Translate

Tuesday, March 19, 2024

WHICH RUBRICS FROM THE 1962 ROMAN MISSAL CAN BE APPLIED TO THE 2011 ROMAN MISSAL?



The general opinion even at the Vatican is that where rubrics are not mentioned for certain actions in the Modern Mass, the 1962 Roman Missal can be used as a source of instruction on these rubrics. The clearest example of this is the use of the Chalice Veil, Burse and liturgical folding and unfolding of the corporal cloth. As well the chalice pall’s use during the Liturgy of the Eucharist has no rubrics in the modern Mass, thus even at St. Peter’s papal Masses, the pall rubrics are from the 1962 Roman Missal.

There are so many options in the Modern Missal. The Penitential Act is one of them and a partial hold-over from the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar. Technically in the 1962 Missal the PATFOTA are private prayers for the priest and other liturgical ministers prior to the beginning of the Mass. For the laity, in the Sung Mass of 1962, the Mass begins with the Entrance Chant (Introit) moving from that and without commentary directly to the 9 fold Kyrie. The Kyrie was not and never was seen as penitential. It was a part of the fixed nature of the Order of Mass for the Laity, separate from the Confiteors at the Foot of the Altar and other penitential private prayers of the priest and his assistants.

The latest Modern Latin Rite Mass is the Ordinariate’s Divine Worship, the Missal, allows for the quiet prayers of the priest to be recited quietly from the 1962 Roman Missal such as the prayer of the priest ascending to the altar to kiss it and the prayer for kissing the altar. As well the 1962 Offertory Prayers, always prayed in silent voice can use in place of the modern offertory prayers including the Lavabo and the Suscipiat. 

The double genuflections at the consecrations, the additional kissing of the altar and even the additional Signs of the Cross during the Roman Canon can be done, as well as the Sign of the Cross at the end of the Gloria and Credo and that the Benedictus of the Sanctus!

How kosher is all of this. It is kosher in the Latin Rite’s Ordinariate Missal. It is the patrimony of the Latin Rite easily recovered.

But back to the Kyrie. don’t use the penitential act with the trope, then Lord have Mercy, trope, Christ have Mercy and the final trope, Lord have Mercy followed by the liturgical absolution. That ties the Kyrie to the Penitential Act which it should not be by Tradition. Always use the Confiteor, or the rarely used second option followed by the liturgical absolution then the stand alone Kyrie!



Saturday, March 16, 2024

FATHER RAYMOND DE SUOUZA PRAISES MIKE LEWIS OF THE “WHERE PETER IS” BLOG—VERY INTERESTING


 I love how Father Raymond de Souza writes. He’s clear and interesting to read. This is what he just wrote about all the vitriol of far right heterodox Catholics and the far left heterodox Catholics who defend him. Please note the praise that Father de Souza heaps upon Mike Lewis, I copy from THE CATHOLIC THNG. MY COMMENTS EMBEDDED IN THE TEXT IN RED:

Pope Francis at Eleven 

Saturday, March 16, 2024

To an unusual degree – at least in English – the public presentation of the current pontificate, which marked its eleventh anniversary this week, has been entrusted to various commentators.

The Roman Curia under Pope Francis lacks John Paul-era figures like Cardinals Joseph Ratzinger, Benardin Gantin, Camillo Ruini, Francis Arinze, and Eduardo Pironio (already beatified), who had the stature and following to offer authoritative interpretations.

Under Pope Francis, putatively authoritative interpretations – again, in English – are outsourced to independent figures like Austen Ivereigh (UK), Michael Sean Winters (USA), Massimo Faggioli (Italy), and (in all languages) Fr. Antonio Spadaro. In recent months though, a certain frustration appears to have set in, brought vividly to a head by the Holy Father’s recent comments about Ukraine raising the “white flag” of negotiation, which caused deep dismay among Ukrainian Catholics. (Let’s be clear, I think most sane people of good will prefer a negotiated peace settlement for Ukraine which respect the integrity and borders of that independent country. HOWEVER, the pope was asked a question about a “white flag solution” which is basically an unconditional surrender. The pope, because he speaks too much to newspapers and loves off-the-cuff remarks, unthinkingly and uncritically parroted the reporter’s use of “white flag” meaning unconditional surrender and that is what made the mess and this pope over and over and over again captures defeat out of victory with off-the-cuff remarks.)

