This division, quite contrary to what wonks like Bill Donohue, Jeff Mirus, and a plethora of other "conservative" Catholic talking-heads have repeatedly assured us, hasn't been caused by a group who have "misinterpreted Vatican II". This rift has been caused by none other than the very architects of Vatican II and the churchmen who succeeded them. Those misguided reformers weren't hijackers who had been standing on the side-lines, and who took Vatican II as an opportunity to inflict their vision on the Church. The reformers were the bishops and priests who sat through the sessions of the Second Vatican Council and drafted and voted for the Council's documents. It was their vision, the vision of the Vatican II architects and the bishops, that was inflicted on the Church in the wake of the Second Vatican Council.
The division and crisis in the Church Militant today is, indeed, a problem. However, the problem is not one primarily of liberal theologians in the universities, feminist nuns on a bus, ignorant or heretical catechists, or hippie priests, though they have all definitely played their roles; rather, the problem is and always has been the bishops who accepted and then defended the ambiguity of the Vatican II documents and that Council's ambivalence to evil. Thus it has been bishops collectively that have acted as the primary catalyst of the crisis, giving place to radical leftist intellectuals in our institutions, destroying the clear transmission of the faith, and creating a sub-culture among priests and religious that is a mockery of everything the priesthood and consecrated life has ever stood for.
The "Obama invite", as Mr. Voris rightly points out, has once again highlighted this sad reality. Devout Catholics are pushed aside, just like traditional Catholics have always been pushed aside ever since the insane liturgical changes of the early 70s. It is becoming clear, at least to me, that the same vandals are still in control, and the same spirit of vandalism runs rampant among our churchmen and their "conservative" apologists. There's no reason for me to get into Archbishop Dolan's woefully inadequate excuse for the invite, nor to say again what has already been well written elsewhere; there's no reason for me address the same pandering apologies for "conservative" Modernism from all the usual talking heads and obfuscating blowhards. Michael Voris' most recent The Vortex videos regarding the invite and these issues, specifically, are posted below for your convenience.
Dolan's actions speak for themselves. His invite is at best hypocritical and stupid, demonstrating Dolan's willingness to cow-tow to powerful men in order to curry their favor; at worst, it demonstrates that Dolan is a Socialist in a collar, objecting only to those things he is obligated to object to, while agreeing in principle with the socialist and death-dealing agenda at the heart of Obama's policies. These things ought to be clear to any honest and objective observer.
However, what concerns me here is the question as to whether traditional Catholicism has really made any inroads over the last few years regarding the Catholic institutions of the Church Militant and the churchmen who occupy the high offices thereof. It is clear that those offices are still occupied by those sympathetic to the Modernist heresy. And make no mistake about it: traditional Catholicism remains vulnerable.
Despite Summorum Pontificum, we have been reminded over the last few days, that the Immortal Mass is still the target of the Modernists in the halls of our Catholic institutions. What happens to devout traditional Catholics when the Vatican promulgates an unacceptable "New Old Missal" that foists on the traditional Catholic communities and Ecclesia Dei fraternities all the liturgical and doctrinal errors that engendered the disastrous novus ordo Missae? Will traditional Catholics be forced out of "full communion" in mass when the Modernist churchmen force us to accept the new prefaces, adopt the new calendar, discard Latin, and turn our priests around to offer the sacrifice to the people instead of to God?
If anything the events of 2012 demonstrate that the crisis is far from a resolution. The appointment of Archbishop Müller as head of the CDF indicates that even the pope, the author of Summorum Pontificum, still embraces the ambiguity of the Vatican II generation. The apparent breakdown in the discussions with the SSPX demonstrates that the Vatican, which will accept the nuns on the bus who deny the divinity of Our Blessed Lord, is unwilling to accept those who wish to fully embrace the Catholic faith as it was understood and practiced for centuries before the ambiguities of the Second Vatican Council emptied our pews, spread dissension and misunderstanding throughout the Church, and gave rise to all manner of liturgical abuses.
