I am in Rome to attend the conference on Summorum Pontificum under the aegis of the Pont. Comm. Ecclesia Dei and the group Giovani e Tradizione. The attendance is good and the talks, so far are good.
I am taking some photos and making some recordings, but I think our friend John Sonnen of Orbis Catholicus will have better photos than I.
We had a surprise visit from Card. Castrillon Hoyos, who spoke for a while. Frankly, he said a few rather controversial things, some of which I found unsettling, some of which I agreed with. He spoke to the problem of some traditionalists being impossible to satisfy.
Is that not the case? Honestly?
My old boss Msgr. Perl gave a very good talk this morning, and I will get to that later. This afternoon Roberto DeMattei was stupendous. A very smart talk.
I can share something about that last talk.
De Mattei said that newer Mass grew out of a ethos which culminated in the 60’s, with the baggage that you can guess at: secularism.
Next, an interpretive key of the Motu Proprio is that the older Mass was not abrogated and cannot be abrogated. (About that last point I am not so sure, and I would like to know more about that.)
He also added that the older Mass is not really subject to structural change. This does not mean that the older form of Mass cannot ever change, but that structurally it is consistent with the earliest centuries even though some modifications took place along the way.
So…
Because the older form of Mass is what it is and comes from when it comes, since it wasn’t abrogated and won’t be, it is a "barrier" to the encroaching secularism which is shoving God to the realm of the private. But I picked up that the TLM is not only a "barrier" but a "challenge". Note the distinction: "barrier" is one thing, but "challenge" is another. One is more reactive, the other proactive. One is passive, the other active.
I think this might have been the most important insight of the day.
However, we must also pay attention to the vey important point that we are only one year out, with this Motu Proprio. We need patience and prudence.
I will have other reports along the way.
In the mean time, I was out for lunch with a long-time friend and we had a very good lunch. Tonight I am out for a plenary session of the Society for the Promotion of Chinese Restaurants in Rome. We don’t, btw, always eat Chinese, because when we do we usually need to call a day or so in advance for the dishes we prefer. But I digress.
It was a good beginning for the conference.
I continue to be in internet hell and I will post when I can.
Loading ...
“Next, an interpretive key of the Motu Proprio is that the older Mass
was not abrogated and cannot be abrogated”
Amen, amen, amen!
“He also added that the older Mass is not really subject to structural change. This does not mean that the older form of Mass cannot ever change, but that structurally it is consistent with the earliest centuries even though some modifications took place along the way.”
Preach it brother! Amen!
“Because the older form of Mass is what it is and comes from when it comes, since it wasn’t abrogated and won’t be, it is a “barrier” to the encroaching secularism which is shoving God to the realm of the private.”
Hallelujah! Amen!
Sounds like my much maligned Trad position has much in common with
Roberto DeMattei’s thesis. I would love to meet this man.
Thank you Father Z for your observations. I couldn’t agree more with the comment that the Novus Ordo grew out of an ethos which
culminated in the 1960s. Although I may miss the mark on this, that ethos seemed to rejoice in rejecting what went before, whether the
subject matter was liturgy, music, architecture (music and architecture in both the religious and secular realms), and traditional values. I
often wonder what the reformed liturgy would have looked like, if the task had been entrusted to someone like a young Joseph Ratzinger. Tom
There is a very interesting (and in some ways troubling) story that appeared today at the website of Catholic News Service (agency of the USCCB): “Cardinal: Some not satisfied even after pope’s Tridentine Mass decree”
First, there is some good news, of sorts, about the long-awaited Clarifying Document:
But the article also asserts:
That contradicts previous reports and statements of Cardinal Castrillon.
Note what the writer emphasises, giving five of the first six paragraphs to the subject of how “some just aren’t satisfied” with SP. Not that those paragraphs are inaccurate (I have no reason to doubt their accuracy) or deal with something that is inappropriate—it’s just that the article’s slant on Cardinal Castrillon’s talk is decidedly negative.
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0804705.htm
Amen! and Hallelujah! I’m with you Matt
I’m gradually coming to be of the opinion that we don’t really know WHAT the Holy Father’s intention was with SP. When the “clarifications” are eventually released, we might have a better idea of how he wants Bishops and Priests to proceed with implementing SP, but as for what he wants to happen at the “end game”, it’s not really clear. Is Card. Hoyos saying that Traditionalists are not being grateful and are part of the problem with implementing, or is he just asking that they be patient and less demanding, as though more is yet to come in their direction? Do Benedict’s requests that the French Bishops be “tolerant” reflect on how he views the traditionalists, or does it say more about the Bishops and how they have been acting? Is the eventual offering of TLM’s in enough locations going to be the goal, or is it a way to allow Traditionalists to get their “foot in the door” and begin building a larger traditionalist presence in the Catholic Church? I understand why Benedict cannot entirely show his hand at this time, but it would be nice to have some type of plan iterated! Maybe the “clarifications” will be some insight when (if?) they come.
Fr. Z said, “Frankly, he said a few rather controversial things, some of which I found unsettling…” Much of what Castrillon says is unsettling, in my opinion, especially to Traditionalists. But, no one ever accused the Cardinal of being a Traditionalist. He is assigned certain duties by the Holy Father, and carries them out, but is hardly a Traditionalist. On the other hand, neither is the Holy Father.
The principal purpose of Summorum Pontificum, it seems to me, is to attempt to reunify with her, certain factions within (and without) the Church, and to right a wrong resulting from the implementation of Vatican II, being the effective abolition of the Traditional Latin Mass. It is not an attempt to restore Traditional Cathoicism as the benchmark of the Faith.
Remember, although Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos has celebrated a Traditional Latin Mass recently, the Holy Father has not. They are both strong defenders of the New Order, and Vatican II, and therefor, unsettling, in some respects, to Traditionalists (who should, nontheless, be thankful to Almighty God for favors granted).
Thank you, Father, for bringing us such insightful perspective on so many issues. Disband the blog? Dear Lord, what would we do?
Very respectfully,
Bill Hunter
Regina Caeli Latin Mass Community
Memphis, Tenn.
*Disband the blog? Dear Lord, what would we do?*
I can recommend normal human interaction as worthwhile and stimulating pursuit.
I am completely unsatisfied with this!! ;-)
LOL Of course we’re hard to please….we don’t have what we rightfully desire.
Dear old Cardinal Castrillon needs to come out and have a look at the state of things in rual Australia. :)
I might invite him out here.