I offer as an example my preferred source for Francis-friendly hermeneutics: Where Peter Is [1] (WPI) a site run by Mike Lewis. He founded it in 2018 to offer “an apologetical approach [2]” to Pope Francis in face of his critics. I consider him a good model of the dialogue that the Holy Father calls for.

“We’ve explained at great length the traditional Catholic understanding of papal primacy and authority,” Lewis writes. “We have repeatedly clarified what the Church teaches on the role of the living Magisterium. On many controversial questions, we’ve responded in great detail with the Church’s position on every debated aspect of an issue multiple times. Six years ago, we wanted to start a website that helped explain Pope Francis to our fellow Catholics who claimed to be ‘confused’ by him and his teachings. We’ve made the case for Pope Francis’s teachings throughout this time.”

WPI’s commentaries are serious, well-researched, and careful. For example, recent posts on concelebration [3] and traditionalists [4], or the ontological non-superiority of priests [5] were comprehensive, theologically competent, and fair. WPI has its point of view, but often shows respect to those it is criticizing. It is unabashedly in the Holy Father’s corner at all times, but that is not a bad thing to say about Catholics – and in the environment this pontificate has engendered it is understandable. Partisanship abounds.

For those who wish to keep abreast of the wackier things going on in the wild internet precincts of those truly deranged by Pope Francis [6], WPI has the patience and doggedness to report on it [7].

So it was noteworthy in December that, while defending Fiducia supplicans [8] on blessings for irregular and same-sex couples, Lewis proposed a new year’s resolution “to begin again with Pope Francis [9].” He suggested that it’s time to go back and start over with Evangelii gaudium, which had a profound influence on Lewis.

“If this week in the Church has shown anything, it’s that many Catholics simply don’t get Pope Francis. Particularly in the US – although clear cracks have appeared in Germany, Africa, and Eastern Europe as well – there is a disconnect between the pope and many of the people, even after ten years,” Lewis writes. “It isn’t only affecting those who are openly rebellious or critical of him, either. I’ve seen many express that they think he’s well-intentioned, but sense that he is naive, out-of-touch, or is listening to bad advisors.”

After sending out hundreds of thousands of words over six years explaining the grandeur of the pontificate, Lewis is frustrated that somehow it is not getting through. So, it is time to start all over again, because surely a second time through will convince the recalcitrant.

The Holy Father’s responsible critics are not unaware of the beauty of Evangelii gaudium. They simply don’t see its evangelizing urgency reflected, for example, in the synodal process on synodality for a synodal Church. (Early on when Pope Francis was elected, I would quote him in my homilies in a very positive way, pointed out his Italian humor, sarcasm and tongue-in-cheek comments quite common in my Italian culture. I held adult religious education classes on Evangelii gaudium as well as Laudatio si. But more and more, I was beginning to be tested by this pope’s off-the-cuff reflections and inconsistencies or ambiguities that I could not explain nor the popesplainers could explain and these have occurred throughout his papacy. For example he laments the clericalizing of the laity and clericalism in general, yet so much of the novel things in breach of even the post-Vatican II Church are from what I believe to be the very core of negative clericalism with this pope’s mind and heart. For example, he approved changing the biblical words of the Italian language “Our Father”. He promotes blessing of couples in a sexual union outside of the Sacrament of Marriage or whatever gender or sexual lifestyle knowing quite well that this begins a process of sacramentalizing these unions eventually and probably quite quickly. It appears too that women will be ordained deacons all the while having said himself that this isn’t possible. No wonder left leaning heterodox Catholics and right leaning heterodox Catholics are angry, confused and fed up!)

Pope Francis during his “white flag” interview on Italian television

Recall that in 2013 George Weigel wrote fulsomely in the Wall Street Journal that Evangelii gaudium is “a clarion call [10] for a decisive shift in the Catholic Church’s self-understanding. . .the great historical transition from institutional-maintenance Catholicism to the Church of the New Evangelization.”

This week Weigel returned to those pages with an excoriating assessment of the “white flag” approach[11] of Pope Francis to international relations. The problem that frustrates Lewis and others is not that people are not paying enough attention, but rather too much. So Lewis concluded last month [2] that ill will – and worse – must be the problem.