The growth of traditional Catholic communities definitely indicates that, at least on the level of evangelism, traditional Catholicism is making striking progress. However, this is to be expected. Truth and beauty are contagious among hearts so disposed to cooperate with the graces that propose them. On the other hand, it would appear that Modernism is still thoroughly entrenched, and even in this hour, fighting back with a demonically renewed vigor.
Perhaps this "Obama invite" will come to nothing, or perhaps it will propel Obama to victory among Catholic voters in November. Either way, it demonstrates that our churchmen, unfazed by the growth and vigor of traditional Catholicism, are still embracing the enemies of Holy Mother Church and Our Blessed Lord. The fight within the Church Militant, between the faithful and the Modernists, is still raging as furious as ever.
_____________________________
"Will traditional Catholics be forced out of full communion in mass when the Modernist churchmen force us to accept the new prefaces, adopt the new calendar, discard Latin, and turn our priests around to offer the sacrifice to the people instead of to God?"
ReplyDeleteThis over-the-top question seems out of character for you. It reminds me of the paranoid fears of a furtive gentleman with twitching eyes whom I met at coffee after a TLM one Sunday. He was convinced that a government radio transmitter had been planted in one of his wisdom teeth during some recent dental work, and even then was sending our conversation to Homeland Security.
Henry, you are more than welcome to disagree with my opinions. Fine. However, for you to go so over the top in your characterization of my person was uncharitable to say the least.
ReplyDeleteInstead of crafting such a ridiculous caricature of me, why not simply state that you think I was over the top and inaccurate? At any rate, I won't tolerate it again.
In defense of my contention, it is a well known fact that the Vatican is preparing for release next Summer a "Revised Traditional Missal" that foists on traditional Catholics the novus ordo prefaces, the "option" of using the vernacular and the "option" of offering the sacrifice toward the people instead of to God. Once the establishment has the option, those options will be forced on the faithful. That precedent has already been well established.
And if you think it over the top that to contend that the mainstream churchmen would dare attempt to change our traditional manner of worship, overturn centuries of liturgical practice, and do so against the will of the faithful, then perhaps you are completely ignoring what happened in the late 1960s and 1970s. That is, after all, exactly what happened.
ReplyDeleteAbout this new missal, is it fact that one is coming? I have been reading some articles, and they seem to be rumors based on "reliable", unidentified sources. Has there been more said which I've missed? Such a possibility has mortified me since the Pope said it was coming, in UE.
ReplyDeleteThe "end game" of Summorum Pontificum has always been at least a hybridized TLM, or "hopefully" (to mainline conservatives) a single, hybrid liturgy, uniting the TLM and NO Mass. The question the Pope will have to decide, is whether the unadulterated (the word fits perfectly) TLM will be allowed to exist alongside whatever else develops. Should the 1962 TLM be officially abrogated, then we must ask our own question - do we stay or go? If we go, where too? Will the SSPX have been officially regularized? If so, will they be forced back out, again, and us with them?
The the possible implications of this "development", are quite frightening.
The age of the Neo-Cats is upon us. Better in many ways than the liberals of the 70s, but still infected with VII- gibberish talk.
ReplyDeleteThey issue SC at the Council (promulgated by Paul VI) then issue the 65 missal, and then dump it for something entirely new in 70. Then they leave the 62 Missal alone in a corner for a few decades and when it comes back into the light they decide to start fooling with it again in the name of the Council. If the rumor turns out to be true it just adds another layer of lunacy to the story. And we already had our GF prayer tossed; I'm still disturbed at that.
Some people say, 'the Council's call for liturgical reform was the will of God, etc etc' but then claim that the New Mass didn't perfectly fulfill this and that it needs to be 'reformed' in compliance with Council guidelines. But the '65 transitional already started that, but apparently Paul VI didn't think that was good enough to stick with permanently. So now you're pitting Paul vs. himself. It's nuts. You know, maybe neither the reform nor the New Mass was a good idea to begin with...
At this point, we can be certain that a revised missal is definitely on the way, and this missal will definitely contain the options already mentioned (vernacular lectionary, versus populum, etc.), and will definitely contain the novus ordo prefaces and the addition of modern saints.
ReplyDeleteNot that long ago I supported a revision that would include recently canonized saints, so I'm not completely opposed so some revisions. However, the news leaking out of Rome is indicating that the revisions are going too far.
But one thing to keep in mind, something that I learned a long time ago:
Nothing that comes out of the Rome is as good as what was hoped for, or as bad as what was feared.
On the other hand, there is real cause for concern here. What we know from the past is that "options" are rarely optional for the faithful in the pews. Priests have a tendency to impose options. If its permissible, we can be sure it will be done, whether the faithful want it or not.
The addition of "options" bodes very badly for traditional Catholics who attend TLMs offered by diocesan priests, as they will be the first to impose those options. As far as that goes, there will probably be no "option" for those faithful. The EC fraternities will probably ignore the options, but there is no guarantee (especially given the history of FSSP in America) that individual priests of a more permissive mindset won't embrace them.
At any rate, the TLM will subjected to the same danger of being banally transformed into a reflection of a local community or (more likely) an individual priest's self-image instead of a uniform worship of the Almighty. This is the same thing that has plagued the NO liturgy from its very beginning. The TLM will no longer be a safe haven to escape endless liturgical experimentation.
The 62 missal, though, won't be abrogated, as such. The adding of options is not an abrogation. It will essentially be the same as the various revisions of the NO missal, which certainly didn't abrogate it.
However, a revision is just that, and the modern churchmen have a love affair with revisions, changes, and tinkering. It is a mark of Modernism that should be held highly suspect.
That a hybrid Mass is a goal of many Vatican officials is well known. I'm not sure such a view is held by all prelates in the Vatican and elsewhere, but I too think that this upcoming revision is at least an attempt to move in that direction. It should be opposed to the best of our ability, primarily with prayer, fasting and sacrifice.
Depending on the severity of the changes in the revision, and the reaction of the FSSP priests that are my immediate pastors, I personally will have to make prudential judgment. I'm hoping for the best whether or not the revision comes out as planned next year. I'm hoping that even if this revision comes out that the FSSP priests here will simply ignore them. If they do not ignore them, or if for some reason they are compelled to implement the "options", then....
Well, like I said, rarely are things as good as hoped for, or as bad as feared. We'll have to cross that bridge when we get to it.
"It's nuts."
ReplyDeleteThanks. That is a great summation of the entire situation.
Yeah, I'm really skeptical say, the rumor that versus populum will be allowed. Benedict doesn't even like that as far as I've heard. I doubt many of the 'approved' orders would be using these if they're simply added as options.
ReplyDeleteIt's the little one-off diocesan Masses I'd be most concerned about. The neos have been creeping into the traditional movement, and a number would welcome some tinkering. If you were traveling on Good Friday, people would be calling up asking, 'are you pre-2009, pre-2013, or a combination thereof?' Or 'Well, I will go to a Mass with the Latin readings gone but not with the new prefaces.' It's goofy.
I wish there was a pre-55 around here; I don't want nothin' touched by Bugnini and the liberal wing of the liturgical movement.
David, I did not intend, and certainly do not harbor, any characterization of your person, other than my sincere respect for you personally based on your wonderful contribution here with this most beautiful of traditional blogs, for your invariably pertinent comments at other blogs, and for your strong support of the TLM generally.
ReplyDeleteIf I thought that a new TLM missal such as you describe--encouraging versus populum celebration, for instance--were really in the offing, then my reaction would much the same as yours. So I do hope and pray I am correct in thinking that that no such travesty is in the offing, and that any fear of it is indeed "over the top" and therefore counter-productive to our mutual cause. My belief is that such unrestrained fears are unwarranted extrapolations from statements merely that some new saints and additional (new or old) prefaces are worthy of inclusion in the traditional Latin missal.
So let me apologize to you for my comparison of the currently rampant traditionalist fears--stemming from very real past experience--with the paranoid fears of a clearly deranged individual. Though admittedly your post did bring to mind the anecdote I cited, I regret that my reach for a rhetorical flourish got the better of me, and caused hurt to you, when you deserve instead my appreciation for your staunch support of the TLM, which I hereby extend to you.
Finally, David, having just read your 9:06 statement last night, I should say that I think it eminently prudent and "fair and balanced" (while still believing personally that the our worst fears are unwarranted).
ReplyDelete