Perhaps a letter writing campaign of “Thank-Yous” to Card. Hoyos and our Bishops and Priests would be a nice gesture to counteract some of the negative letter writing which has occurred.
Report from the adress of Card. Hoyos: http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0804705.htm
Father,
With all due respect, could you please enlighten us as to the particulars of what Cardinal Castrillón said.
I’m especially interested in hearing of – and worried about – the parts of the Cardinal’s talk that led you to make the following remark:
Frankly, he said a few rather controversial things, some of which I found unsettling.
Thank you in advance.
Abrogation is a juridical act. The chief liturgist of the Church could abrogate it if he wants. Thankfully, under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, it wasn’t abrogated.
He spoke to the problem of some traditionalists being impossible to satisfy.
This may be true in the sense that some people simply are never ‘happy’ unless they are complaining about something or other. I’ve seen this quite clearly in some people who are ardent in their dislike of the Novus Ordo and yet seem to find very little joy in their attendance of the traditional Latin Mass.
On the other hand, there cannot but be a sense of dissatisfaction with how the last year has panned out. In Scotland we have seen no improvement over the last year – just a shot fired over the heads of priests in the Archdiocese of Glasgow to warn them against celebrating the traditional Mass in their parishes. It’s natural to be dissapointed after the euphoria of a year ago. For most of us we have only been able to reap the fruits of Summorum Pontificum by proxy as it were. Yes, it is encouraging that the canonical status of the older form of Mass was clarified and declared never to have been abrogated; but there is still the same reluctance of the bishops here to accept the motu proprio in the spirit in which it was written.
Fr Z, I have at times been quite thrilled to read your commentary on what you describe as Pope Benedict’s “Marshall Plan” but as the years have gone we have seen very little evidence that there exists such a ‘plan’ in the mind of our Holy Father. A preference, yes, for a more traditional, sober celebration of Mass – but there doesn’t seem to be a concerted plan on the part of the Pope and Vatican to bring help and refreshment to ordinary Catholics in ordinary parishes who have been choking on the thin air of a bland, immanentist liturgy.
Finally, a recognition of the real heart of the problem: secularism. This is the second time in a week I’ve heard the word used to put a name to a near-heresy, which tells me that there’s something afoot. (Pope St. Pius X declared Modernism a heresy in 1907.)
I heard a priest talking about the how secularism has effected formation of conscience in political matters, but I see a connexion here as well. Essentially he said that secularism had three roots: the industrial revolution (which led to the notion that we should have what we want, whatever we want), the sexual revolution (which reduces pretty much everything to personal pleasure) and the technical revolution (getting what we want, whatever we want right now, instant gratification).
He described the solution: a return to the notion that life and what we receive in it are gifts from God, that we must seek out what is beautiful as opposed to what is pleasurable, and that we must restore the sense of contemplation (and I extend that to include mystery) to the experience of the Holy.
“The Eucharist should never become a point of contrast and a point of separation,” Cardinal Castrillon said at the Sept. 16 conference. “What is more important: the mystery of God who becomes bread or the language by which we celebrate the mystery?”
The cardinal said the Mass — in whatever language it is celebrated — must be a service motivated by love and “never a sword” used against other Christians.
Quote from Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos address. Unsettling, Fr Z, I am beginning to feel we have been duped. There is no chance of the Eucharist becoming a point of contrast or a point of separation in the Diocese of Lancaster, England. We have not had ONE single Mass within 100 miles of where I live, and by the looks of things we are not going to ever get even ONE at this rate.
This is the “Fit for Mission” Diocese. One of the Diocese that are falling apart due to lack of Vocations, brought on by collapse of confidence and morale. Aged priests who destroyed the Mass back in the 60’s, now unwilling to face the music. The church is in ruins. These guys are the cause.
If Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos is going to blame everything on the Traditionalists (and I admit that the Traditionalists seem to be an awkward squad to deal with) and let the Vingt Trois, the Murphy O’Connors and our Retiring Bishop O’Donoghue off scott free, then it really is time for us to rally more closely to the SSPX.
I spoke to Cardinal Murphy O’Connor and Bishop O’Donoghue at Lourdes last year they were both nearly apoplectic even at the mention of the Traditional Mass. And we still have not had ONE single Mass.
No anonymity for this post, I am Jim McPake of Carlisle, Cumbria CA1 2AT, England, which is in the ruined Diocese of Lancaster.
“He spoke to the problem of some traditionalists being impossible to satisfy.”
Gives new meaning to the phrase about being “more Catholic than the Pope”.
I am grateful I live in the Bridgeport Diocese and near New Haven. I am relatively new to the Traditionalist point of view. It came from ongoing dissatisfaction with how the OF is celebrated and was fed by the internet and the purchase three years ago of a Baronius Press 1962 Missal. It has been further solidified by Gamber and Fortescue as well as Mosebach and Alcuin Reid. I am 49. I was raised in the OF but have always sensed that something was amiss particularly in HOW it was celebrated. Thus I would say the authors gave voice and reason to my feelings. Living in this Diocese has allowed me to learn more. On my birthday(9/14) I went to St. Mary’s in Norwalk where the 9:30 am Mass was a now weekly Solemn Mass. Fr Cipolla gave an excellent sermon. The music and the Mass were transcendent. This in an old gothic Church partially wreckovated but the wonderful old high altar intact. 9/7 marked the first time in 40 years it had been used. My point is this, if you had suggested to me ten years ago that I would be an advocate for the wider use of the TLM I would have said you were crazy. SP has allowed those who may not be traditional enough for the more radical elements to be exposed to the EF and learn the EF. The Holy Father speaks of cross-pollination of the EF &OF . The EF will influence how the OF is celebrated. The EF may spur the elimination of some of its more jarring aspects of the OF, and I hope a reexamination of versus populorum. One must realize that 40 yrs in the Life of the Church is a blink. I have a feeling 2000 years of tradition will trounce 40 yrs of innovation. By the way I live in another Parish and this was only the second Solemn Mass I have attended as an adult.
Things will and are changing this time I think for the better.
JPG
It is interesting how fast things progress with lightspeed Internet communication possible. Cardinal Hoyos said that when people don’t get exactly what they want immediately, then they go on the Internet and post their complaints. We have to remember that it is very easy to sit back at our computer desks and critique from afar. in the meantime, the PCED is a committee of multiple people trying to work a bureaucracy as efficiently as possible while dealing with global demands on them.