“The damage done by the people in the indietrist movement is real, but no individual can stop it,” wrote an exasperated Lewis. “The only way they’ll ever change is if they respond to the promptings of the Holy Spirit in their hearts. The painful truth is that we can’t dialogue with the devil. And much of the opposition to the teaching of Pope Francis is straight from the bowels of hell. . . .And I have finally discerned that it’s time for me to say, in the words of Fr. Jacques Hamel, ‘Go away, Satan.’” (I read what Mike Lewis wrote in this regard and I think the core of his “fed upness” while masked by his anger at “backwardist Catholics” is really at its core he too is fed up with the pope and the anger and confusion he has created!” The pope is not a psychologist or sociologist or a weatherman. He should not pontificate on these things although he is free to have his opinions  and opinions these are and should be kept to himself.)

That eruption is uncharacteristic of Lewis. Of course there is no shortage of ill will to be found in the angrier corners of the internet. But that is not where the problem lies. The question that African and Ukrainian and Dutch and Asian (and American) bishops have is not Where Peter Is – Francis is Peter in Rome – but where the Peter of Evangelii gaudium went.

It is impossible to imagine that eleven years into John Paul’s pontificate anyone would seriously think it time to begin again to figure out the pontificate. John Paul did not face an angry internet, but he did face hundreds of leading theologians signing the Cologne Declaration, [12] including leading figures such as Fathers Eduard Schillebeeckx, Johann Baptist Metz, Hans Küng, Norbert Greinacher, Ottmar Fuchs, and Bernard Häring. The January 1989 declaration was a pointed vote of non-confidence in the pope.

John Paul did not go back to the beginning. He got on with the task at hand. Later that year European Communism was vanquished; three years later the Catechism was published and in 1993 Veritatis splendor was issued.

Another prominent Francis interpreter is Michael Sean Winters of the National Catholic Reporter, who published an anniversary reflection this week entitled, “Our Wonderful Pope is Horribly Wrong about Ukraine [13],” which lumped the Holy Father in with Neville Chamberlain in his approach to hostile powers.

“The Christian witness [of the Ukrainian Catholic bishops] ought not be discounted or disrupted by a careless choice of words in an interview,” he wrote about Pope Francis.

Again, a remarkable statement. Pope Francis has been speaking ceaselessly about Ukraine for more than two years. Since the initial invasion in 2014, it has been the most significant foreign policy crisis of this century. To get that “horribly wrong” after all this time is a rather damning indictment from a friend. And to be “careless” about such a grave matter leads Winters to advise the Holy Father to give “far fewer interviews.”

Thus, the eleventh anniversary arrives with some disquiet among those most devoted to the Holy Father’s program. Despite his frustrations, Lewis vows to carry on. I will continue to read WPI to great profit. (I read Lewis too, I recommend that he make his posts less detailed and shorter like Pope Francis suggests priests keep their homilies brief and to the point!)

Fr. Raymond J. de Souza is a Canadian priest, Catholic commentator, and Senior Fellow at Cardus.

Thursday, March 14, 2024

WHEREIN I DISAGREE WITH THE NEW LITURGICAL MOVEMENT’S ARTICLE ON “LITURGY WARS”

 


Wednesday, March 13, 2024

The Root of the “Liturgical War”: Guest Essay by Mr Kevin Tierney

In the article, somewhat long, that I link above, I found myself disagreeing although not entirely. I am not going to quote the article, so read it first and then you will understand my comments below.

What did not cause the Liturgies wars?

1. I was a teenager very enthralled by what was happening in my parish in Augusta around 1966 or so. We may have been late with some of the new things coming our way, but not that late. My sense of things was that the vast majority of the laity liked the 1964/65 revision of the 1962 Missal that allowed for a great deal of vernacular but maintained Latin for the Roman Canon and many other prayers, usually the quiet prayers of the priest. The Roman Canon remained in a low voice.

2. I think most people did not mind the Mass facing the congregation.

3. I think most people accepted the new Lectionary although the revision of the calendar threw out the baby with the bath water. Removing saints from the calendar made it appear that these people were not saints and never existed. I can remember seeing in a secular newspaper a priest carrying out St. Christopher from his church because he had been removed from the calendar! That annoyed people.

4. Even the 1970 Missal, basically what we have now, but it too experiencing reform in the 2011 Missal, was accepted by most practicing Catholics. 

What caused the Liturgies wars? 

1. It was the iconoclasm of important devotional elements of Catholics, the peek of which was the stripping and “wreckovation” of entire church buildings, the iconoclasm of beautiful altars and art work and the reorientation of parish churches all of which cannot be found in any official Roman document or in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal

2. I can remember around 1971 or 72 in my parish church walking into the church for Sunday Mass and seeing the old altar pulled away from the wall and stripped of its six majestically tall candlesticks, the tabernacle moved to a side altar underneath our Blessed Mother’s statue and the priest’s chair now moved to the position of the tabernacle behind the free standing altar and higher!

