https://catholicherald.co.uk/magazine/the-strange-birth-of-the-novus-ordo The strange birth of the Novus Ordo Half a century on, the New Mass remains controversial. It's time for a reassessment After several decades of liturgy wars, few are unaware of the turbulent history of the post-conciliar liturgy since the New Order of Mass (Novus Ordo Missae) was promulgated 50 years ago, on April 3, 1969, by Pope Paul VI with his apostolic constitution, Missale Romanum. The Novus Ordo was produced in a mere five dizzying years by a committee of bishops, guided by an assemblage of experts. The process itself was a novelty, starkly contrasting with the gradual and organic growth (over more than 1,500 years) of the liturgy it replaced. The Vatican Council’s constitution on the liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, was promulgated by Paul VI on December 4, 1963. Little time was lost in its implementation. With the motu proprio Sacram Liturgiam, of January 25, 1964, Pope Paul VI erected a committee to revise all the liturgical rites, to be called the Consilium ad exsequendam Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia (Consilium), “the committee for carrying out the constitution on the Sacred Liturgy”. The committee’s first president was Cardinal Giacomo Lercaro of Bologna, and its secretary was the controversial Fr Annibale Bugnini. The Consilium is arguably the most ambitious but ill-starred committee in the Church’s history. Its membership was large and international in spread. Its initial 42 members (later 51) were mostly bishops; assisting them were more than 200 official consultors and unofficial advisers. Despite the use of working groups, plenary sessions of the Consilium were unwieldy and procedurally flawed. The assessment of the Consilium’s first plenary meeting in the diary of Ferdinando Antonelli OFM, a full member (later a cardinal), was not flattering: “Merely an assembly of people, many of them incompetent, and others well advanced on the road to novelty. The discussions are extremely hurried … and voting is chaotic … Of 42 members, yesterday evening we were 13, not even a third of the members.” By the eighth meeting, in April 1967, he found attendance improved, if far from full, though serious procedural problems remained, especially voting by show of hands. “But nobody counts who has raised a hand and who has not … It is disgraceful.” Even at this late stage no minutes were being recorded. The real force in the Consilium was Fr Bugnini. Antonelli observed in 1967 that “Fr Bugnini has only one interest: press ahead and finish.” The French Oratorian Louis Bouyer, a leading light of the pre-conciliar Liturgical Movement and consultor to the Consilium, recalls Bugnini in his Mémoires as a “mealy-mouthed scoundrel … a man as bereft of culture as he was of honesty” whose “manoeuvres” Cardinal Lercaro was “utterly incapable of resisting”. When Bugnini faced opposition which was “not only massive but, one might say, close to unanimous” he would carry the day by declaring that “The Pope wills it!” From Paul VI himself Bouyer would learn that Bugnini pressed the pope to approve the removal of the cursing psalms by asserting a unanimous, but non-existent, recommendation from the Consilium. By means of incremental changes the liturgy was recrafted by the Consilium to the point of reconstruction. The Instruction Inter Œcumenici, dated September 26, 1964, made several changes to the Mass, such as removing the Last Gospel, introducing bidding prayers and a communally recited Paternoster, and allowing use of the vernacular language save for the preface and canon. In November 1964, the Eucharistic fast was reduced to one hour. In March 1965, conditional permission was given for concelebration and Communion under both kinds on a limited basis. A month later the preface was permitted to be said in the vernacular. In April 1967, an instruction on sacred music allowed for the use of new music and instruments other than the organ at Mass. The next month, the Instruction Tres abhinc annos mandated the removal of most of the celebrant’s sacred gestures at the altar, and allowed for the canon itself to be said in the vernacular and, consequently, aloud. Meanwhile, out of the public eye, the Consilium had devised, in parallel to the public reforms, a new form of Mass by May 1966. At the October 1967 synod of bishops in Rome this new form, dubbed the Missa Normativa, debuted before the synod fathers, celebrated by Fr Bugnini. It revealed simplified rubrics, a longer liturgy of the Word and a substantially new offertory, and the ancient Roman canon was replaced by what is today’s Third Eucharistic Prayer. The bishops’ reaction was hardly enthusiastic. Only 71 synod fathers gave unqualified approval, while 62 wanted changes, 43 rejected it outright and four abstained. Cardinal John Heenan of Westminster was politely scathing, telling the synod that few of the consultors could ever have been parish priests, and that the Missa Normativa would reduce parish congregations to “mostly women and children”. Antonelli’s judgment was pithy: “The synod of bishops was not a success for the Consilium.” Bugnini and the Consilium pressed on undeterred, though Cardinal Lercaro was moved into retirement. Three closed-door celebrations of the new form, with some tweaks, were made in the presence of Paul VI. By May 1968 three new Eucharistic prayers had been approved. After more tweaks and deliberations Paul VI gave his written approval to the Novus Ordo on November 6, 1968. The