Things like this used to occur on the order of years. Now, because of the internet, they can occur over the course of months or days. However, we are forgetting the human side of things. While requests can be made easily, and results can be reported easily, the actual deliberations and legislation need to be wisely done. This part not only takes time, but it is out of our control (and responsibility).
I say be patient and, in the meantime, take the advice of Mr. Michael Davies, who said to tend to your private devotions, frequent the Sacraments, and get your soul to Heaven. He said that the struggles of Traditionalists can sometimes consume your spiritually to the point that it corrupts you. Then you’ve “done the Devil’s work for him”, as Mr. Davies phrased it.
More Catholic than the Pope, Tertullian. All I ask is a decent mass. Is that really too much..??
Yeeesss, RichR, again it’s the poor old Traditionalist that gets it in the neck, and we have done the Devil’s work to boot. I must look out my special scourge and extra hairy shirt.
Remind us, who bankrupted several Diocese in America doing the Devils work..?? not the Traditionalists, they were all “Excommunicated” at that moment in time. The priests, Bishops, Cardinals and not forgetting the LAITY. They all, collectively “bankrupted” several Diocese. You cant make an omelette without breaking eggs, and eggs are messy critters. Break eggs and you never can tell what horrors will erupt. The Mass is broke, and its a messy critter. The church will never recover till we all “Put Humpty Dumpty together again”…do Americans know the nursery rhyme “Humpty Dumpty”..if not you can Google for it.
Abrogation is a juridical act. The chief liturgist of the Church could abrogate it if he wants. Thankfully, under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, it wasn’t abrogated.
Comment by musicus
The question is whether Quo Primum prevented it from being abrogated.
Anyway, as you say, it wasn’t abrogated–at least de iure. De facto is another matter.
talking about Summorum Pontificum, those who understand french, like i think FR Z. does, will find this interesting. a video from Pope Benedict visit in Paris, and the FSSP and some Scouts have a large banner unfurled thanking the Holy Father for the Summorum Pontificum, but what is interesting is the women reporter excellent commentary, and the TELLING commentary, especially at the end, by the French Parisian Priest who is adding commentary for the trip, and he is in charge of something in the Paris episcopate.
http://www.gloria.tv/?video=iuqlhit31oo2h6tbczmx
pax
“What is more important: the mystery of God who becomes bread …” Did the Cardinal really say that, or did CNS get it wrong?
Did God “become bread” at all those Clown Masses we have seen on various blogs over the last year..?? if so, then what is the point of “Say the Black do the Red” and “Save the Liturgy save the World”. If God becomes bread at “Clown Masses” then the Traditional Mass should be abrogated. Or the Novus Ordo should be abrogated. If “God becomes bread” just like that, on a whim, then maybe all Masses should be abrogated. We can all get serious about “Worshiping” paper, as long as we are in communion with the FED, that is all that matters.
Mr. Tecumseh,
You are doing a very good job of living up to Card. Castrillon Hoyos’ comment on some traditionalists. Rather than spewing Clown Mass Abrogate Novus Ordo, let’s just take a deep breath and look at what the Holy Father has said and done. He is making it very clear that there is a continuity in our Church that continues from the time of Christ to now. There is no rupture and if every priest said Mass like the Holy Father, there would be no issue, no crisis. Look at the great direction our Church is now heading. Have hope for the future.
Tecumseh said: The church will never recover till we all “Put Humpty Dumpty together again”…do Americans know the nursery rhyme “Humpty Dumpty”..
Yes. Humpty Dumpty is the Egg Man (koo koo ca choo!) who sat on the wall, had a great fall, and who couldn’t be put back to together again despite the efforts of all the King’s horses and all the King’s men.
And earlier today I used the tired old metaphor/cliche about trying to unbreak an egg.
Well, the King’s horses and men couldn’t do it. Could the King do it Himself?
I am surprised that the Cardinal would comment about some people who post complaints on the internet, as though they represent all traditionalists, or even more than a trivial subset of them. This is a case of the Cardinal being unfair, or (more likely) CNS being unfair in reporting the Cardinal’s comments out of context.
It is true that some traditionalists complain. It is true that some of the complaints are legitimate. But, it is also true “ask and you shall receive.”
I live in a diocese with a very resistant bishop who has lately sallied forth to criticize even the new English-language translation of the NO . He appears to believe the laity are too dumb to understand words of over 1.5 syllables (the .5 is for the extra exhalation he makes when he celebrates Mass including his improvisations veeeerrryyy sllooooowwwwllly, which he seems to believe to be reverent).
Right here, we’d be grateful for any celebration of the old mass, particularly since most of the people who want it have never seen it before (I grew up with it). But the few who have attended the Gregorian rite mass in indult churches have complained of one thing: the attitude of the people – obsessed with head coverings on the women, dead silence (NOT A REQUIREMENT) at the Mass, etc. These people have a distorted view of what the Gregorian rite was and are trying to impose their view. The Pope has gotten in their way, and they now find they actually preferred it when they could control how the mass was said and who attended. After all, you have to make sure those Catholic monarchists are the dominant group (excuse me? in the US, where we’ve never had a monarchy?).
I would like to know more about what Castrillon Hoyos said, but in some ways, I can understand that there might be some frustration with self-proclaimed “traditionalists.”
The CNS story reports Cd. Castrillon as citing very specific, apparently ridiculous ‘demands’ that he has received from some of those who write letters to PCED:
“Castrillon, whose commission works with communities using the old rite, said his office continues to receive letters requesting the Tridentine rite be used not just at one Mass a week but at every Mass, and that such Masses be available not just at one church in a town but at every church.
“He said he even got a letter demanding that Rome’s Basilica of St. Mary Major be dedicated exclusively to the celebration of the Tridentine-rite Mass.”
We should all be able to agree that these cited requests are probably ridiculous. We should all be able to agree that no one should be complaining online when these demands are not acted upon.
Cd. Castrillon does not appear to be picking on those who living in liturgical wastelands, such as Tecumseh (Jim McPake of the Diocese of Lancaster), who have no reasonable access to the TLM. Rather, it appears that he is criticizing a muddle-headed group of traditionalists who have received from Summorum Pontificum a Traditional Mass in their parish or town (or the opportunity for such a Mass in St. Mary Major) and are seeking to completely exclude the Ordinary Form under that document.
While it may be good to hope (and to work, and to pray) that the OF will have gone extinct within 40 years, it is simply ridiculous to act as though this has already been decreed under SP.