3. Then communion was received standing, kneeling not allowed and altar railings removed. That was not well accepted by the laity quite capable of kneeling.

4. Then Communion Ministers became the norm.

5. Then receiving Holy Communion in the hand which quickly evolved into irreverence in receiving and all of this came about all by 1975 or 1976.

6. Then things started to be sloppy. No altar clothes, beautiful statuary replaced by cheesy banners and clutter galore in the sanctuary to include the choir or folk group and instrumentation and everything else the music ministry needed. 

7. Then priests started to improvise the words of prayer, some parts of the Mass to include the Gloria and Agnus Dei not to mention the Sanctus and Creed when sung used different wording from what was in the Roman Missal—similar, dissimilar and different than the official English translation of the Mass. These were improvised.

8. Catering to various language groups in the Church and in particular parishes disunited parishes and Balkanized parishes according to language groups and Latin no longer was the unifying factor of the Mass in terms of language. Everyone wanted/wants their own language and style of worship.

9. Inculturation was never well received except by those who like creating an inculturated Mass. 

10. Casualness, banal and pedantic hymns and irreverence reigned and was disdained by most. This has led to the loss of awe, reverence, mysticism and experiencing the liturgy in a non pedantic way. 

These last 10 things are more serious than the Roman Missal itself and its reforms. 

WHAT’S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?

 Most recent renovation/refurbishment:


Pre-Vatican II look:



This is the Cathedral in Lafayette, Indiana. It has been renovated as one can see. Overall, the renovation is attractive, so what’s wrong with it?

1. The damnable placing of the altar in the sanctuary some six steps LOWER than the bishop’s throne. That damnable throne is six steps higher from the altar and some nine steps higher from the floor of the nave. It’s the elevation of the bishop over the altar which represents Christ and the saints in heaven. That’s damnable. 

2. The altar, the most important liturgical “item” in any church is in a lesser position than the placement of the bishop’s throne. In the photo above not only is it lower, but then it is obscured by flowers, plants and material cloth! Yes, you read that correctly. The decorators at the cathedral somehow thought hiding the altar with plants, flowers and material was a good idea! Are the flowers prettier than the new free-standing altar? Is that why these are placed there?????

3. My recommendation is to place the altar where the bishop’s throne is. Lower the bishops throne to the altar’s current location but to the side and hide it with flowers, plants and material cloth!

4. To the far left of the sanctuary, please note the clutter of damnable stuff associated with the music ministry, to include an organ console, piano and God only knows what other stuff! And I am sure, that there is a spacious choir loft in the traditional location where all that crap could be and out of sight! Who thought doing this was a good idea? Are they intentionally trying to drive me crazy?????

5. Please note where the tabernacle is, to the far right of the Bishop’s throne. That let’s you know what they think of the Most Blessed Sacrament—relegate it to an obscure position so that stupid Catholics won’t be distracted by the “active and static” real presence of Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity Who has two natures, human and divine. Yes, let’s make a distinction between the “active and static” Real Presence. Stupid Catholics would happily be informed about that!

I can’t find what this cathedral looked like prior to this latest renovation, but I suspect it was ordered properly and more stunningly beautiful, at least the sanctuary! 

Monday, March 11, 2024

READ BETWEEN THE LINES, A DIPLOMATIC TERSE RESPONSE TO CONFUSED AMBIGUITY DUE TO CONSTANT TALKING OFF-THE-CUFF

 From Crux:

Pope faces civil, ecclesial backlash for Ukraine ‘white flag’ remarks


As reported by Rorate Caeli:

Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church Statement on Francis: “ Ukrainians will continue to defend themselves. They feel they have no choice.” - Synodality in Action 

Statement of the Permanent Synod of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church In light of the interview of Pope Francis Conducted by Radio Télévision Suisse

We do not yet have a full version of the interview given by Pope Francis to the RTS (Radio Télévision Suisse) that apparently will be published only on March 20. According to the Holy See Press Office, the reference to a “white flag” in the interview is a summons to negotiations not to a surrender by Ukraine. In the conversation, the Holy Father speaks not only about the Russian war against Ukraine but also the war between Israel and Hamas. As he has done repeatedly, Pope Francis calls for negotiated settlements of armed conflicts.

Read more »

The bishops of the Permanent Synod of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, meeting in the USA:

His Beatitude Sviatoslav,
Major Archbishop of Kyiv-Halych
Father and Head of the UGCC

Most Reverend Borys Gudziak,
Ukrainian Catholic Archbishop and Metropolitan of Philadelphia

Most Reverend Włodzimierz Juszczak,
Bishop of the Eparchy of Wrocław—Koszalin

Most Reverend Bohdan Dzyurakh,
Apostolic Exarch in Germany and Scandinavia

Most Reverend Josaphat Moshchych,
Bishop of Chernivtsi

March 10, 2024 [Source]

Friday, March 8, 2024

IN TODAY’S WORLD OF TOXICITY AS IT CONCERNS THE CHURCH AND POLITICS, LET’S FOCUS ON THE POSITIVE ELEMENTS OF THIS PAPACY…


There is a lot, and I mean, a lot of poisonous ideologies out there both in the Church and the world.

I think social media platforms, 24 hour news stations and the like have contributed to the toxicity out there which is disrespectful to persons, institutions and life in general.  

We may not like a particular president, pope or other religious or political figure. We can certainly disagree about policy, pastoral directions and the like. But we should always respect the institutions of the presidency, papacy and the priesthood. 

We must respect the sanctity of life from conception to natural death. Some of the comments I allow to be posted are “anti-respect for life” although those making the comments protest up and down that they are pro-respect life. They attack people with the most vile language not just their positions. Mortal sins against the virtue of charity are committed publicly and exacerbated by the mortal sin of pride by making mortal sins against charity somehow as something good.

Thus said, what good has Pope Francis accomplished in his long papacy?

Demos II highlighted that in the preamble of his recommendations to the next Conclave.

But in addition to that, Pope Francis has recovered orthodoxy in the following areas, all of which are a great challenge to the heterodox in the Church:

1. He has emphasized the devil and demonic temptations all within traditional pre-Vatican II orthodoxy on this subject. 

2. He has recovered encouragement for popular devotions

3. He has recovered the femininity of the Church as Mother. For the heterodox this was anathama in the 1970’s as it challenged the heterodox agenda to blur the distinctions between male and female and their complementarity. On Thursday, the pope reiterated that the Church “is herself a woman, a daughter, a bride and a mother.”

4. Pope Francis has constantly call Catholics to repentance in the face of God’s infinite love and to make use of the Sacrament of Penance, Confession as a way to allow God’s grace lead us to repentance and a new life. 

5. Pope Francis has encouraged Adoration of the Most Blessed Sacrament, Benediction and other Eucharistic devotions all of which are anathema to the heterodox. 

6. Most recently, as it concerns the Pauline Mass, he has demanded that bishops, priests and deacons read the black and do the red and has done so without ambiguity. The heterodox oppose this. 

7. The pope has promoted a pastoral approach to sinners and saints. He wants bishops, priests and deacons to be real people, identifying with the humanity of their parishioners and not just men of ritual with a preoccupation with ritual and form over being truly human, sympathetic and available for pastoral ministry.

These seven aspects of the current papacy are challenging to so-called liberal Catholic, in reality who are heterodox. This is a most positive development.

Finally, while this pope has used his authority against neo-traditionalists, actually modern Protestants, he has used his papal authority in a harsh way which opens the door for future popes who may be more traditional minded to use their authority against neo-heterodox and pure heterodoxy. This is positive. 

He has also opened the door to future popes modifying or canceling some of the more controversial aspects and teachings of this pope or at least clarifying these ambiguous teachings. 

Wednesday, March 6, 2024

MODERN MASS EYE CANDY

 Tonight in the Cathedral in Tortona S.E. il Card. Angelo Bagnasco presided over the Eucharistic Celebration in the solemnity of San Martian. This is Bishop Guido Marini’s Cathedral. Perhaps the good cardinal was strategizing about the next pope…





MORE EVIDENCE OF THOSE DAMNABLE TRADITIONALISTS AND THEIR SCHISMATIC WAYS! OR MAYBE IT IS NON TRADITIONALISTS MOCKING TRADITIONALISTS?

 These have to be post-Vatican II traditionalists, no? (Press “watch on YouTube” to see the video):

WHICH MASS, THE TLM OR THE MVM HAVE ENABLED MORE CATHOLICS TO BREAK COMMUNION WITH THE POPE?

