In the interview with Cardinal Burke that Carol posted on the Vatican thread, Cdl Burke says he has always celebrated both forms of the Mass. It’s a great interview. Hope you get some time to look it over.
Very holy priests offer Mass in the ordinary form, and some of the worst heretics and apostates have offered the TLM. It isn't the Ordinary Form itself that's the problem. It's the abuses practised and permitted, not by the documents of Vatican 11 but by Bishops and priests who used the confusion after Vatican 11 to turn our churches into Methodist style meeting rooms, using the liturgy in a way that puts God in the role of an observer of the priest and congregation celebrating themselves and each other. I think I'll scream out loud the next time I'm at a funeral Mass where the priest announces that we're celebrating the life of the deceased.
To the topic: PachaMama statues thrown into the Tiber river: Due to my pagan past I tell you, these figures were fully charged with evil ritual magic, designed to destroy our sanctified places. Even touching and handeling them is dangerous to your health. The guy who did it is a young fellow Austrian who was touring Rome at the time as a tourist. He is a true hero in my books, and you can watch him and see him on his website, as he publicly admits it and gives every good reason for doing it. Ladies and Gentlemen, meet the hero of Catholic faith.... drumroll Alexander Tschugguel, bonifatius-institut.com Alex appeared on various Catholic youtube channels: Church Militant, Dr. Taylor Marshall, LifeSiteNews, etc. and don't worry, he speaks English
There's no more denying now that it was Annibale Bugnini, whom Bp Schneider affirmed was a Freemason (in that video we discussed), who engineered the Novus Ordo mass, in order to make it acceptable to Protestants. Eucharistic prayer II was hastily drafted on a napkin in a Roman trattoria, etc., etc. What I Didn’t Know about Bugnini and the Liturgy https://onepeterfive.com/bugnini-liturgy/ The liturgical reform was a Masonic plot to undermine the Church from within. Knowing all this, how can we think that the NO mass is perfectly fine? +
Compare our current situation/ crisis with the situation that Abp Lefebvre faced then. We have had several holy cardinals warning everyone that the IL of the Amazon synod is an attack on the Lordship of Jesus Christ, contradicts the binding teaching of the Church in decisive points, represents a radical U-turn in the hermeneutics of Catholic theology, and indeed is apostasy. So if PF goes ahead and makes the IL a binding document, what then should faithful clergy do? Obey? Or resist? So, Abp Lefebvre had grounds to believe that the liturgical changes post-Vatican II were dangerous to our faith, as spelt out in the Ottaviani Intervention, and he acted. With the hindsight that we have now, wasn't he actually right? Acts 5:29 We must obey God, rather than men. +
Read what Padraig posted in Is Francis the Pope. I am not in the least desirous of opening this can of worms argument with you or anyone else on this forum. You must have read where I recommended Archbishop Lefebvre’s final judgment to God alone.
I think that there's a difference between valid and perfectly fine. The Novus Ordo is valid but could do with some improvements. I don't believe that Bugnini was solely responsible for the new Mass. I don't want to give the impression that I know a whole lot about the liturgy because I don't. I have a vague memory of those years. Everything in the garden wasn't rosy around the time of Vatican 11, especially after the Council. That Council would have been dominated by Europeans at a time when the main Protestant denominations hadn't seen the huge decline they have had in the subsequent decades. And back then falling numbers in their pews wouldn't have been a major financial blow to the Protestants especially in Northern Europe where they had the support of very wealthy and influential sections of society, especially European Royalty. Protestantism was the established church in some of the richer countries, enjoying State support. Bugnini didn't act alone. He had plenty of support, not all of it overt, and some modernists were personal friends of Pope Paul V1, not least the American from Notre Dame. There was a mood of reconciliation with the Protestants after Vatican 11, and Mass in the vernacular was sold as a concession towards reconciliation, as was the priest facing the people. Many people of my generation and older welcomed the changes. The vast majority simply accepted decisions made by Bishops or parish priests who told them that the Church (meaning the Pope and the Ecumenical Council) wanted the changes. People who objected were portrayed as old fashioned, stick in the mud, hard line snobs. It's true that traditionalists are the real periphery in the Catholic Church. To this day, they are marginalised and ridiculed. We have a Synod dedicated to inventing a new Mass for pagans yet faithful Catholics have to jump through hoops to get access to the Mass of the Ages, celebrated in the official language of the Church. All credit to the traditionalists for their resilience. It's true that we wouldn't have an FSSP had there not been an SSPX. We can't know, however, how things would have panned out had Archbishop Lefebvre accepted the offer to consecrate one Bishop. I can understand his reasons for disobeying the Holy See, and the more I learn about him the more I admire and respect him but that doesn't mean he was right to defy the Pope. Perhaps it would have been better for all of us had he accepted the one Bishop offer, keeping him inside the Church and bolstering the numbers resisting the modernist influence. Fortunately for all of us, it's the all merciful Saviour who judges us in the end.
I just read that the FSSP was formed in 1988 by a group of priests formerly associated with the SSPX who did not want to be associated with them any longer. They have canonical status with the Church. There were certainly other priests who offered Mass in the Tridentine Form prior to 1988, who were not affiliated with the SSPX. Cdl Burke has said that he celebrated Mass in both forms, and I know of others, who did, also.
Although it was claimed that the TLM was never abrogated, the opposite was found in practice. Pope JPII had to issue an indult in 1984, and we know, of course, that Pope BXVI issued Summorum Pontificum in 2007. There is an article that explains everything well, based on historical documents. https://onepeterfive.com/not-authorized-death-mass/ The following is its summary/conclusion: Conclusion The resurgence of TLMs since Summorum Pontificum highlights more severely the exact degree of what was lost after the Council. Multiple popes have confirmed that the TLM was never abrogated, but that runs counter to the direct words and actions of at least several American bishops in the 1960s and ’70s. This selection of newspaper clippings is by no means comprehensive, but it is illustrative of the confusion among Catholics regarding the “old Mass,” and the increasingly strident anti-TLM positions of some American bishops, uncorrected by Rome. In his memoirs, Bugnini openly admits that he requested that the TLM be officially and explicitly abrogated in word and deed — a request that was denied by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1974 for being “an odious act in the face of liturgical tradition” [2]. However, despite the fact that the TLM was not officially abrogated, the historical record shows us that this is a functionally irrelevant claim. Years before the Novus Ordo was published, some American bishops already condemned and abolished the ability to have the Mass celebrated in Latin and labeled those who wished to do so as dissenters and possible schismatics. +
I don't recall all the details but there was an offer from the Vatican made to Archbishop Lefebvre that someone from the SSPX could be promoted to Bishop. Lefebvre was getting old and was worried that the SSPX would go into decline when he died. The offer was conditional. I'm not sure of the condition but I think it was that he would celebrate one Novus Ordu Mass. It can't have been that he would sign acceptance of Vatican 11 documents because he had done that at the conclusion of the Council. Archbishop Lefebvre declined the offer. I don't have a link but I'm fairly sure that Michael Matt spoke about it in a discussion on one of his videos or it could have been discussed in the video he did with Taylor Marshall. Speaking about Taylor Marshall, he must have read our minds. I've started watching a new video he has uploaded of a discussion about how the Modernists (proponents of what he calls Nouvelle Theologie) more or less hijacked Vatican 11, usurping Cardinal Ottavianni. I'm learning loads from this discussion and I reckon that you will really like it because in many ways it confirms your view of Vatican 11 and the Novus Ordu. I haven't watched all the video yet but from what I've seen so far I highly recommend it. Its relevance to this thread is that the Amazon Synod was inevitable because Nouvelle Theologie contradicts the Doctrine of Original Sin. It's what Teilhard deChardin was pushing with his belief that mankind is evolving spiritually to eventually unite with God and is more or less what Bishop Barron means when he says that we have a reasonable hope that all are saved. Here's the video:
Thanks for the video link. I dread watching long videos, and much prefer to read transcripts if available. I will try to do it in the next few days. +
I couldn't find anything about this 'one bishop offer' when I searched online. But I found a very enlightening interview of Abp Lefebvre where he discusses what happened. I quoted some of it in another post. https://fsspx.org/en/“if-it-my-duty-i-will-consecrate-bishops” +
Some excerpts from that same interview: Your Excellency, your last public statement vehemently condemns the prayer meeting in Assisi.... Don’t you have the impression that this confuses the ecumenism of Pope Wojtyła with the distorted ideology of inter-religious dialogue—which has been so much in vogue in recent years—that denies the historical uniqueness of Christian salvation? Archbishop Lefebvre: I see only one type of ecumenism: the kind promoted by the Council, which emphasizes respect for and collaboration with false religions, on the same footing. This is a new concept, in contradiction with Tradition, which has been imposed in this way. Instead of the “missionary” Church we see the new “ecumenical” Church. The meeting in Assisi consecrates that new Church, and that is unbelievably scandalous. On the other hand, this initiative has a significant precedent: almost a century ago, in 1894, a spectacular Congress of World Religions was held in Chicago, in which some American Catholic bishops took part. If you compare their speeches then with the one that the pope gave to the cardinals last December about the “spirit of Assisi”, we find striking parallels. But a century ago, Pope Leo XIII unconditionally condemned the participation of the United States bishops in that Congress in Chicago. No, it is a scandal, a public blasphemy: think of the Catholic missionaries in African who saw on television representatives of the animist religions praying in Assisi at the pope’s invitation.... In what spirit will they be able to continue their arduous work of evangelization among the populations that follow those pagan rituals? If salvation is possible even without converting to Christ in the Church, and while continuing to adore one’s false gods, what sense is there in having missions now? All religions are therefore equal and good.... If this pope had lived in the times of the Roman persecutions of the early centuries, maybe Christianity would have found a respectable place in the Pantheon of religions. We may suspect that during these conversations you discussed possible solutions for your “case”. Can you speak about them? Archbishop Lefebvre: The Holy See would be willing to “regularize” the existence of our work, the “Society of St. Pius X”, from which the ecclesiastical approval granted on November 1, 1970, was withdrawn in 1975 by a decision that I consider invalid juridically. They said that the pope would be altogether willing to set up the Society as a Personal Prelature. Moreover we would have authorization, already partially provided by the 1984 Indult, to celebrate Mass according to the old rite of St. Pius V. All this, however, on the condition that we sign a declaration fully accepting the decrees and reforms of Vatican II. But that is not possible for us in conscience. On January 29, 1979, you told a Swiss newspaper with satisfaction: “The pope himself told me that it would be enough for me to sign a declaration in which I said that I accepted the Council according to Tradition.” An agreement seemed possible, then, or are we mistaken? Archbishop Lefebvre: Even Cardinal Ratzinger, when he was appointed Prefect of the Holy Office, thought that our case could be resolved in a few months. But you have to be honest. The expression that you quoted can be interpreted in various ways. What does it mean to “accept the Council according to Tradition”? We spoke about this several times, specifically with Cardinal Ratzinger; for him this means that the theses of Vatican II should be integrated into those of Tradition. But integrate is still a vague word. In my opinion it is appropriate to make a distinction. There are some conciliar documents that are obviously in conformity with Tradition, which pose no problem: I am thinking of Lumen Gentium, but also of other documents, such as the one on priestly formation and the seminaries. Then there are some ambiguous texts, which nevertheless can somehow be “interpreted” correctly according to the previous Magisterium. But there are also some texts that are plainly in contradiction with Tradition and which can in no way be “integrated” [with it]: the Declaration on Religious Liberty, the decree on Ecumenism, the one on the Liturgy. Here, agreement becomes impossible.... +
I prefer the vide discussions because I can rest my eyes while listening to them. Reading, especially a computer screen, strains my eyes.
I'll see if I can find that Michael Matt discussion because he definitely said that Archbishop Lefebvre signed off on all the Vatican 11 documents.