Catholics of Tradition should not let the “fight” for Tradition consume them to the point that it [the fight] is the center of their spirituality. As Rev. Peter Stravinskas said in the 90’s, “If tomorrow Ratzinger, Wotyla, and the Holy Spirit were to solve all the Church’s problems, these people would have to commit suicide because they wouldn’t know what to do with themselves.”
All I’m saying is, don’t let these complex issues replace your prayer life – when you let impatience, hate-mongering, and character attacks that you wage end up ruining the state of your soul, then something needs to change. You, individually, are not indispensable to the Traditionalist movement. If it is of God’s will, then it will happen.
Be patient and let the pastors of souls do their job. This isn’t a democracy where the louder you shout, the better you’re tended to. The Christian way is to pray for priests and bishops, not to gripe when you don’t get your way. Besides, LOOK AT WHAT WE HAVE!!! Michael Davies died just before the election of BXVI. He would have been thanking God just for that. But to have the Motu Proprio, he would have never dreamed that would materialize. Yet here it is. Bottom line: Michael Davies, the most tradional of traditionalists and deceased leader of the movement, would say, “Rejoice in what you have, and pray that the Lord keeps providing!!”
Before Summorum Pontificum, my Archdiocese ignored Quattuor abhinc annos and Ecclesia Dei…
Now that we have Summorum Pontificum in place of the Ecclesia Dei and Quattuor abhinc annos indults, my Archbishop is starting to implement… Ecclesia Dei.
That’s right. Instead of there being priests willing to celebrate the TLM under Summorum Pontificum as is their right without prior permission from the ordinary, they are all scared, afraid of incurring the Ordinary’s wrath.
The bravest amongst the clergy are now talking of petitioning the Ordinary for a personal parish or personal chapel… in other words, instead of the Summorum Pontificum solution of having TLMs in normal parishes, in any parishes, we are deep within an Ecclesia Dei/Quattuor abhinc annos mindset of asking for permission, and wanting to segregate ourselves within a personal chapel… Priests are weary of acting without consultation and approval of the Archbishop, and so, in a Summorum Pontificum world, we have begun the implementation of the replaced concession… Ecclesia Dei.
It is an step forward from the prior situation of no TLM at all; but instead of letting his priests feel free to celebrate the TLM in the parishes/normal chapels in accordance with Summorum Pontificum, the Ordinary is trying to retain control of the whole process, and, after all those years, decided that he is willing after all to grant us some personal chapel or perhaps parish, where surely he hopes all the wirdos will be segregated.
Frankly, I’m sick and tired. Tired of waiting. Summorum Pontificum has been in force for one year now and, in spite of the fact that I live in a huge metropolitan area, there is no TLM to which I can go without driving less than one hour. And even so, in order to attend a TLM, I have to choose between leaving my city, the second largest city in this country, or going to a very dangerous neighbourhood miles and miles away from where I live. To sum up, for all practical purposes, there is no TLM for me, no TLM for my elderly neighbours, no TLM for my friends who cannot afford to drive such distances, etc. That’s the reason of my frustration.
I’m not a hard to please traditionalist… there are dozens, litterally dozens of parishes within reasonable reach from my home. But none of them offers the TLM I just want a TLM offered within reasonable distance so that I can actually attend. Is that to much to ask?????
It sounds like the Cardinal is pointing out that some are not following Fr. Z’s “Rules of Engagement”.
I think this is especially related to rule #5:
5) If the document doesn’t say everything we might hope for [or if we don’t immediately get everything we would hope for], don’t bitch about it like a whiner. Speak less of our rights and what we deserve, or what it ought to have been, as if we were our own little popes, and more about our gratitude, gratitude, gratitude for what God gives us.
“What is more important: the mystery of God who becomes bread …” Did the Cardinal really say that, or did CNS get it wrong?
I don’t know a lick of Italian, but my guess is it’s a translation problem. In many languages the word for food can also be translated bread. The Cardinal probably said: “the mystery of God who becomes (our) food…”
This is just a guess. Let’s try to assume the best of our brothers, not the worst as is the habit of some.
Pax
Please upload the video from http://www.catholicvote.com/ to your blog. This is truly inspirational! Spread the word!
Well said prof basto. I get hot and bothered, you have said exactly the things that I tried to say. Like me I bet you put your buck in the collection plate, same buck that the “Clown Mass” people put up. Anybody where this post might lead if I don’t calm down..??
Jesus said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” Sounds like God becoming bread to me. So I think we can cut the Cardinal some slack on this one. As St. Thomas himself recognized, not everything that the Church habitually says concerning the Eucharist conforms strictly to Thomistic eucharistic theology.
From the Catechism of Trent:
“Why The Eucharist Is Called Bread After Consecration
Here pastors should observe that we should not at all be surprised, if, even after consecration, the Eucharist is sometimes called bread. It is so called, first because it retains the appearance of bread, and secondly because it keeps the natural quality of bread, which is to support and nourish the body.
Moreover, such phraseology is in perfect accordance with the usage of the Holy Scriptures, which call things by what they appear to be, as may be seen from the words of Genesis which say that Abraham saw three men, when in reality he saw three Angels. In like manner the two Angels who appeared to the Apostles after the Ascension of Christ the Lord into heaven, are called not Angels, but men.”
Jesus said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” Sounds like God becoming bread to me. So I think we can cut the Cardinal some slack on this one. As St. Thomas himself recognized, not everything that the Church habitually says concerning the Eucharist conforms strictly to Thomistic eucharistic theology.
Comment by F C Bauerschmidt
I don’t under why you are bringing St Thomas into this question.
Is the Blessed Sacrament bread after the Consecration or is He the Substantial Body, Blood,Soul and Divinity of Christ after the Consecration?
I have always been taught the latter.
Paul S.
I know what CNS reported – a line or two without context. The implication being that Castrillon is implying that the traditionalists are made up mostly of ungrateful complainers.. I think probably this is a case of one of the more \”liberal\” groups (CNS and/or USCCB) engaging in propaganda against traditionalists in general, because they are so resistant to the TLM.
I would like to read the entire text of the Cardinal\’s remarks so as not to have my views influenced by selective and (potentially) biased reporting.
“What is more important: the mystery of God who becomes bread …”
The mystery is that bread becomes God, right? Transubstantiation. Yes, Our Lord is the Bread from Heaven. He is bread, but He doesn’t become bread. There is a difference.
Since it appears that CNS is there to cover the event, perhaps Fr. Z can share his insights with us so that we don’t have to rely upon their jaundiced reporting to understand what is going on.