The majority of Catholics, which itself is a huge number of people, have gone into schism not by joining traditionalist communities but by becoming Protestant or non-denominational. These are Catholics completely formed by the Post Vatican II Church and her Modern Vernacular Mass!


One of the reasons that Pope Francis has tried to crush those Catholics he insults with such epithets as “backwards” “mentally ill” and just plain ignorant, is that the TLM drives people to break Communion with the Pope and Vatican II. 

We know, at least I do, that the percentage of Catholics who prefer the TLM and its patrimony are quite small even compared to the 5% to 12% of Catholics who bother to attend the Modern Mass on Sunday. They are far outnumbered by those Catholics who cease to go to any Catholic Mass. 

But within traditionalist communities, only a small number would consider breaking Communion with the pope and joining the SSPX if the TLM was no longer offered by their diocese. 

They might go to an SSPX Mass just as some might go to an Eastern Orthodox Liturgy but would still consider themselves Catholics in good standing with the Church, meaning they would not join these ecclesial communions only attend liturgy with them.

But all of that is a smoke screen to hide the true schism in the Church. As I mentioned in some places as little as 2% to 5% of Catholics actually attend any Catholic Mass. 

In my neck of the woods, the problem, apart from those who attend no religious services, are those Catholics who have become Protestant. Most are attracted to the non-denominational cults. 

In Savannah, the largest Protestant Church in the city is a non-denominational community called Compassion Church. It is a mega church. And it has a slew of Catholics who no longer identify as Catholics who are their members.  Of course many Catholics have chosen more traditional forms of Protestantism, becoming Episcopalian (to include some of the Diocese of Savannah priests). Some have become Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian and Baptists. Some have joined the Pentecostal communions.

Yet, the blog, Where Peter is is worried more about the FSSP and SSPX and the traditional Latin Mass celebrated in normal parishes as the greatest threat to ecclesial communion with the pope and Vatican II.

And you know what I say to that? What the hell??????

Catholics who have chosen Protestant Communions have done so as a result of their experience in post-Vatican II parishes and the distorted celebrations of the Modern Vernacular Mass of Vatican II.

They far out number, far out number, did I say, far out number those Catholics who have gone into schism by joining break away traditionalist ecclesial communions. Far out number, did I say that?

The schism in the Church today is from those who were formed by the post-Vatican II Church, not those formed by the pre-Vatican II Church or prefer the Pre-Vatican II Liturgies and anthropology and ecclesiology!

Tuesday, March 5, 2024

WHILE THE REST OF THE CATHOLIC WORLD IS IN THE PENITENTIAL SEASON OF LENT, SAVANNAH IS IN THE FESTIVE, DRUNKEN GLUTTONY AND DEBAUCHERY OF THE SEASON OF SAINT PATRICK!

 WHAT’S CONFUSING ABOUT THE SEASON OF SAINT PATRICK IS THAT THIS LITURGICAL SEASON IS GREEN, NORMALLY ASSOCIATED WITH ORDINARY TIME, NOT A FESTIVE SEASON LIKE THAT OF SAINT PATRICK! 


ONE LESS BLOG TO COMPETE WITH MY WILDLY POPULAR BLOG…

 AND GUESS WHAT! IT WAS A FRINGE TRADITIONALIST GROUP THAT BROUGHT IT DOWN! YES, YOU READ THAT CORRECTLY. POPE FRANCIS’ FAVORITE PERIPHERY BROUGHT IT DOWN, A FRINGE TRADITIONALIST CATHOLIC GROUP! O MY! YOU CAN’T MAKE THIS STUFF UP! MAYBE IN THANKSGIVING, POPE FRANCIS WILL CANCEL TC!!!!

BESIDES THE USUAL SUSPECTS, WHO MIGHT DEMOS II BE?????


 I was shocked, I mean shocked,  to learn that Cardinal Pell was Demos I. He nailed the problems that the next conclave would have to take up in discerning who the next pope will be. 

And now we have Demos II, also anonymous. Will we ever learn that Cardinal's identity?

If you ever watched the TV show "To Tell the Truth" maybe we will learn, when three cardinals play Demos II  claiming to be him and at the end the true Demos II stands up!

Of course the usual suspects might be Cardinals Mueller, Burke, Sarah, although I would rule out Sarah right away but I would have also ruled out Cardinal Pell as Demos I.

Might it be Cardinal Dolan? Prior to Demos II making his case, New York had two F***** S******* events with worldwide news coverage, the sacrilege in the Nation's Cathedral, Saint Patrick's, LGBTQ+++ related and the same group renting an Archdiocesan facility for kinky sex instructions. You can't make this stuff up!

And then Demos II issues his document for the next conclave. Is Cardinal Dolan guilty as charged in being the author and how convenient it comes o the heels of the two LGBTQ+++ scandals in his archdiocese.

It might it be the previous Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, the good Spanish Jesuit Cardinal Ladaria.

Once Pope Francis dumped him and selected Cardinal Fernandez to take over, Cardinal Ladaria refused to be a part of the Synod on synodality this past October to which he had been appointed by Pope Francis. I am sure, he is aghast at what has happened to the Church's doctrine in the past 11 years. Maybe he is Demos II?

Or might it be Cardinal Cupich? This would be a stealthy way to get himself elected the next pope by telling the truth to the College of Cardinals about what needs to be done at the next Conclave? But even I acknowledge that Cupich would be a dark horse candidate for Demos II!

Who do you think it is and why?

A TRULY LIBERAL AND MAGNANIMOUS POPE—A ROLE MODEL FOR ALL FUTURE POPE, IN PARTICULAR THE SUCCESSOR OF POPE FRANCIS…

Lest we forget Pope Benedict’s brilliant liturgical reform, a threat to those who are backward looking when it comes to the 1970 Roman Missal:

This letter of Pope Benedict XVI was issued 7 July 2007 together with his Apostolic Letter "Summorum Pontificum" on the celebration of the Roman Rite according to the Missal of 1962. The following is the Vatican's unofficial translation of the official Latin text.

Apostolic Letter Summorum Pontificum issued Motu Proprio

My dear Brother Bishops,

With great trust and hope, I am consigning to you as Pastors the text of a new Apostolic Letter "Motu Proprio data" on the use of the Roman liturgy prior to the reform of 1970. The document is the fruit of much reflection, numerous consultations and prayer.

News reports and judgments made without sufficient information have created no little confusion. There have been very divergent reactions ranging from joyful acceptance to harsh opposition, about a plan whose contents were in reality unknown.

This document was most directly opposed on account of two fears, which I would like to address somewhat more closely in this letter.

In the first place, there is the fear that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions – the liturgical reform – is being called into question. This fear is unfounded. In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy. The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration. It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were "two Rites". Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.

As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted. At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal. Probably it was thought that it would be a matter of a few individual cases which would be resolved, case by case, on the local level. Afterwards, however, it soon became apparent that a good number of people remained strongly attached to this usage of the Roman Rite, which had been familiar to them from childhood. This was especially the case in countries where the liturgical movement had provided many people with a notable liturgical formation and a deep, personal familiarity with the earlier Form of the liturgical celebration. We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level. Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.

Pope John Paul II thus felt obliged to provide, in his Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei (2 July 1988), guidelines for the use of the 1962 Missal; that document, however, did not contain detailed prescriptions but appealed in a general way to the generous response of Bishops towards the "legitimate aspirations" of those members of the faithful who requested this usage of the Roman Rite. At the time, the Pope primarily wanted to assist the Society of Saint Pius X to recover full unity with the Successor of Peter, and sought to heal a wound experienced ever more painfully. Unfortunately this reconciliation has not yet come about. Nonetheless, a number of communities have gratefully made use of the possibilities provided by the Motu Proprio. On the other hand, difficulties remain concerning the use of the 1962 Missal outside of these groups, because of the lack of precise juridical norms, particularly because Bishops, in such cases, frequently feared that the authority of the Council would be called into question. Immediately after the Second Vatican Council it was presumed that requests for the use of the 1962 Missal would be limited to the older generation which had grown up with it, but in the meantime it has clearly been demonstrated that young persons too have discovered this liturgical form, felt its attraction and found in it a form of encounter with the Mystery of the Most Holy Eucharist, particularly suited to them. Thus the need has arisen for a clearer juridical regulation which had not been foreseen at the time of the 1988 Motu Proprio. The present Norms are also meant to free Bishops from constantly having to evaluate anew how they are to respond to various situations.

In the second place, the fear was expressed in discussions about the awaited Motu Proprio, that the possibility of a wider use of the 1962 Missal would lead to disarray or even divisions within parish communities. This fear also strikes me as quite unfounded. The use of the old Missal presupposes a certain degree of liturgical formation and some knowledge of the Latin language; neither of these is found very often. Already from these concrete presuppositions, it is clearly seen that the new Missal will certainly remain the ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, not only on account of the juridical norms, but also because of the actual situation of the communities of the faithful.