There are many parallels with what happened then and what has just happened with the Amazon synod. Idol worship was seen at Assisi. Remembering the Sacrilege of Assisi I, Thirty Years Later OnePeterFiveOctober 27, 2016 95 Comments (Image: Pope John Paul II in attendance with leaders of various world religions at the ecumenical gathering in Assisi on October 27, 1986. Source: CNS/L’Osservatore Romano) Today, on a fateful anniversary — the thirtieth anniversary of the original Assisi meeting, at which 32 Christian and 11 non-Christian groups were present — we would like to share with our readers the scathing account furnished by Henry Sire in his book Phoenix from the Ashes. This except will give a taste of Sire’s book, a must-read for all Catholics who seek to understand what has happened in the past fifty years and why. An excerpt from Henry Sire, Phoenix from the Ashes (Kettering, OH: Angelico Press, 2015), 382–88. With permission of the publisher: Even graver, of course, than practical failure are the heretical principles which infused the ecumenical movement and by which it corrupted the understanding of the faithful. The indifferentism lurking in several of the Vatican Council’s documents was made explicit by the liberal ecumenists. The concept of ecumenism proclaimed by John XXIII in the Encyclical Ad Cathedram Petri (1959), which was that of a return to the unity of the Catholic Church, was replaced by one in which the Roman Church is one of a scattering of churches seeking mutual conciliation. This notion is presented as an established truth by the current Encyclopaedia Britannica. Fr. John L. McKenzie, SJ, a well-known scholar selected to write the article on Roman Catholicism, states that since the Vatican Council, “the Roman Catholic Church has officially abandoned its ‘one true church’ position.”25 In saying this, he is expressing what most Catholics have been led to believe, and especially what the consensus of the Church’s Modernist theologians has been teaching. The idea that the Church has officially adopted a heretical view of its own nature is one of the products of the Second Vatican Council and is the premise on which its ecumenical programme has been founded. Those who rely on a legalistic exculpation of the Church will protest that there is no doctrinal basis for it; but the substance of the matter is not the Church’s innocence in word but its guilt in promoting the heresy in practice. Nevertheless, the worst enormity of the ecumenical movement has not yet been touched on. In this case, exceptionally, the guilt does not belong to the Second Vatican Council, nor to Paul VI. It is found in the perversion introduced into the ecumenical movement by John Paul II, who turned it from a search for Christian unity to a general convergence of world religions. Several times in his reign this false direction led him into shocking associations with paganism. Thus, during his visit to India in February 1982, he allowed a Hindu priestess to impose the mark of Telak on him, and another a few days later to smear sacred ashes on his forehead in a Hindu ritual. In 1995, in Australia, he conducted the beatification Mass of Mary of the Cross McKillop, at which the penitential rite was replaced by a ritual taken from aboriginal fire worship. But these exhibitions were outdone by the pope’s project of summoning leaders of all the world’s religions to join him at Assisi in October 1986 with the object of praying together for world peace. At this meeting, under the pope’s presidency, representatives of many Christian churches, together with an assortment of Hindus, Tibetan lamas, Japanese bonzes, tribal snake worshippers, and animists of all sorts performed their respective rites, some of the less mainstream officiants showing a little embarrassment at having to exhibit their customs outside the privacy of their native groves. For a day, the town of St. Francis was given over to displays of pagan worship. Cardinal Silvio Oddi reported that a group of Buddhists entered the church of San Pietro, set up a statue of Buddha on the tabernacle of the altar and venerated it with prayer scrolls and incense; when a Benedictine priest protested at the sacrilege he was taken away by the police.26 These activities, all conducted at the pope’s behest, provoke the question what meaning John Paul attached to the first Commandment, by order and by importance, “Thou shalt not have strange gods before Me.” read the whole article at: https://onepeterfive.com/remembering-the-sacrilege-of-assisi-i-thirty-years-later/ +
Cardinal Burke told a Catholic conference in Detroit on Oct. 26 that “there is no question that the Church is currently experiencing one of the greatest crises which she has ever known.” “Today perhaps as at no time in the past there is an ever more diffuse phenomenon of general confusion and error regarding doctrine and morals within the Body of Christ,” he said. --------------- If we (rightly) object to the Pachamama idol worship in the Vatican during the Amazon synod, should we not also object to the pagan worship that happened in Assisi? Can we not see why the crisis that we now face had its roots in Vatican II? +