And those of you who are lecturing others on this blog. Grow up. This is about rational, intelligent discussion. You have not been appointed as anyone’s spiritual director.
On another note, I have seen Pope Benedict and Cardinal Ratzinger try to work this “Hegelian dialectic” over the course of years and am beginning to believe in its presence more and more. Nobody want to deal with the theologies of the two rites (Novus Ordo and TLM: They are certainly NOT two forms of the same rite.) but merely to request that “everyone just get along.” Very Rodney King like.
I’m not questioning at all Cardinal Hoyos’ or the Holy Father’s intentions, but this gray, murky substance we’ve been swimming in since the 1960s has a name for it, pointed out by Pope St. Pius X and Ven. Pius IX before him–it is called Modernism and Liberalism. It is a danger to the Faith, as the wreckage of the past 40-plus years shows in the West.
Re-read the Ottaviani intervention for clarity and then read the Pope and Cardnal Hoyos’ most recent remarks about the two missals not being in conflict.
Something is seriously wrong doctrinally. This is where the SSPX is certainly correct. And it appears there is no intention nor intestinal fortitude to correct it.
The Holy Father has surprised us (pleasantly) before when his underlings disappointed us.
Brian: Something is seriously wrong doctrinally. This is where the SSPX is certainly correct. And it appears there is no intention nor intestinal fortitude to correct it.
Might it be that what is wrong (doctrinally and otherwise) is fairly obvious to most of us — in both the lowest and the highest of Church pay grades? But that the Pope, with full intention of correcting it, is proceeding in the only way that he believes can succeed. Given the reality of a “lost generation” of pastors and bishops still in charge of so many rectories and chanceries.
Namely, by restoring the traditional Mass juridically, so that it can do its work of the ages through the Holy Spirit and a new generation of orthodox young priests and seminarians — 90% of the latter of whom (some of them say) are TLM-leaning, at least in some seminaries — who will be replacing the graying generation and celebrating the TLM in ever-increasing numbers.
Given that 99% of Church officials and bureaucrats and at least 95% of pew-sitters are still oblivious (or resistant) to it, how else might Benedict proceed? Does any really believe that some thunderbolt from Rome — what could it possibly be? — could more rapidly cure the effects of 40 years of desolation? (Actually, I’d submit that SP was that thunderbolt, and that it’s “working” faster than anyone might reasonably have anticipated.)
Summorum Pontificum — One Year In Effect
http://pblosser.blogspot.com/2008/09/tridentine-community-news.html
Hmm … working faster than anyone might have anticipated?
ALCON (All Concerned). Can we obtain a transcript of Roberto DeMattei’s speech. Regards, Fr. John (Diocese of Boise)
The Cardinal is probably just unconsciously influenced by the plethora
of modern “hymns” which describe the error of “Christ becoming bread”–
Transubstantiation in reverse. I wouldn’t wager that it was a conscious error.
However, when you look at it Summorum Pontificum it is no different than Ecclesia
Dei….same lame thing, just a different name. The Bishops still have
an excuse to quash the TLM at every opportunity with their being
charged with determining what on earth a “stable group” is, what a “capable”
priest is, on and on and on. Since the vast majority of Bishops are
inherently hostile to the Traditional Mass, then what good is it?
Just like Ecclesia Dei it depends wholly on the good graces of the local
Bishop. So yes, we are not happy. It’s the Bishops still saying “is it
fitting to give the children’s food to dogs?”. And we Trads still saying
“yes, but even the dogs eat from the master’s table”.
Nothing has changed.
Henry, While I agree that many fruits have come to pass. For instance, my home diocesan parish in Taylors, SC, now has the TLM featured prominently weekly at 11 a.m. and on Holy Days and first Saturdays.
However, what I am referring to is this tendency to sugar coat the doctrinal crisis. More TLMs will not, by themselves, correct the religious indifferentism and theological Modernism and Liberalism condemned by Ven. Pius IX and Pope St. Pius X.
And the fact is that the Holy Father and Cardinal Castrillon both seem to always posit the “mean” as the ideal while trying to reconcile two irreconcilable poles on either side.
Read the Holy Father’s recent remarks to the reporters on his flight to France regarding the TLM being “tolerated” for a “small group” of Catholics. Read how he has said, as well as Cardinal Castrillon, more than once, probably due to political “Romanitas” that the two forms are essentially the same rite.
Then read the Ottaviani intervention and every other credible comparison between the texts and structure of the two rites of Mass (Latin). The differences between the Ottaviani intervention critique and the public critique by the Holy Father and Cardinal Castrillon, is obvious to any and all with eyes to see and ears to hear.
Restoration of the TLM, by itself, even to all the altars of the world on a daily basis, will not correct the doctrinal errors with priests, bishops and even Cardinals in the Roman curia.
Brian,
I’m coining a new revolutionary term here, and I think that it describes the
philosphical problem at the heart of the Church.
The chief problem is not a Hermeneutic of Discontinuity, which can be remedied by
a Hermeneutic of Continuity.
When speaking of the problem of Vatican II, the new Mass, the new theology and
so forth, we are dealing with a philosophical crisis, that the Pope is
trying to promote and I will term it:
The Hermeneutic of Retroactive Continuity.
Retroactive Continuity, is a familiar concept in sci-fi and other literature.
Basically the creators “retcon” ideas and events back into an established
narrative. This is exactly what the Church is attempting to do today.
From Wikipedia:
“Retconning also resembles the real-life occurrence of historical revisionism, where newly discovered information or a reinterpretation of existing information inspires the rewriting of histories”.
This happens through three means:
Alteration.
Addition.
Subtraction.
We can see all of these at work today, even with the Council itself.
What SC said about the Mass, is altered through Retconning by the Bishops…
“latin must be preserved” comes to mean “latin must be abolished”.
Female altar servers is another example of Alteration – “they are in perfect
accord with the Church’s Tradition”.
Pius IX, X, XI and XII’s writings are likewise retconned by means of subtraction.
They simply cease to have any relevance in the Catholic narrative when it
comes to the Church’s approach to the world.
Ecumenism is retconned by John Paul II in Ut Unum Sint by addition when
he says that “ecumenism (which is utterly alien to Catholicism until
John XXIII) exists at the heart of the Church’s activity”.
Here is the article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retroactive_continuity
I think that it the real issue. The Catholic narrative has been brutally
assaulted by the Hermeneutic of Retroactive Continuity.
No wonder “fans” are confused and unenthused.
