessors. The way to fixing the problems in the Church is to return to tradition, and the Anglican Use priests are the slaves of their horrendous bishops. I would recommend the Latin Mass even if you want to stay in good standing with Rome, which I think is a big mistake. Pope Heretic is not afraid of trads who are in good standing with Rome. He is afraid of the SSPX (only very slightly, though.)

Camper - January 18, 2017

Put another way, the Anglican Use priests aren’t traditional. That’s the root of the problem. Also, they probably can’t defy their bishops if Rome becomes heretical because they don’t celebrate the Latin Mass. Therefore, they are stuck swallowing whatever nonsense a hippy pope invents. This includes JPII, who confused even some who go to Novus Ordo priests who celebrate the TLM on the side. I’m thinking of Judge Napolitano, who thinks the death penalty is always wrong.

Camper - January 18, 2017

Hopefully the last thing on the Anglican Ordinariate. These priests often depend on salaries and pensions to feed their families, which also dramatically curtails their independence. Trust me – it really hampers their effectiveness.

Richard Malcolm - January 18, 2017

I used to attend and serve the Ordinariate Rite, so I can say a few things about it:

1) It’s been a moving target, with the missal only being officially issued last year. Until that point, it was a mix and match affair, and the communities that had come in had very diverse backgrounds, ranging from nose-bleed high church to charismatic (I kid you not). It depends greatly on the parish and the priests, even now; a couple still exclusively use the Novus Ordo. The parishes in Omaha, Baltimore, Calgary, and increasingly Houston (to cite those I am most familiar with) are the most traditionalist in their liturgical approach. In Baltimore and Omaha, for example, my experience was that it was something very close to the Traditional Latin Mass in a hieratic English – we even used the old pre-1955 Holy Week, initially.

The new Ordinariate missal is a massive improvement on the old Book of Divine Worship (1983), though it is certainly not perfect. It has numerous options (a concession to the diversity of incoming communities in the UK and US); it still regrettably uses the Novus Ordo 3 year lectionary. But as between the 1962 and 1970 missals, it strikes me as closer to 1962, and I think the old Anglican penitential prayers (Collect for Purity, etc.) are quite moving and instill a very strong sense of the Four Last Things in the Mass. The translation, at least for most of the options, is a hieratic vernacular English, borrowing from the 1664 Book of Common Prayer and the English Missal.

2) For the most part, the sacred music at Ordinariate parishes is superior to that in the majority of TLM communities, I am afraid; but then music has already been a central concern of the Anglican tradition, whereas too many TLM communities still seem content with a Low Mass even on Sunday. If you attend an Ordinariate liturgy, odds are you will get a very good musical experience.

3) I will second Camper’s concerns about formation. It is a real concern. Formation is very uneven, and very few have anything like a solid priestly formation – would that all were like Fr John Hunwicke (of the UK Ordinariate)! This is of course not their fault; some are making the extra effort to supply the deficit, but of their own efforts, and some muddle along with typical modern formation. And yes, they are indeed dependent for the most part on local diocesan bishops. Rarely are the homiletics at the level you will get at an ICRSS or FSSP Mass (I cannot speak to the SSPX, but my sense is that the same applies).

4. The Lord's Blog - January 14, 2017

My hope is our Lord wont put up with this nonsense now and in the future and that the TLM will be protected. Its only a thought. I study private revelation and if some of it is true we will see a Holy Pontiff someday. One who will restore us. That is my hope. So hang in there people of God.

5. The Lord's Blog - January 14, 2017

Reblogged this on Jean'sBistro2010's Blog and commented:
TLM………………

6. Anonymous - January 14, 2017

We all know what must happened. Prayers are good action must follow. Courage as per Blessed Mother. We must take them out. How? Ask God, He will answer.

7. Richard Malcolm - January 14, 2017

Honestly. I think Joseph Shaw (Chairman of the Latin Mass Socity in the UK – and a blogger for Rorate) is in the right of it: the fear that Summorum Pontificum (let alone the Ecclesia Dei groups) is on the chopping block is overstated: “I think these sorts of stories come from people around Pope Francis who would like them to be true, perhaps even with a view to menacing potentially awkward people into quiescence.” Many of the men in Francis’s circle would *like* to take a shot at it, but Francis himself simply doesn’t care. He has bigger fish to fry. And enough other battles on his hands.

I’d be more worried if I was a Reform-of-the-Reform advocate. The Pauline Missal is an easier target, and given its status affects vastly more Catholics. But even to just change the translation again…I mean, look how long and difficult it was to get the MR3 translation through. Even that much would keep the jacobins at CDW busy for years.

Still, would it be a bad idea to make some noise? To pray and sacrifice? To rededicate our efforts to not just defending the traditional liturgy, but growing it? Absolutely not.

8. Dymphna - January 15, 2017

I’ve already made up my mind. If Francis does what I think he will do I will go to the SSPX mission. That will be very inconvenient but having found the TLM I will never willingly go back to the jazz Mass, the gospel Mass or the folk music Mass or the Father Skippy Comedy Hour Mass.

Camper - January 16, 2017

I did just that back at pentecost 2016 because I thought Cardinal Burke was dragging his heels and giving far too much leeway to Pope Heretic.

Richard Malcolm - January 18, 2017

Do you still think that of Cardinal Burke, now that we know of the Dubia?

Camper - January 21, 2017

We need a lion right now, and Cardinal Burke is a house cat. He should be loudly proclaiming from the housetops that the Pope is in error and is a heretic, at least materially. As it is, souls are going to Hell because the four Cardinals are not being loud enough and rapid enough. I know things in the Church are supposed to go slowly, but this is ridiculous. That’s why I joined the SSPX.

Camper - January 22, 2017

Sometimes, it is a sin not to be vehement. I think Cardinal Burke and his companions are sinning by not vehemently condemning the Pope openly, though I admit I’m not an expert in such an obscure topic.

Richard Malcolm - January 22, 2017

I confess I’m ready to hold a heresy trial right now.

…but having said that, there’s a role for prudence here, and I confess that I don’t know everything that’s going on, or being done. This is nearly virgin ground we find ourselves on, with no clear, commonly accepted procedure for dealing with a pope engaging in this sort of behavior.

As is, ++Burke – cautious as he seems to be – has exercised more courage than just about the rest of the entire College of Cardinals put together.

Camper - January 16, 2017

Pope Heretic himself has approved of the confessions of the SSPX. With the SSPX, one doesn’t pay Peter’s pence to Pope Heretic. The Pope is destroying not only the Church, but civilization as well. He has already been declared anathema by the Sacred Council of Trent. Join the SSPX for the sake of survival. God doesn’t demand that we follow a Pope no matter what. It’s an extremely common contemporary error.


Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: