Catholic Times (UK): Paul VI & Bugnini: no one more “pastorally sensitive” about TLM

The recent number of The Catholic Times, (21 Sept, p. 9) an English weekly, has one of the dumbest articles about Pope Benedict’s Summorum Pontificum I have read to date.

It was written by one Msgr. Basil Loftus, whom I had not heard of until I read this.

A kind reader typed it out and sent it. 

My emphases and comments.

 

No-one was more pastorally sensitive to the need for Tridentine –rite Mass provision than Pope Paul VI. [You. Must. Be. Joking.  Aside from the fact that His Holiness allowed for older priests to continue to use the older form and then was eventually persuaded by Card. Heenan (and Agatha Christie) to allow for something in the UK, how was Paul VI "pastorally" sensitive by virtually supressing the older form of Mass?  Furthermore, this is a great example of the use of "pastoral" as a mere buzz word.  It means almost nothing here.] The greatest obstacle to this concession was the attitude of Archbishop Lefebvre and his followers in various countries. [Okay… this makes Paul VI sound petty: "They are being jerks so I won’t do what they ask… regardless of the merits of the petition.  I believe the writer is projecting backwards onto the events of the late 60s and early 70s something of what we experience today in dealing with some traditionalists.]  In a letter to the Cardinal secretary of state on June 29 1973, Fr Bugnini, the Secretary of the Congregation For Divine Worship, spelt out the difficulties: “Opposition to the ‘new’ Mass has given rise to a bitterly disputatious campaign of attacks on the Pope and the Church, on the Council and on ecclesiastical institutions. It has opposed the Mass of Pius V to that of Paul VI, calling the one the expression of true faith, the other heretical. Once the problem is located on this doctrinal level, any yielding would be harmful to faith and discipline. On the other hand, when special cases arise in which the moving force is not polemical and doctrinal, a concession can be granted to celebrate the old Mass.”   [Note that that was a letter from Bugnini to the Secretary of State.  That was Bugnini’s position, not Paul VI’s.  But the author started out saying how pastorally sensitive Paul VI was and then wound up quoting you know who.]

Fr Bugnini refers to the request for Tridentine-rite Mass provision after the promulgation of the new rite, in these terms: “Their request could even be seen as quite legitimate when seen as a psychological and spiritual need of faithful who were accustomed to the kind of celebration they had known and loved since childhood and who were ill at ease with the new rite. But the petitions made had a serious drawback: the criticized the Missal of Paul VI as heretical and Protestant and claimed that the Mass of Pius V was the only authentic Mass.” (The Reform of the Liturgy, 1984-1975, p284)   [Again with the Bugnini.  And once again, those who are attached to the older form of Mass are presented – by Bugnini here, but certainly this is the writer’s view – as being caught in a trap of nostalgia, unable to grow up and make the enlightened changes which have born such wonderful fruit in the years since their implementation.]

On the Feast of Ss Peter and Paul in 1970 a pilgrimage to Rome by those who were petitioning for the retention of the Tridentine-rite left the following letter with the Holy See: “We know that the infallible and irreformable teaching of the Council of the Trent on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass has been betrayed in the new rites – by the imposition of the vernacular, by the fraudulent watering down of the consecration of the chalice, and by the translation into the vernacular which has destroyed the Catholic doctrine on justification as defined by the Council of Trent. The Mass is no longer the bloodless renewal of the Sacrifice of Calvary, but an assembly; the hierarchical and sacred priesthood has been eliminated and replaced by the president of the assembly … we know that the entire liturgical reform amounts to a real disavowal of transubstantion and the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.”  [Again… a letter from no one in authority.  The writer should be reminded that the plural of anecdote is not "data".]
No Pope, however deep his sympathies with the spiritual and pastoral needs of those who sought concessions of the Tridentine-rite within the context of the liturgical reform, could ever be allow them when his action could be seen to be a capitulation to those who accused him of heresy. [And yet Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict have done just that.]  Yves Congar fingered the precise point when, in his book Challenge to the Church – the case of Archbishop Lefebvre, he cited the traditionalists’ main concern as not being liturgical renewal but the renewed image of the Church which came out of Vatican II[And that image has really worked out well so far.  But note how the author pits one vision against the other, one group against another, one Missal against the other.  Citing Congar and Bugnini, he is a good example of someone who applied a "hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture".]

This regrettable tendency to exaggerated and offensive language was not limited to issues, but descended into personal abuse, particularly of Pope Paul VI and Fr Bugnini. [He does not cite the abuse traditional Catholics continue to endure.]  On November 30, 1969, a number of fountains in the centre of Rome had chemicals poured into them to stain the water red, allowing the Lefebvrists to claim “the waters of Rome run red just as the waters of Egypt were transformed into blood” – a reference to Exodus 7:19.   [More anecdotes.]

 

 

The situation was not dissimilar from that which existed at the Council of Trent. At that time, 400 years before Vatican II, there was considerable sympathy for the introduction of the vernacular into the Mass.   [Similiar things came out of the Synod of Pistoia and were condemned by the Church.]The only reason [?] it was not done was because the more extreme of the Protestant reformers claimed that the Mass was invalid in Latin – something the Council of Trent could not afford to be seem to admit.  After Vatican II, because of the exaggerated claims that the new liturgy was heretical, Pope Paul VI could not allow himself to be seen as admitting that in any way by making concessions about the re-instatement of the Tridentine-rite Mass. Yet, despite the abuse and insults, and the undoubtedly stressful times, both Paul VI and Fr Bugnini not only continued but redoubled their efforts to make provision for those whose pastoral needs could only be met through the Tridentine Mass.  [The writer may be living in a dream world.]

There was special concern about a number of countries, especially Britain – invariably referred to in Vatican documents as “England”. Even when trying to understand the difference between England”, “Britain” and “The United Kingdom”, the highest officials in Vatican could run into difficulty. A then British Minister to the Holy See once asked me what briefing had been given to the Pope which caused him to greet the diplomat with the words: ”Ah, I know you have not come England”. Confusion reigned, as the Minister rather thought he had! But it was “England” and other countries with a Protestant tradition which elicited special understanding.  [But he digresses…]

Bugnini (p280) is quite clear: “The point needs to be made that in the United States and especially in England, and more generally in countries with a strong Protestant majority, the introduction of the vernacular into the liturgy meant to many the loss of one distinction between Catholics and Protestants and of a sign of their attachment to Rome in the face of Protestantism. For these people, the psychological effects of the reform were quite serious. For some, the reform meant the collapse of a world and the practical acceptance of views until then regarded as heretical”

Another deep worry for Paul VI was the position of Paul VI was the position of priests who had grown old, who could not face the changes, and for whom the Mass each day meant everything.

So, the problems were clear- what was the solution to be?

First of all, clear re-statement of the facts, “When … Pius V published the first edition of the Roman Missal he presented it to the people as an instrument of liturgical unity and as a witness to the truth and devotion of the new Church’s worship … we now express a similar hope that this book  (the new rite of the Mass) will be received by the faithful as an act whereby all can witness to each other and strengthen the faith common to all, since it enables one and the same prayer, expressed in so many languages, to ascend to the heavenly Father.” (Paul VI, Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum, April 3, 1969).  [How has that worked out?]

Then, provision for good and loyal priests, who had served the Church faithfully all their lives, and needed the Tridentine-rite for the rest of their lives – on September 18, 1974, with a single “P”, Paul VI approved the suggestion that individual bishops should be allowed to authorise such priests to celebrate Mass privately in the Tridentine-rite. For the rest, a firm line – bishops could not authorise the public celebration of the Tridentine-rite Mass. But of course, the Holy See could, and did, provided there was no danger of such public celebrations being seen as an admission that the new liturgy was in any way defective.

The extent and the depth of Paul VI’s determination to meet genuine pastoral needs is seen at its best in his reaction to the petition from Cardinal Heenan, the Archbishop of Westminister, for a concession to be made for groups of converts and elderly people – not privately, but publicly. Fr Bugnini (pp297-298) prints out the handwritten note he received from the Pope, who forwarded the cardinal’s request to him: “The Congregation must have already drawn up instructions for such cases … In any event, I think … that a favourable answer … (s)hould be given to the first request, and to the second as well … my thanks, prayers and blessings, October 30 1971.”

As the more extreme and vitriolic outbursts of the Lefebvrist-inspired traditionalist movement began to run out of steam, and in a certain sense cocooned in an eccentric cultural attachment to birettas and exaggerated clerical dress which isolated it from everyday, common-sense Catholics, [How pastorally sensitive.] it became possible for the Holy See to enlarge its concessions for the public celebration of Tridentine-rite Masses for groups of people who accepted the legitimacy of the new rite.  [I see… so the new concessions came because they started to behave better.  They didn’t have anything to do with the illicit consecrations of 1988?  Once those people were no longer a danger, once they were cocooned, there could be more concessions?]

The latest pronouncement Summorum Pontificum – by the present Pope, also has a restriction. The concession is for already (continentur) [?!?] existing groups of Tridentine-rite Mass devotees. It is not an invitation to seek converts to the cause. The clear obligation on all bishops and priests to work tirelessly for the acceptance of the new rite, laid down by Vatican II remains.

[There are so many problems with this it is hard to know where to begin.  First, he quotes "continentur", a word which doesn’t appear in Summorum Pontificum.  He probably meant "continenter", a controversial adverb in the originally released text now corrected to "stabiliter".  He bases his line of thought on "continentur" but so misapplies the word in that sentence that I am forced to conclude that he hasn’t the slightest idea of what it means. Not even the slightest idea, which is embarrassing.  Next, in the midst of his hand-wringing he inserts a sneering "devotees", as if this is a slightly kooky thing, like a meeting of people who collect spoons.  Then, he asserts something that seems to run contrary to the desire of the Holy Father.  The Pope wants the two Uses to enrich each other.  He wants people to know and have access to the older form.  Card. Castrillon spoke of the Pope’s wish that the older use be widespread.  So, Summorum Pontificum in fact does seem to be an invitation for people to get interested in the older form of Mass.  Also, I cannot see how it is an obligation of bishops to make one side of the Roman Rite known and accepted without they also have the obligation to make the both sides of the Roman Rite known and accepted.  The Roman Rite has two Uses, juridically.  If you are going to talk about obligations, you ought to be fair and see the larger picture, not just the part of it you happen to prefer. And let us not forget that Vatican required a lot of things that aren’t being pushed: Latin, Gregorian Chant, pipe organ, polyphony.  Vatican II required that nothing be done to the liturgy unless it was for the good of the people.  Vatican II required that only a very few things be done in the reform of the liturgy.  But… I digress.]

“England”, as the Vatican will always see us, has been exemplary in its interpretation of the Pope’s pastoral concern for those who need the Tridentine-rite Mass for their spiritual health, [I wonder if anyone in England would have a different view of the matter?]  rather than for those who want it in order to bolster their campaign of opposition to Vatican II in general , and its liturgical reforms in particular. This proud legacy must not be squandered.

 

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA. Bookmark the permalink.

57 Responses to Catholic Times (UK): Paul VI & Bugnini: no one more “pastorally sensitive” about TLM

  1. Basil Roberson says:

    “As the more extreme and vitriolic outbursts of the Lefebvrist-inspired traditionalist movement began to run out of steam, and in a certain sense cocooned in an eccentric cultural attachment to birettas and exaggerated clerical dress which isolated it from everyday, common-sense Catholics, [How pastorally sensitive.] it became possible for the Holy See to enlarge its concessions for the public celebration of Tridentine-rite Masses for groups of people who accepted the legitimacy of the new rite. [I see… so the new concessions came because they started to behave better. They didn’t have anything to do with the illicit consecrations of 1988? Once those people were no longer a danger, once they were cocooned, the could be more concessions?]

    The concessions, in the form of the indult Quattuor abhinc annos, came out four years earlier than the consecrations in 1984 so the writer has a valid point.

  2. pelerin says:

    Mgr Loftus is occasionally quoted on the blog of ‘Fr Mildew’ a Priest in southern England though not usually in glowing terms. Apparently Mgr Loftus once finished celebrating Mass in Laos on top of an elephant and ‘Fr Mildew’ described his explanation as ‘utter rubbish.’

  3. Parishioner of St. Boniface says:

    Monsignor Loftus’ articles in the weekly Catholic Times have long exasperated me, but this latest article has made me decide to stop purchasing that newspaper, and I shall be informing the Editor of my reason for this. The Catholic Herald is, in my view, a much more suitable weekly publication – one that can be relied on to support Pope Benedict’s vision.

    Monsignor Loftus was, for a few years before he retired, the Parish Priest of St. Boniface’s Church in Bentham, a small town on the edge of the beautiful Yorkshire Dales. Shortly after his arrival, and over a period of many months, the parishioners were educated, by lengthy articles in the parish newsletter, about the need to re-order the church. There was some significant opposition to such a move, and a number of parishioners were unhappy with the sanctuary’s eventual re-ordering. Under a subsequent parish priest, by popular request and in light of the impracticalities of having the altar in the nave, the altar was moved backwards a few feet and raised to a higher level. During the Monsignor’s tenure, I realised that I would be far more ‘at home’ in other parishes, and consequently did not resume attendance at St. Boniface until after his retirement.

  4. Calleva says:

    Have been enjoying Fr Mildew’s parsing of Msgr Loftus’ articles for some time now. I have not read the originals myself, as I do wish to preserve a modicum of interior peace.

    Joy – having met Fr Gunter, the last name on the list of appointees, I can vouch that he is orthodox and extremely knowledgeable about plainchant. He’s on the editorial board of the new magazine to promote the TLM ‘Usus Antiquior’. I imagine the others are similarly experts in their field. You don’t quote the final lines of the announcement which states that the existing members of the consultation body, all appointed by Piero Marini, have been sacked by virtue of not having their tenure extended. Surely this answers your question. Brick by brick.

  5. Old Catholic says:

    Ad hominem attacks aside, this column deserves a more careful reading than people are giving it. First, there is no question that among those attached to the older forms there are some, perhaps a substantial number, who denigrate and condemn the Novus Ordo Mass. Just read some of the comments that have been posted even on this blog. Some even add comments condemning not merely the “spirit” of Vatican II but the actual council. If you think that letters to the Holy See asking for the old rite while bad-mouthing the new and the Council don’t get a negative reaction, you have not been paying attention: go back and read the comments of Darío Castrillón Hoyos.

    As to whether the rhetoric and attitudes of such people–and an honesty requires that we admit that Archbishop Lefevre himself indulged in such, esp. in his later years–actually discouraged the Vatican from accomodating those who wanted the old rite is debatable. Nevertheless, the view that such attitudes and defiance is responsible for SP is equally debatable and probably even more implausible.

    We need to listen very carefully to criticism of traditionalist attitudes when it comes from a cardinal. This source is more suspect, but he confirms the cardinal’s concerns.

    On the other hand the last paragraphs of the essay, pretending that what very likely was the attitude of Rome about permissions for priests to say the old rite up to 1983 and indult permissions (i.e. that they are mean for a handful of priests and small groups unable to adjust to the new rite) has not changed after SP is a fantasy. Msgr. Loftus is deluding himself on this. We should not delude ourselves either, when he happens to get things right.

    By the way, I am at old rite Masses myself virtually every Sunday. My concern is that in 2 years or so the derisive attitude of fellow traditionalists toward the Novus Ordo and the Council will help people like this man to convince the Vatican that SP was a mistake and just feeds the “schismatic and heretical tendencies of traditionalists.”

  6. TJM says:

    Excellent left-wing analysis, if you’re a lefty. I was part of a group that petitioned for the TLM at the time of this alleged “beneficence.” 300 of us (all in the same parish) asked for it and we were turned down flat because the pastor and bishop deemed it “foreign.” Keep in mind this was 1969, a couple of years after the Canon went from being in Latin into English and the bindings on our Latin missals were still virtually fresh. This hostile attitude came from the top echelons, the Vatican. By the way, our petition was respectful, took no shots at the new innovations, and simply reflected our desire to continue to worship in the manner we had. So I’m not buying this pastoral nonsense at all. It is a lie and revisionist history at its worst. A priest should be ashamed for such a shocking disregard for the truth. Tom

  7. Bill J. says:

    How to get a great reception at the Vatican! just adopt the attitude of people who say things like:

    “I was part of a group that petitioned for the TLM at the time of this alleged “beneficence.” 300 of us (all in the same parish) asked for it and we were turned down flat because the pastor and bishop deemed it “foreign.” . . . This hostile attitude came from the top echelons, the Vatican.”

    And such people wonder why no one listens to them.

  8. Maureen says:

    “The clear obligation on all bishops and priests to work tirelessly for the acceptance of the new rite….”

    ‘Hey, Maronites! You’re not working hard enough!

    ‘You! Over in the corner! Yes, you, the purple guy! I saw you take a break! Stop footdragging and get back here!’

  9. Torquemada says:

    “’England’, as the Vatican will always see us, has been exemplary in its interpretation of the Pope’s pastoral concern for those who need the Tridentine-rite Mass for their spiritual health, [I wonder if anyone in England would have a different view of the matter?”

    For a slightly different view of how England has responded to SP, Fr Z’s readers should consult the Catholic Truth Scotland blog, particularly the thread entitled “Open Letter to Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos.”

    This article, Fr. Z, is nothing but a more subtle and sophisticated hit piece on the SPPX than the usual fare. More subtle and sophisticated, that is, than the work of Ronnie Convery in the Catholic Herald, who recently compared the SPPX to the fascists of WWII (“Parishioner of St. Boniface,” take note: The Catholic Herald is more supportive of Pope Benedict’s vision??)

    In response to “Old Catholic,” I’d also like to add that the use of such words as “denigrate,” “condemn,” “derisive,” and “bad-mouthing” is not exactly pastoral either. Traditionalists refuse to countenance the Novus Ordo because it was cobbled together by a Freemason to please Protestants, and represents a “grave departure” from Catholic theology, as pointed out by Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci. Why is it that traditionalists are painted as the bad guys when they are the ones who have refused to abandon tradition in order to obey the delusions of a liberal Pope?

  10. dcs says:

    We should not be surprised if people react violently when their most priceless possession is taken from them.

    It is true that there are cranks and conspiracy theorists among those who assist at the traditional Mass. But identifying the traditional Mass with cranks and conspiracy theorists is a bit like identifying the Novus Ordo with pro-abortion Catholics. If anti-Vatican II attitudes are reason enough to restrict the traditional Mass, then what has to happen for the Novus Ordo to be restricted?

  11. JPG says:

    Being a youngster at the time, I recall the changes being instituted with the attitude of fiat. The general impression I had as a child was of get with the program meaning if you did not accept the newer Liturgy or more appropriately the baggage attached to the new Mass there was something wrong with you. As to the sensitive nature of Pope Paul or Bugnini I cannot comment. I do remember a general hostility to the traditional rite on the part of the local hierarchy and of the order clergy in particular.
    JPG

  12. Baron Korf says:

    Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

  13. Torquemada says:

    DCS – I love it. To answer your question, the Third Secret has to happen.

  14. RichR says:

    Sad that this type of spin is taken hook, line, and sinker.

    This is the number one reason I come to this blog: to get the truth from a loyal son of the Church. Fr.Z., may God bless you in your struggles to keep us informed. I hope you don’t get too much flak for your work here.

  15. Mitch says:

    I saw this article a few days ago and was wondering if it would come up here. There are so many misleading and misrepresentations, that Father Z points out in his comments. Anyone that lived through that period knows better and what about us here in the US who all watched the Mass disappear overnight. England is not the only country whose people had a love of the Latin Mass. Even with so much moving forward now it is sad to read a letter like this from someone who has much scorn for the TLM. Millions did NOT benefit from Pope Paul’s pastoral concerns for us. Perhaps there was simply not enough time to reach us all. Sad indeed.

  16. Johnny Domer says:

    When we were under Ecclesia Dei, many bishops and priests pretended like it had never been written. Apparently now after Summorum Pontificum, the Vatican has moved some of these priests and bishops to barely accepting Quattuor Adhinc Annos.

  17. TJM says:

    Bill J, I stand by my statement and I see nothing wrong with it because I was reciting historic fact in contrast to the Monsignor who
    is remembering history as he wishes it were. I think the Vatican today would have GREAT sympathy for what I said. I think one of the underpinnings
    of Summorum Pontificum was to right an historic wrong and to vest people and clergy with rights to the TLM when bishops and bureaucrats
    stand in opposition to their rightful aspirations. Tom

  18. I ask you people to prove that transubstantiation takes place during your new mass and when exactly.

    We people of the Roman Catholic Church can.

    It is only right that people of the Second Catholic Church should be able to do likewise

  19. Robert A. Harder says:

    How is the cause for the beatification of Pope Paul VI proceeding? How is the cause for the beatification of Fr. Bugnini proceeding? Is not the cause for the Canonization of Pope St. Pius V complete? What is the reason that the Tridentine Rite of the Mass, which Rome has officially declared has never been abrogated, can be prohibited for “pastoral” reasons? Is the authority of Pope Benedict XVI, who has spoken “on his own initiative” with respect to Liturgical discipline, subject to doubt?

    When we see what has happened to Catholic Identity since the prohibition of the “old” Mass, our attention should immediately focus on the words of our Lord, … by their fruits you shall know them.”

  20. Daniel Latinus says:

    If the Vatican had made the TLM available in the 1970s, many people who eventually became involved with the dissident traditionalist groups would have gone to the official established TLMS, and remained in [full] communion with the Church, and not become an audience for the firebrands.

    (And keep in mind the traditionalist movement, from Fr. DePauw in 1964 through the independent chapels that cropped up in the 1970s, to the SSPX, and even to the sedevacantists, was never a monolith, and had no central organization or direction. Even Abp. Lefebvre was more of a banner than a leader. Even the undelying ideology could vary greatly from group to group.)

    My experience of traditionalist chapels (which I attended through the 1980s) is that often the leadership takes some questionable stands, and yes, there are also plenty of hotheads and conspiracy theorists, but the vast majority only wanted to worship God and catechize their children in the traditonal manner. (The truth be told, there was probably more openness to the Novus Ordo among ran-and-file traditionalists than the traditionalist press would have one believe.)

    And the religious history of the English-speaking Protestant world rather argued for a wide availability of the TLM rather than its suppression.

  21. Volpius says:

    You are lucky never to have heard of Msgr. Basil Loftus before Father, everyone of his articles s is in a similar vein to this no matter what the subject.

  22. Tom says:

    There is a letter in this week’s edition from the ubiquitous Bishop Lindsay in support of Mgr Loftus and his distorted liturgical opinions, and mentioning the concerns Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos has had over some people making ‘insatiable’ demands for the Old Mass.

    Typical of Bishop L, who only ever seems to have a selective memory of liturgical issues when they’re in accord with the warped thinking of the E and W bishops’ conference minions. He never commented on what the good Cardinal had to say on his June visit to London – but then he wouldn’t, because they didn’t accord with the negative views of Bishop L and his confreres in relation to the Usus Antiquior.

  23. mpm says:

    I ask you people to prove that transubstantiation takes place during your new mass and when exactly.
    We people of the Roman Catholic Church can.

    This is a strange statement. Nobody can “prove” that transsubstantiation has taken place since the dogma of the Real Presence is a truth of our Faith. When the conditions set down by the Church are met, we know by faith that our Lord is present, since we believe that His is faithful to His promises.

    St. Augustine, in the de Trinitate (5,9.10), remarking on the concept of “person” as used of the three Divine Persons, said “we use ‘person’ within the Trinity not that it posits anything predicatively, but simply so as not to say nothing.” Latin: “Dictum est tamen ‘tres personae’, non ut illud diceretur, sed ne taceretur.”

    The Church uses the word “transsubstantiation” not because it it is any kind of change that can be understood naturally, but simply to not say nothing about this singlular and real but mysterious and supernatural change.

  24. Volpius says:

    ““England”, as the Vatican will always see us, has been exemplary in its interpretation of the Pope’s pastoral concern for those who need the Tridentine-rite Mass for their spiritual health”

    I live in the diocese of Hexham and Newcastle in England and completely disagree with this. Since the motu Propiro there has been very little change, the extraordinary form is still only available in a few churches thanks to the individual efforts of priests and the majority of the laity remain completely ignorant about its existence.

    Deaneries of the Diocese of Hexham and Newcastle Sunday Latin Mass Provision

    * 1. St Mary and St Margaret Clitherow (Newcastle and North Tyneside)= 0
    * 2. St Andrew and St Anthony (Newcastle and North Tyneside) = 2 (1 by the Dominicans)
    * 3. St Paulinus (Northumberland) = 0
    * 4. St Wilfrid (Northumberland) = 0
    * 5. St John of Beverley (Northumberland) = 0
    * 6. St Oswin (Newcastle and North Tyneside) = 0
    * 7. St Thomas Aquinas (South Tyneside and Gateshead) = 0
    * 8. St Joseph and St Robert of Newminster = 1
    * 9. St Aidan and St Gregory (South Tyneside and Gateshead) = 0
    * 10. St Bede (Sunderland and East Durham) = 0
    * 11. St Chad (South Tyneside and Gateshead) = 0
    * 12. St Cuthbert (Sunderland and East Durham) = 0
    * 13. St Michael (Sunderland and East Durham) = 0
    * 14. St Patrick (Sunderland and East Durham) = 1 (despite some opposition)
    * 15. St William (Cleveland and South Durham) = 0
    * 16. St Augustine (Cleveland and South Durham) = 1
    * 17. St Hilda (Cleveland and South Durham) = 0
    * 18. St Peter (Cleveland and South Durham) = 0

  25. Ohio Annie says:

    mpm, if you check out paddy the papist’s blog your confusion will be solved as to what he means.

  26. TJM says:

    When you think about it, it took extraordinary hubris to overturn the Mass which had been celebrated for centuries in a time frame much
    more rapidly than we are now experiencing with the snails pace re-translation project, and then expect faithful Catholics to just roll over.
    I was part of the liturgical movement in the early 1960s and was VERY happy with the Missa Dialoga and the Missa Cantata form of the Mass
    in my parish (though I have to admit, I secretly like the dropping of the Last Gospel.) The Council Fathers were not in favor of a radical revision of the Roman Mass which is what we got compliments of Archbishop Bugnini and his Committee. What is stunning is that there was little hue and cry over what Bugnini was doing in light of a Council which had only adjourned a few years before. Bishops were probably too distracted to deal with the Liturgy when they were losing priests and nuns by the thousands, another “fruit” of Council implementation on updating religious life gone wrong. Tom

  27. mpm says:

    Ohio Annie,

    I took a look. Unfortunately, it appears that my confusion has only begun! ;>

    mpm

  28. Transubstantiation

    Thank you for the response.

    Check out the “Miracle of Lanciano”

    This is the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist for Catholics (and indeed others) of little faith.

    What mass produced this extraordinary miracle?

    The Eucharist the living bread from heaven is the food that produced the saints.

    Now please tell me what kind of “mass” we could expect from six Protestant ministers and Freemason Bugnini.

    We Catholics if we can, attend the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. We would no more attend a “mass” instituted by Luciferians than attend a black mass.

    By their fruits we know the Second Catholic Church.

  29. James says:

    Unfortunately The Catholic Times has a much larger readership than The Catholic Herald and Msgr. Basil Loftus appears to have been given an unchallenged free reign to promote his singularly blinkered views week after week – it has become the most depressing Catholic paper to read as a consequence

  30. Michael J says:

    TJM,
    I am not singling you out, but I’ve heard many statements similar to yours that “The Council Fathers were not in favor of a radical revision of the Roman Mass which is what we got compliments of Archbishop Bugnini and his Committee.”

  31. paddy: Dial back that attitude or I will block you from reading this blog.

    Around these parts we do not question the validity of the Novus Ordo.

  32. Michael J says:

    TJM,
    I am not singling you out, but I\’ve heard many statements similar to yours that \\\”The Council Fathers were not in favor of a radical revision of the Roman Mass which is what we got compliments of Archbishop Bugnini and his Committee.\”

    It is difficult for me to reconcile this with what actually happened with the seeming blessing and encouragement of those same Council Fathers, but that is beside the point.

    What has not yet ben adequately explained is why the Council Fathers thought that a revision of the Roman Rite was necessary *at all*, much less a radical revision.

  33. Theodorus says:

    “There is a letter in this week’s edition from the ubiquitous Bishop Lindsay in support of Mgr Loftus and his distorted liturgical opinions, and mentioning the concerns Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos has had over some people making ‘insatiable’ demands for the Old Mass.” –Tom

    As expected, some people are already using Cardinal’s words as weapons against the faithful who are attached to the Extraordinary Form in order to legitimize their own opposition and resistance to the implementation of Summorum Pontificum. A handful of over-zealous Traditionalist Catholics certainly cannot represent all the faithful who love the traditional way of worship, just like those clergymen who committed the heinous sins and crimes against those innocent children cannot represent all the servants of God. It is regrettable that the good cardinal chose to spend time and energy commenting on a handful of people’s problems at an important conference marking the first anniversary of “Summorum Pontificum;” it is even more regrettable that the cardinal’s comments have become some people’s new found weapon to support their anti-tradition agenda.

  34. Ohio Annie says:

    I am just a nobody in the Church but I read a lot and I have read in several places that the Holy Spirit caused the Church to sort of shelve the Extraordinary Form during the coming cultural storm lest it be damaged. Now it can be brought out more or less intact (there were mothballs in the closet to protect it too 8-) ). It is easy to surmise what might have happened to the traditional Mass if it had been kept up during all the problems of the 60’s through now. It might not have weathered the storm. The Ordinary Form is the one torn to rags by the winds of change.

  35. Jordanes says:

    Looking at Paddy the alleged Papist’s weblog, I’d say it’s not just an attitude problem. He’s a member of the tinfoil hat branch of “traditionalist” Catholicism. Just pray for the healing of his mind.

  36. Torquemada says:

    Michael J,

    To respond to your question to TJM about what the Council Fathers really wanted, I offer the following:

    1. Most of the bishops at the Council had no clue as to what was transpiring around them, i.e. through the liberal alliance that hijacked the Council. They just wanted to vote and go home.
    2. When the new (Bugnini) mass was presented to them for a vote, they actually voted it down! It was promulgated anyway by, as I said earlier in this thread, a deluded Paul VI.
    3. What the bishops THOUGHT they were consenting to at the Council was a liturgical reform based on the phrase “active participation,” which to them meant a sharpening of one’s contemplative focus on the liturgy. Little did they suspect that in the liberal camp, later implemented by Bugnini, it meant stripping the Mass of everything Catholic so as not to offend Protestants, and making it more “horizontal” – i.e. with the PHYSICAL ACTIVITY (“participation”) OF THE COMMUNITY, not with contemplation.

  37. Torquemada says:

    Father Z,

    I couldn’t tell if you were joking or not with Paddy the Papist, so I’ll ask the dreaded question about Novus Ordo validity. First, we know that in order to be valid, the Novus Ordo watered down consecration has to have four conditions, one of which is the intention of the priest to consecrate.

    So actually I have 2 dreaded questions: one, what if the priest has been trained in seminary that this is just a “memorial meal,” not transubstantiation?

    And two, even if the Novus Ordo is valid, what does that have to do with anything? I ask that because during the past 40 years, this “valid” Novus Ordo has in fact been the centerpiece of the decline, decay and dissipation of the Catholic faith (hmmm…just as Lefebvre said it would).

    In my opinion, therefore, validity is utterly irrelevant and cannot possibly be used to defend the Novus Ordo. What is relevant is the disastrous outcome of worship using the Novus Ordo – which, to me, makes it indefensible.

  38. dcs says:

    So actually I have 2 dreaded questions: one, what if the priest has been trained in seminary that this is just a “memorial meal,” not transubstantiation?

    A priest needs only the intention of doing what the Church does; he can be mistaken about what the Church does. He does not need to believe in transubstantiation. You can read Card. Billot (one of the authors of Pascendi, certainly no Modernist) on the topic here:

    http://www.ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/INTENTIO.TXT (scroll down)

    But it is not necessary that the minister think as the Church does, or that he not err concerning her teaching; for it is enough if his intention is towards something which is identically that which the Church intends, or, something which amounts to the same thing, for example, if he intends to do that which Christ instituted, or which is commanded in the Gospel, or which Christians are accustomed to do according to the prescription of their religion.

    Hope this helps.

  39. dcs says:

    What mass produced this extraordinary miracle?

    John 20:29

  40. Bar me if you like reverend

    Good to see that your people seem to be slightly more interested in the content of their happy meal next Sunday than what your having for your dinner.

    You second Catholic Church presbyters are such wimps. A little bit of physical contact and you threaten to walk off with the ball. [And you are simply a jerk embarrassing yourself in my living room. So long!]

    If the N.O. presbyters were car mechanics I would not trust them to open the bonnet.

    A great Englishman named John Fisher became a Saint by not celebrating your “mass”

    I feel another post coming on back at (mad) paddy the papist. I intend to title it “why did they stop killing us” check it out if you have the nerve (faith) Unfortunately, second Church Catholics in general do not have the Catholic gene.

    By the way being a papist is the way to go.

    After all I believe the words of people who lived hundreds of years ago – Unam Sanctam, for example. Its a bit mad now Ted isn’t it. Anyway I am back off to Craggy Island before you get back from Rrrome
    Don’t want to give you the satisfaction of giving me a kick up the arse. I like listening to Father Jack teaching on hell, in his more lucid moments. Pity John Paul never met him.

  41. Kradcliffe says:

    Paddy is probably the reason Sister Mary Martha now moderates her comment box. I don’t think Fr. Z. will have much more patience with him than she did.

  42. Paddy won’t be joining us for a while.

  43. Tom says:

    “As expected, some people are already using Cardinal’s words as weapons against the faithful who are attached to the Extraordinary Form in order to legitimize their own opposition and resistance to the implementation of Summorum Pontificum.” Comment by Theodorus.