apostolic constitution Missale Romanum, which delivered the Novus Ordo to the Church, was signed off on April 3, 1969, and the Novus Ordo published on May 2 to prepare for implementation throughout the Church on November 30. The Novus Ordo was prefaced by a general instruction, the inadequacies of which prompted a group of theologians already worried by the Novus Ordo to compose a “Short Critical Study of the New Order of Mass”. Before it could be sent to Paul VI, it was leaked to the press. It opened with a covering letter signed by two once-powerful cardinals, Ottaviani and Bacci, and has become known since, inaccurately, as the Ottaviani Intervention. It was a searching critique of the theological implications of the Novus Ordo, which its authors held to be detrimental to faith and a significant departure from the established understanding of the Mass. At the heart of their concerns was the definition of the Mass in the general instruction, which described it as a supper but not a sacrifice. Their critique led to a corrected general instruction being published in the 1970 edition of the missal; otherwise, the reform horse had bolted. In England the Novus Ordo, particularly the consequent suppression of the hitherto traditional rite of Mass, provoked alarm within and without the Church. A group of more than 50 eminent writers, thinkers and artists, including two Anglican bishops, made an appeal to the pope in 1971. It pleaded for the survival of the traditional rite of the Mass, which “belongs to universal culture” as well as to the Church. It has been named in honour of the signatory whose name apparently most struck Paul VI: Agatha Christie. The resulting papal indult permitting limited use of the traditional rite of Mass, in England and Wales only, has been known ever since as the Agatha Christie indult. Yet many regarded it as a positive change. Perhaps most were neither alarmed nor overjoyed but acquiesced to the changes out of habitual obedience to the Church. However, with the Novus Ordo now 50 years old, it seems timely to reassess the reform, not from a progressive or conservative viewpoint, but by the measure of the Vatican Council itself. In a 2016 conference paper, Professor Stephen Bullivant contended that the liturgical reforms mandated by the Council, with their emphasis on active participation, were “manifestly motivated, and justified, by neo-evangelistic thinking and concerns”, though “new evangelisation” was yet to be coined. Despite its ancient Christian heritage, Europe was justly seen to be in as much need of evangelisation as the non-Christian cultures of Africa and Asia. Thus the Council’s provision for “more radical adaptation of the liturgy” in “mission territories” informed liturgical reform in traditionally Christian cultures now self-identifying as mission territories, vernacular language and music being a case in point. The Council’s stated aim in reforming the liturgy was “to impart an ever increasing vigour to the Christian life of the faithful”, while seeking “to strengthen whatever can help to call the whole of mankind into the household of the Church”. One can assert the reform’s success in the latter aim when looking today at the classic mission territories of Africa and Asia. Success in the former aim, when looking at the established Christian cultures of Europe and the Americas, is harder to claim. A Mass reformed specifically to address the modern situation – or rather that of the 1960s – has been met with a drastic and largely consistent decline in Mass attendance. Bullivant identifies the Council’s own measure of judgment for liturgical reforms: that they be “pastorally efficacious to the fullest degree”. Authentic pastoral efficacy is hard to concede given the decline in attendance at the reformed liturgy, and the resurgence of the traditional liturgy, especially among the young. In light of this, Bullivant argues that the logic of the Council’s decrees demands that the reformed liturgy be revisited. Dare we do so? Dare we not do so? Fr Hugh Somerville Knapman OSB is the author of Ecumenism of Blood: Heavenly Hope for Earthly Communion (2018)
I looked up Professor Stephen Bullivant and learned to my amazement that he is a young family man. I like him! Good article.
I wouldn't hold out much hope that re-visiting the liturgy would result in any improvements. Remember that, after Cardinal Sarah recommending that Mass be offered ad-orientem, Pope Francis removed from his dicastry any members like to support the Cardinal and replaced them with modernist types. Among the replacements were Archbishop Marini who was secretary to Cardinal Burgnini, and Cardinal Ravasi who has called for the Church to dialogue with Freemasons to see where we can work together where we have shared interests. Both Marini and Ravasi are "we won't call it marriage" proponents. Coincidentally, I had read a couple of days ago this piece about Cardinal Bugnini: http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/bugnini.html I don't know anything about the author but he does cite some references for his claims. He begins with a quote by Bugnini which sums up what the changes were intended for: “We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren that is for the Prostestants.” - Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, main author of the New Mass, L'Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1965 Considering rumours that an inter-denominational Mass is in the plans, it's not looking good for any improvements in the Novus Ordo.