Restoration of the TLM, by itself, even to all the altars of the world on a daily basis, will not correct the doctrinal errors with priests, bishops and even Cardinals in the Roman curia.\”
Mr Mershon: exactly.
It will take a repudiation of many of the erors that were promulgated by the modernist ideas that took hold of the movers and shakers in the Church in the twentieth century and given credence to, in several of the documents of the Second Vatican Council.
The Church absolutely needs the Holy Father to rule with a fist of iron, especially in this day and age of milquetoast disobedience.
Dan: The Church absolutely needs the Holy Father to rule with a fist of iron
I doubt that the Pope has the power in the present Church to “rule with a fist of iron”. There is probably no thunderbolt he can wield that will work that way with the “lost generation” of priests and bishops who still control so many rectories and chanceries.
However, I do not doubt the power of the traditional Mass to change hearts and minds. It will change those priests who celebrate it and those laymen who assist at it. In time — and after 40 years of desolation it will certainly take some time — it will restore the Church.
PS. In regard to papal power even in these presumably halcyon days of yesteryear, I recall a story attributed to either Leo XIII or Pius X. He had some difficulty with the archpriest of St. Peter’s (as I recall), and was asked why he didn’t simply lay down the law. He replied in effect, “I’m only the Pope, and have precious little power to force anybody to do anything.”
However, I feel obliged to report that, when I just turned from the computer to my Latin-English bible where I left off reading it yesterday, the first verse awaiting me for today was Luke 11:21,
Cum fortis armatus custodit atrium suum, in pace sunt ea quae possidet.
When a strong man armed keepeth his court, those things are in peace which he possesseth.
Did God “become bread” at all those Clown Masses we have seen on various blogs over the last year..?? if so, then what is the point of “Say the Black do the Red” and “Save the Liturgy save the World”. If God becomes bread at “Clown Masses” then the Traditional Mass should be abrogated. Or the Novus Ordo should be abrogated. If “God becomes bread” just like that, on a whim, then maybe all Masses should be abrogated. We can all get serious about “Worshiping” paper, as long as we are in communion with the FED, that is all that matters.
Comment by Tecumseh
If God didn’t become bread at those clown masses, then the priesthood does not exist.
Restoration of the TLM, by itself, even to all the altars of the world on a daily basis, will not correct the doctrinal errors with priests, bishops and even Cardinals in the Roman curia.
Comment by Brian Mershon
The consequences of Latin liturgy are immense. Latin is a protector of doctrine because it is a sign of the link of the particular Church with the Head of the Universal Church.
Further, Latin must be the foundation for the formation of every priest in the West.
PS. In regard to papal power even in these presumably halcyon days of yesteryear, I recall a story attributed to either Leo XIII or Pius X. He had some difficulty with the archpriest of St. Peter’s (as I recall), and was asked why he didn’t simply lay down the law. He replied in effect, “I’m only the Pope, and have precious little power to force anybody to do anything.”
Henry, And yet the Holy Father has the God given authority to lay down the law and make it happen, with a fist of iron.
In the early 20th century or the early 21st century.
The Holy Ghost will back the Holy Father up, and it would work.
I am reminded of Christ and the money changers in he Temple.
I think the Cardinal was referring to SSPX and the “but wait there’s more” message of the past year. (I am going into the validity of their issues.)
If you eliminated the ordinary form tomorrow, there would still be huge problems facing the Church and her members. While the EF is certainly the corner stone of rebuilding the Church, the problems go deeper.
I believe modernism is the greatest danger to the Church and has to be confronted head on. I think the next big “celebration” (the Year of Paul, etc) should be the Decade of Catechism with required study by all Catholics with test. No, I am not kidding.
In regard to papal power even in these presumably halcyon days of yesteryear, I recall a story attributed to either Leo XIII or Pius X. He had some difficulty with the archpriest of St. Peter’s (as I recall), and was asked why he didn’t simply lay down the law. He replied in effect, “I’m only the Pope, and have precious little power to force anybody to do anything.”
Comment by Henry Edwards
The discipline of the Church is anything but authoritarian. It has lapsed not because popes refused to bust some heads but because the system of discipline (incl Latin liturgy and the substantial intellectual formation of priests, both of which spill over to the laity) has collapsed and was replaced by local yokelism.
As I’ve said before, what is happening now is that BXVI is trying to reassert the authority of the Holy See over liturgy, which includes Latinitas and all its consequences.
This whole “God becomes bread” discussion. . . am I missing something?
I thought the received, dogmatic teaching of the Church was the reverse . . . the bread becomes God, or rather, the mystical presence of the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ.
At any rate, I’m sincerely hoping that CNS got it wrong, as someone else suggested.
Henry, And yet the Holy Father has the God given authority to lay down the law and make it happen, with a fist of iron
In the early 20th century or the early 21st century.
The Holy Ghost will back the Holy Father up, and it would work.
Yeah, right. He hasn’t even been able to get the ex Sec of State to move out of the Papal Palace.
I am reminded of Christ and the money changers in he Temple.
Comment by Dan
Actually, the money changers were doing what they were supposed to be doing.
“Actually, the money changers were doing what they were supposed to be doing”
RBrown: So you are saying that Christ was wrong?
Yeah, right. He hasn’t even been able to get the ex Sec of State to move out of the Papal Palace.
That does not mean that he does not have the authority to to kick him out. And he would be right in exercising that authority.
Dan: That does not mean that he does not have the authority to to kick him out. And he would be right in exercising that authority.
The question is not whether the Pope has the authority to kick him out. The question is whether he has the power to exercise this authority.
It’s the same deal with liturgy and doctrine. Certainly he has the authority to lay down the law. But does he have the power to enforce it?
Concretely, how might he enforce liturgical reverence throughout your favorite west-coast archdiocese?
The Cardinal’s comments are referring to those demanding EXCLUSIVITY for the EF —demanding the EF for ALL masses in ALL parishes. He calls this insatiable and incredible.
“Concretely, how might he enforce liturgical reverence throughout your favorite west-coast archdiocese?”
Henry: By removing the dissenting bishops and priests from their positions and installing assenting bishops and priests.
And yes, the Holy Father has the power to do this.
Just look at the example of Archbishop Bugnini being transported off to Iran. To little to late
This comment might be an aside, but it isn’t really off-topic. I was just wondering where the Society for the Promotion of Chinese Restaurants in Rome met, and what was on the menu?