    I’m afraid this is the modus operandi of bishop Lindsay and his cronies. And it represents a sad reflection of the appalling state of the Chruch in England and Wales – at least as portrayed by many (not all) of our episcopal leaders.

    See Damian Thompson’s ‘Holy Smoke’ blog for the latest (pretty accurate) state of things over here.

  44. Torq: I couldn’t tell if you were joking or not with Paddy the Papist,

    I wasn’t.

    If people are jerks, I throw them out.

    so I’ll ask the dreaded question about Novus Ordo validity. First, we know that in order to be valid, the Novus Ordo watered down consecration has to have four conditions, one of which is the intention of the priest to consecrate.

    I don’t accept your premise. The consecration is valid. Thus it is not watered down. It is either valid or not: not “watery valid”.

    So actually I have 2 dreaded questions: one, what if the priest has been trained in seminary that this is just a “memorial meal,” not transubstantiation?

    As bad as the seminaries were… and I was in one of the very worst in the USA… I don’t think any of the men got out of the seminary thinking that Mass was only a memorial meal.

    And two, even if the Novus Ordo is valid, what does that have to do with anything? I ask that because during the past 40 years, this “valid” Novus Ordo has in fact been the centerpiece of the decline, decay and dissipation of the Catholic faith (hmmm…just as Lefebvre said it would). In my opinion, therefore, validity is utterly irrelevant and cannot possibly be used to defend the Novus Ordo. What is relevant is the disastrous outcome of worship using the Novus Ordo – which, to me, makes it indefensible.

    Well… what you are fastening on, I think, is the way that the Novus Ordo has been celebrated, rather than the way it ought to have been celebrated. Those are very different.

    This is another reason why we need celebrations of the older Mass!

    However… I will cede something in this. Often we hear people say things like, when the Novus Ordo is celebrated like the older Mass, it is a) far better, b) just fine, c) no problem, etc. In fact, I often hear that the more the Novus Ordo is celebrated like the older form, the better it is.

    I think that pushes the conclusion to the fore: why not just use the older Mass?

    Practically, that is not going to happen. So we have to deal with what there is realistically.

    Brick by brick, people!

  45. Josiah Ross says:

    “A great Englishman named John Fisher became a Saint by not celebrating your “mass”.”
    Considering that he most likely used the Sarum Rite, he did not use the Roman Rite as you know it. (Which itself went through revision at Trent). Neither did various groups of European Catholics before Trent. We don’t remember local rites?

  46. Jordanes says:

    Josiah said: “A great Englishman named John Fisher became a Saint by not celebrating your “mass”.”

    Considering that he most likely used the Sarum Rite, he did not use the Roman Rite as you know it.

    Yes, that’s a good point, and here’s two other facts that poor Paddy is ignorant of: Not only is Cranmer’s deformed missal not “our Mass,” but there’s the little problem that St. John Fisher was martyred before Cranmer revised the Anglican prayer book. Martyrdom 1535, prayer book 1548-1552. Like St. Thomas More, St. John was martyred for refusing to swear that Henry Tudor was the head of the Catholic Church in England, not for refusing to accept Cranmer’s heretical rewrite of the liturgy which did not exist in the 1530s.

    Not that someone like Paddy is apt to let reality get in the way of ardently held opinion.

  47. It seems to me that the requirements for the validity of any sacrament are rather basic.

    In the case of the Eucharist, the words of the consecration properly spoken, the proper form of bread made from wheat and water, the chalice containing the pure fruit of the vine, and the intention on the part of a validly ordained priest to do what the Church does when she does it — these alone would appear to be sufficient. Having said that, it obviously isn’t enough to merely be valid. Our sacrifice must also be licit, that is, according to the law. That law prescribes the complete manner in which the Mass is celebrated. However much one may depart from the law, I would understand that the matter of validity is another issue altogether.

    You wouldn’t know that to listen to some comments. We are like the Israelites in the desert, complaining to Moses even as he was the agent of the Lord who freed us from bondage. Shall we be delayed another forty years for our punishment, being the stiff-necked people we are?

    Brick by brick…

  48. Aine says:

    “There was special concern about a number of countries, especially Britain – invariably referred to in Vatican documents as “England”. Even when trying to understand the difference between England”, “Britain” and “The United Kingdom”, the highest officials in Vatican could run into difficulty. A then British Minister to the Holy See once asked me what briefing had been given to the Pope which caused him to greet the diplomat with the words: ”Ah, I know you have not come England”. Confusion reigned, as the Minister rather thought he had! But it was “England” and other countries with a Protestant tradition which elicited special understanding.[But he digresses…]”

    Msgr. Basil Loftus spends a whole paragraph trying not to write N. Ireland. As an oppressed minority, the Catholic Church had been our anchor and support for centuries, then came Vatican II and under the bus we went. The Burgini’s appeased the protestants – no more Latin Mass, protestant hymns were in along with the protestant Pater Noster, it was a huge shock and a total betrayal, particularly in NI. We didn’t even have voting rights and there they were playing footsie with the ‘enemy’. It hurt a lot – some of our priests remained loyal to us – I’ll never forget them. RIP Many of us left the Church, formed the Civil Rights Movement and after we got bloodied on our peaceful protests while the RUC watched, we joined the IRA and became Marxists, while others, like perhaps “paddy the papist”, found their identify in being an ultra-trad. I picked up on Malachi Martin on some of what paddy wrote but most of it was kinda kookie especially on his website. “papist” was used as a derogatory term by the Ian Paisley thugs as was “whores of Babylon” etc. I used to wear the name-calling as a badge of honor – until Vatican II.