It is true that there have been exaggerations and at times social aspects unduly linked to the attitude of the faithful attached to the ancient Latin liturgical tradition. Your charity and pastoral prudence will be an incentive and guide for improving these. For that matter, the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching: new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal. The "Ecclesia Dei" Commission, in contact with various bodies devoted to the usus antiquior, will study the practical possibilities in this regard. The celebration of the Mass according to the Missal of Paul VI will be able to demonstrate, more powerfully than has been the case hitherto, the sacrality which attracts many people to the former usage. The most sure guarantee that the Missal of Paul VI can unite parish communities and be loved by them consists in its being celebrated with great reverence in harmony with the liturgical directives. This will bring out the spiritual richness and the theological depth of this Missal.

I now come to the positive reason which motivated my decision to issue this Motu Proprio updating that of 1988. It is a matter of coming to an interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church. Looking back over the past, to the divisions which in the course of the centuries have rent the Body of Christ, one continually has the impression that, at critical moments when divisions were coming about, not enough was done by the Church’s leaders to maintain or regain reconciliation and unity. One has the impression that omissions on the part of the Church have had their share of blame for the fact that these divisions were able to harden. This glance at the past imposes an obligation on us today: to make every effort to unable for all those who truly desire unity to remain in that unity or to attain it anew. I think of a sentence in the Second Letter to the Corinthians, where Paul writes: "Our mouth is open to you, Corinthians; our heart is wide. You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted in your own affections. In return … widen your hearts also!" (2 Cor 6:11-13). Paul was certainly speaking in another context, but his exhortation can and must touch us too, precisely on this subject. Let us generously open our hearts and make room for everything that the faith itself allows.

There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place. Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness.

In conclusion, dear Brothers, I very much wish to stress that these new norms do not in any way lessen your own authority and responsibility, either for the liturgy or for the pastoral care of your faithful. Each Bishop, in fact, is the moderator of the liturgy in his own Diocese (cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium, 22: "Sacrae Liturgiae moderatio ab Ecclesiae auctoritate unice pendet quae quidem est apud Apostolicam Sedem et, ad normam iuris, apud Episcopum").

Nothing is taken away, then, from the authority of the Bishop, whose role remains that of being watchful that all is done in peace and serenity. Should some problem arise which the parish priest cannot resolve, the local Ordinary will always be able to intervene, in full harmony, however, with all that has been laid down by the new norms of the Motu Proprio.

Furthermore, I invite you, dear Brothers, to send to the Holy See an account of your experiences, three years after this Motu Proprio has taken effect. If truly serious difficulties come to light, ways to remedy them can be sought.

Dear Brothers, with gratitude and trust, I entrust to your hearts as Pastors these pages and the norms of the Motu Proprio. Let us always be mindful of the words of the Apostle Paul addressed to the presbyters of Ephesus: "Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the Church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son" (Acts 20:28).

I entrust these norms to the powerful intercession of Mary, Mother of the Church, and I cordially impart my Apostolic Blessing to you, dear Brothers, to the parish priests of your dioceses, and to all the priests, your co-workers, as well as to all your faithful.

Given at Saint Peter’s, 7 July 2007


What was Pope Benedict’s reaction to Pope Francis sending the 1962 Roman Missal back to a time prior to 1988? Let’s listen to one who knows the truth and exactly that truth:


New curbs on the Traditional Latin Mass “broke Pope Benedict’s heart”, according to his private secretary.

Archbishop Georg Gänswein, the closest confidant of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, revealed that the de facto reversal of his policies to liberate the Old Mass came as a heavy blow to the former pontiff, who died on Saturday at the age of 95.

“It hit him pretty hard,” said the archbishop. “I believe it broke Pope Benedict’s heart to read the new motu proprio because his intention had been to help those who simply found a home in the Old Mass to find inner peace, to find liturgical peace, in order to draw them away from [the schism of Marcel] Lefebvre. 

“And if you think about how many centuries the Old Mass was the source of spiritual life and nourishment for many people, including many saints, it’s impossible to imagine that it no longer has anything to offer.”

He added: “Let’s not forget that many young people who were born long after Vatican II and who don’t really understand all the drama surrounding the Council, that these young people, knowing the New Mass, have nevertheless found a spiritual home, a spiritual treasure, in the Old Mass as well.

“To take this treasure away from people – well, I can’t say I am comfortable with that.”