The Cardinal’s comments are referring to those demanding EXCLUSIVITY for the EF —demanding the EF for ALL masses in ALL parishes. He calls this insatiable and incredible.
Comment by schoolman — 17 September 2008 @ 12:47 pm
IMO, The Holy Father is getting ready for Islam. The Modern Mass has been infiltrated by secularists who call themselves Catholic who have no idea they’ve already lost their faith. I know some of them. Our hope and strength is the EF.
Just look at the example of Archbishop Bugnini being transported off to Iran.
I’m afraid, Dan, that there are no longer enough vacancies in Iran (or Afghanistan) for the number of “dissenting bishops” well-qualified to be sent there.
Nor perhaps even enough thoroughly reliable candidates immediately available for the present episcopal vacancies in the U.S. — which I think is about a dozen and a half (including incumbents past the age of 75).
By removing the dissenting bishops and priests from their positions and installing assenting bishops and priests.
For all I know, there may be almost that number of left-coast bishops who need to go. In which case, instead of my diocese (for instance) getting one of the few available good ones, we’d have to be sent one of the rejects if the Pope were to exercise the awesome power you think he has. No, thanks!
Schoolman,
While I somewhat agree that any DEMANDS sent to the PCED are properly characterized as “incredible” and “unreasonable” I can find no fault with anyone’s desire that the traditional Mass completely replace the Novus Ordo everywhere in the world.
“an interpretive key of the Motu Proprio is that the older Mass was not abrogated and cannot be abrogated. (About that last point I am not so sure, and I would like to know more about that.)”
Whether anyone has the right to abrogate it is one question; however, supposing one did have the right to abrogate it, I think they have a graver responsibility to not abrogate it.
“Henry: By removing the dissenting bishops and priests from their positions and installing assenting bishops and priests.
And yes, the Holy Father has the power to do this.”
And with all this power, where is the Holy Father going to produce these priests and bishops from, in an age of disobedience and disbelief, his back pocket? Where whould the whole presbyterate of California be moved to? This is unreasonable and a promlegated law cannot be unreasonable, says St. Thomas. The Holy Father is a prudent man, governing firmly and wisely toward the good. Let’s give him room to build brick by brick, and let’s offer him our support and our prayers.
“Actually, the money changers were doing what they were supposed to be doing”
RBrown: So you are saying that Christ was wrong?
Comment by Dan
Anything but that. The money changers were acting correctly according to the Old Law. Christ, however, is the New Law.
Patristic commentary on the Cleansing of the Temple is very interesting.
Another Cardinal once wrote:
“It has never been asserted that, so to say, nature in a physical sense is being changed. The transformation reaches down to a more profound level. Tradition has it that this is a metaphysical process. Christ lays hold upon what is, from a purely physical viewpoint, bread and wine, in its inmost being, so that it is changed from within and Christ truly gives himself in them”
Maybe we’re getting a doctrinal development? Physically it’s still bread, but Our Lord gets inside it? This can’t be correct.
Let’s try to assume the best of our brothers, not the worst as is the habit of some.
Pax
Comment by Fr. Steve — 16 September 2008 @ 10:44 pm
Amen
“I believe modernism is the greatest danger to the Church and has to be confronted head on. I think the next big “celebration” (the Year of Paul, etc) should be the Decade of Catechism with required study by all Catholics with test. No, I am not kidding.
Comment by Matt of South Kent — 17 September 2008 @ 11:42 am
The Decade of Catechism – great idea.
Note: Pray for the Holy Father and all our Clerics.
Matt:
Great find on the article. It’s actually pretty good for a Wikipedia article. At least they cited Roy Thomas’ work.
I would draw a distinction between ‘retroactive continuity’ and ‘retcon’.
Retroactive continuity is a state of affairs, a goal, an end. As Thomas initially practiced it, he created new material and mixed it with the old. Largely, the new material neither contradicted nor was contradicted by the original (at least not explicitly).
A retcon, however, is a process, a means to an end. A retcon is a revision, in contradiction with that which had come previously. It can also be an attempt to bridge the gap between two seemingly irreconcilable points-of-view.
In relation to the subject at hand, I (not being an expert) would opine…
1. The changes from the time of Vatican II are to some extent an example of retroactive continuity, in that some care was taken to make sure that they were not incompatible with what had gone before. However, they were primarily changes moving forward from that time, not a change to the past.
2. In the past 40 years, many different people (but not all) with many different points of view have since attempted retcons – The Council did this, not that… The EF means this, not that… The NO means that, not this…
3. The Holy Father is trying to weed out the retcons in order that we might see the true continuity.
All these comments from Cardinal Hoyos mean is that he’s finally paying real attention — so keep them coming.
I say keep writing these letters because he’s finally paying attention.
I look at this like politics. Most of the time, politicians just ignore your complaints. Then, with something like illegal immigration, they get an onslaught of complaints and at first they complain about it. Then, when it doesn’t let up and they know that real damage will be done if they don’t give in, the complaints finally work and a vote is flipped, opposition is dropped.
The Vatican apparatus is no different than Congress. It’s just as political.
And when I see the equivalent to a Senator acknowledging how annoyed he is with traditionals, I say keep going. We finally have his attention.
Anytime I even begin to think about the Pope using a heavy hand to drive any change in the Church, I seem to encounter the Common of Pastors in the Breviary:
1 Peter 5:1-4
1 So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ as well as a partaker in the glory that is to be revealed. 2 Tend the flock of God that is your charge, * not by constraint but willingly, * not for shameful gain but eagerly, 3 not as domineering over those in your charge but being examples to the flock. 4 And when the chief Shepherd is manifested you will obtain the unfading crown of glory.
Matthew 21:12″ And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the money changers, and the chairs of them that sold doves: 13 And he saith to them: It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but you have made it a den of thieves.”
RBrown:
The money changers were objectively evil in doing what they were doing in the Temple.
Christ told them that they had committed sacrilige by turning the house of God into a den of thieves.
In the great outer court of the Gentiles there were cattle dealers who sold beasts for the sacrifices, and money changers who changed Roman and Greek money into Jewish, because offerings for the treasury of the Temple, which every Jew was bound to make, could only be paid in Jewish coin. The beasts defiled the sacred precincts: the haggling and bargaining of the mercenary dealers and dishonest money changers, the shouts of the cattle drivers, the lowing of the oxen and the bleating of the sheep, all this caused a great deal of noise, and not only made worship in the outer court of the Gentiles an imposibility, but even disturbed the worshippers in other courts.