    “Bugnini (p280) is quite clear: “The point needs to be made that in the United States and especially in England, and more generally in countries with a strong Protestant majority, the introduction of the vernacular into the liturgy meant to many the loss of one distinction between Catholics and Protestants and of a sign of their attachment to Rome in the face of Protestantism. For these people, the psychological effects of the reform were quite serious. For some, the reform meant the collapse of a world and the practical acceptance of views until then regarded as heretical””

    It was a lot more than an “attachment”. What did the protestants give up in the name of this Ecumenical reform?

  49. Michael UK says:

    A somewhat charismatic non-conformist aqaintence of mine [an alumnus of Bob Jones University, minister in the North Cumberland Mission (UK) sometime missionary in the Far East] opined back in the 1970s that banning the TLM was a travesty for the Church to deny its heritage and was concewrned as to the disorientation it had sown an d great distress amongst the old people.

    Two friends of mine, sisters, en passant, told me that their father attended the N.O. once, decided it was not Catholic and ceased his Mass attendance. Yet to the day he died everyevening he got down on his knees to say his prayers. He was just an ordinary, not very prosperous farmer The only external evidence of his devout Catholicism was the charity he extended to all and sundry inlcuding tramps and repropbates..

  50. Mark says:

    An interesting article, well sliced and diced by Father Z. What caught my eye was this line:

    “The clear obligation on all bishops and priests to work tirelessly for the acceptance of the new rite, laid down by Vatican II, remains”

    This is an almost verbatim quote from the exhortations the communists used to issue:

    “Our duty and obligation is to work tirelessly for the success of the new five year plan!”

    Experience shows that whenever such lines are issued, they are a sign of weakness and fear that the masses and some party members are not in agreement with the ruling elite.

  51. toomey says:

    Can you say “Liberation Novusology”?

  52. Well, I mean, obviously Paul VI was sensitive to the good folk attached to the TLM. In fact, so overflowing with sensitivity was he that a Freemasonic plot was hatched to kidnap him and keep him prisoner in some Vatican dungeon while he was replaced with a clone, possibly an alien, with a predilection for polyesther vestments, who promulgated the new order of Mass and encouraged the publication of the Glory and Praise Hymnal.

  53. Jordanes says:

    Your little riff sounds like the Baysiders, J.D. The only thing missing was obsessing on the shape of Paul VI’s nose.

  54. Matt Q says:

    Mark wrote:

    “An interesting article, well sliced and diced by Father Z. What caught my eye was this line:

    ‘The clear obligation on all bishops and priests to work tirelessly for the acceptance of the new rite, laid down by Vatican II, remains’

    This is an almost verbatim quote from the exhortations the communists used to issue:

    “Our duty and obligation is to work tirelessly for the success of the new five year plan!”

    Experience shows that whenever such lines are issued, they are a sign of weakness and fear that the masses and some party members are not in agreement with the ruling elite.”

    — Obviously it had the desired effect because that is what they are still sticking to today forty years later despite the fact we now have a Pope who is saying something quite the opposite and yet still they persist in their intransigent mentality and mindset, not to mention the Masonic Lodge arrangements of the worship space and church interiors continuing to this day.

    Should the “coming” Clarifications tell the bishops what their obligations are concerning Summorum Pontificum, I believe we will still have the present stalemate. With Summorum Pontificum in effect ( although lacking any teeth ) a year later, there doesn’t seem to be any outward sign of charity on many a bishop’s part, as though there was an agendized manifesto on their account to ensure Sacred Tradition is snuffed out entirely.

    It’s a curious comparison that it took forty years of consistent horror, destruction and oppression for the Reformation to virtually eradicate the Faith from all of England. Oddly, it’s taken forty years of folly and erroneous understanding since the Council to do practically the same thing to the entire Church. It’s worse though in a way. The Reformation came from without. What we have now comes from within. Sad.

  55. Mark says:

    Matt Q:

    Interesting observations. I would say that while “stalemate” describes the present state of Summorum Pontificum pretty well, there are many hopeful signs that it will not continue indefinitely. One thing is the demographics – many younger priests are open to Tradition and the TLM. In my neck of the woods (east coast USA), the Bishops in the neighboring dioceses to the north and south have allowed the TLM to coexist with the NO in many parishes. They are also open to all of their priests learning the TLM. On the other hand, my diocese has successfully contained the TLM to two locations – for the time being.

    Also, the nature of the opposition to the TLM may not be uniform. In my view, in those countries in Europe where the Church and its culture are healthy and robust, the hierarchy’s opposition seems to be concerned more with maintaining liturgical solidarity among the faithful than with any post Vatican Two ideology. I think their concerns are misplaced, but (excessive?) caution seems to be ingrained in their minds.

  56. Torquemada says:

    DCS

    Thanks for the Pascendi quote, but I think we’re getting at different things. Card. Billot’s quote seems to be directed at priests who agree with the Church’s intention, but who misunderstand it. What I was getting at was, what about priests who don’t agree with the Church’s intention? However, Father Z has pointed out he doesn’t think there are any such priests, no matter how bad their training, so apparently “the point is moot.”

    Father Z

    I’m not clear on what you mean by a Novus Ordo celebrated the way it ought to be, or celebrated like the old Rite. I don’t think I’ve ever been blessed with such an experience – could you explain? Thanks.

  57. Sharon Stockard says:

    Will please, somone explain to me what then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger now, Pope Benedict XVI, meant when he said in the preface of Msgr Klaus’s ‘Reform of the Roman Liturgy”, that what we have in the N.O.is a fabricated liturgy? I am 72 ,learned my Catholic Faith with the Baltimore Catechism when young,then when older ( young adult) ‘My Catholic Faith” by Bishop Louis R Morrow. I Have never liked the community table N.O., but at last found the sacrifical alter ‘Gregorian Rite” there is that term again. I have been called ‘rigid. when all I ever wanted to do was be ‘faithful. So be it. Sincerely, ssoldie