When Jesus saw this unholy traffic going on, He was seized with a righteous indignation, and making a scourge, He drove the dealers and beasts out of the Temple.
No one ventured to resist Him! All even the stubborn oxen, retreated before Him and obeyed His word of authority.
His angry glance exercised a supernatural power.
Heavenly fire gleamed from His eyes and Divine Majesty shone on His countenance”
St Jerome
“. . . all this caused a great deal of noise, and not only made worship in the outer court of the Gentiles an imposibility, but even disturbed the worshippers in other courts.”
Indeed, this is probably what Jesus was referring to when He quoted the passage from Isaiah, “My House shall be a house of
prayer.” The remainder of that passage is “for all peoples,” i.e., even the Gentiles. Rather than find a suitable place for the necessary moneychanging, they were doing it in the outermost Temple court, which was supposed to be set aside for Gentiles to pray.
Also, the moneychanging was often dishonest, and animals for sacrifice would often be priced far too high for the poor to be able to afford, according to an ancient rabbinical anecdote: The Pharisee Rabbi Simeon, son of St. Paul’s teacher Gamaliel, is said to have protested the way the moneychangers in the Temple were shafting the poor, so he issued a new teaching that regulated exchange rates, effectively capping the prices of sacrifices. The Temple at the time, of course, was in the custody of the corrupt Sadducean priests, rivals or even enemies of the Pharisees.
Chris,
Though every organization is inevitably political, the Vatican is essentially a bureaucracy, not a Senate! And let me tell you from experience that bureaucrats hate having to waste time responding to silly diversionary correspondence when they could be focusing on the work that really needs to be done.
There are only so many people to do the work – and acknowledging or even substantively replying to ridiculous ‘requests’ – particularly when the correspondents get upset when they don’t get a fast response – is no doubt one of the reasons it has taken so long to get the document clarifying SP finished (let alone tackle some of the real problems on the ground).
So if there are real issues, by all means write (following Fr Z’s guidelines). But don’t waste everyone’s time on to register a ‘vote’ on how you think the Church should be run – it isn’t a democracy.
I admire Cardinal Hoyos and love the pope, but one wonders if the Vatican (or anyone in it!) has any idea whatsoever about what goes on in the rest of the Catholic world–for instance, Michigan. Or what has gone on here for 40 years. I’m very sure that PJP2 had no clue about 90% of it.
Perhaps when he said it could not be abbrogated, he meant the form which the older mass instantiates could not be abbrogated. I believe that’s true. I also believe that this is the reason it didn’t ever disappear and is not going to disappear unless another instantiation of the same form, with the same rigor, replaces it.
The N.O. partially deviated from that form. The N.O. was approved by the Church so it’s a valid mass, all right, since it has a reduced structure albeit with absolutely necessary parts essentially intact. Nevertheless, it’s a reductive deviation that I believe is just inside the line, when said according to the rubrics.
The following is taken from A Catholic web site and highlights the key concerns that the cardinal has on the latin rite and demands that are being made: very sober comments: –
Vatican Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos has accused some traditionalists of “insatiable” and “incredible” demands in relation to the celebration of the Tridentine Mass.
Rather than being grateful, some people have reacted to Pope Benedict’s wider permission for the celebration of the Tridentine Mass with further demands, Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, president of the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei”, said at a conference marking the first anniversary of “Summorum Pontificum,” the Vatican document which expanded access to the Tridentine rite.
Cardinal Castrillon, whose commission works with communities using the old rite, said his office continues to receive letters requesting the Tridentine rite be used not just at one Mass a week but at every Mass, and that such Masses be available not just at one church in a town but at every church.
He said he even got a letter demanding that Rome’s Basilica of St Mary Major be dedicated exclusively to the celebration of the Tridentine rite Mass.
Such people, he said, are “insatiable, incredible.”
“They do not know the harm they are doing,” Cardinal Castrillon said, adding that when the Vatican does not accept their demands immediately “they go directly to the internet” and post their complaints.
“The Eucharist should never become a point of contrast and a point of separation,” Cardinal Castrillon said. “What is more important: the mystery of God who becomes bread or the language by which we celebrate the mystery?”
The cardinal said the Mass, in whatever language it is celebrated, must be a service motivated by love and “never a sword” used against other Christians.
Cardinal Castrillon and officials in his office have been saying for more than a year now that they were preparing detailed instructions responding to questions about how to implement the papal document, which said the Mass in the new Roman Missal, introduced in 1970, remains the ordinary way of Catholic worship.
Asked about the status of those detailed instructions, Cardinal Castrillon told Catholic News Service that his office had completed its work and passed the draft on to the pope, who would make the final decision about its publication.
Dan wrote:
“It will take a repudiation of many of the erors that were promulgated by the modernist ideas that took hold of the movers and shakers in the Church in the twentieth century and given credence to, in several of the documents of the Second Vatican Council.
The Church absolutely needs the Holy Father to rule with a fist of iron, especially in this day and age of milquetoast disobedience.”
)(
See, I’m no the only one who believes this. Well, look at this way. The way Government is handling the financial crisis is the way the Church is handling the error crisis. People shouldn’t shake fists at the Fed’s inaction while giving the Church a pass to do the same.
Henry Edwards wrote:
“I doubt that the Pope has the power in the present Church to ‘rule with a fist of iron.’ There is probably no thunderbolt he can wield that will work that way with the ‘lost generation’ of priests and bishops who still control so many rectories and chanceries.”
)(
Henry, I don’t think this is the case. If it were then it means the Pope is ineffectual. Like any corporation, execs, managers and staff get moved and REmoved all the time for failure to implement policy or meet goals. The Church isn’t any different. What we are up against is the Church’s own doing, Her misunderstanding of what it means to manage and take care of business. It would also give credence to the fact Rome has become more like Canterbury then. Pope at the top but only a figurehead. The bishops and clergy then do as they as they please with impunity.
How many people do we think have stopped singing that Yahweh song written by that practicing homosexual Dan Shutte? What repercussions do think will happen if they persist? Seriously, what? N O N E.
I agree with you though on the power of the traditional Mass to change hearts and minds of the Faithful, especially priests. I heard Father Z’s interview with Fr Justin Nolan. It was inspiring, and Fr Justin said priests who do celebrate the Tridentine Mass are more aware of their priesthood and their worship of God. You said, “In time—and after 40 years of desolation–it will certainly take some time—it will restore the Church.” Yes, which makes it all the more critical for the Church to get a move on and not just sit around talking about it.