Some here may remember "Firing Line" this show with Michael Davies, Fr. Malachi Martin and Fr. Joseph Champlin discuss this topic on the liturgy. Notice Fr. Champlin's tolerance of Hans Kung. http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2017/09/a-discussion-on-liturgical-reform-in.html#.XKvM6XdFw2w https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=201&v=ERPQaQ1Gn5U
It is interesting to see Fr. Chaplain again! He was pastor of St. Joseph's in Camillus, NY, in the last years of his life when he struggled with cancer. In fact, my wife and I used a booklet he published to assist engaged couples in preparing for their wedding. I am disappointed that William Buckley cut off the conversation after Michael Davies brought up the disobedience of US bishops in regard to Holy Communion in the hand. I think Fr. Chaplain would have had to jump through many hoops in an attempt to justify such rebellion. Eternal rest grant to him, O Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon him!
Sunday, May 5, 2019 THE TRUE ORIGIN OF THE NEW MASS By David Martin http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com While Pope Paul VI today is seen as the father of the New Mass of Vatican II, it’s important to note that the outline for the New Mass was in the works before Paul VI was even pope, i.e. since 1960. The infamous new draft was principally the work of Msgr. Annibale Bugnini who had long been suspected of Freemasonry, and unfortunately his draft was approved by the Preparatory Commission on the Liturgy early in 1962. (Fr. Ralph Wiltgen, the Rhine Flows into the Tiber) The outline, known also as the “Bugnini Draft,” would dominate the discussions in the opening session of Vatican II, after which it would formally be adopted as the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy on December 7, 1962. The Constitution (later called Sacrosanctum Concilium) would serve as the blueprint for the New Mass to be implemented later, which would be dubbed the Mass of Pope Paul VI. Hence the blueprint for the “Mass of Pope Paul VI” was finalized and adopted six months before Paul VI was even elected! (Michael Davies, How the Liturgy Fell Apart: The Enigma of Archbishop Bugnini) Pope Paul Never Abrogated the Old Mass It should also be pointed out that while Paul VI is often accused of imposing the New Mass, he never forbade the Old Mass. In 1986, a panel of nine Vatican cardinals concluded that Pope Paul VI never abrogated the Mass of Pius V, nor did he mandate the New Mass, nor did he grant bishops the right to forbid or restrict priests from saying the Tridentine Latin Mass. Pope John Paul II had commissioned the cardinals to look into the legal status of the Old Mass, as it was his intention to bring its legality to light. If Pope Paul had truly mandated the New Mass, he would have specified this, but this was never done. Nowhere in the 1969 Missale Romanum does it mandate that the New Mass must be said. The document merely mandates the publication of the new missal, ordering that “the prescriptions of this Constitution go into effect [are validated] November 30th of this year” and that it “be firm and effective now and in the future.” But there is no mention of its use. The decree then validates and makes available the new missal for those who want it, i.e. it is an indult. A Traditionalist priest of the Society of St. Pius X, Father Francois Laisney, points out that “Pope Paul VI did not oblige the use of his [new] Mass, but only permitted it.... There is no clear order, command, or precept imposing it on any priest.” According to Fr. Laisney, the same applies to subsequent decrees on the New Mass, including the 1971 Notification from the Congregation of Divine Worship, of which he says: “One cannot find in this text any clear prohibition for any priest to use the traditional Mass nor an obligation to celebrate only the New Mass.” Be that as it may, Pope Paul did sign for the New Mass in 1969, which was a mistake on his part. He unfortunately gave in under duress and yielded to the wishes of those who had 1 proposed and designed the Novus Ordo, namely, Msgr. Bugnini and his Protestant clique. The pope on occasion had been briefed about Bugnini’s affiliation with the Freemasons, but he didn’t give it much credence. Unfortunately, Bugnini had managed to dupe the Holy Father, as he [the pope] would later admit to his liturgist Fr. Louis Bouyer in 1974. Conspiracy Unveiled In July 1975, Pope Paul was forced against his will to learn of Bugnini’s affiliation with the Freemasons. Bugnini had attended a meeting with the Secretariat of State where he accidentally forgot his briefcase. A dossier obtained from Bugnini’s briefcase was personally brought to the Holy Father by a reputable high cardinal who had obtained it from a priest who had opened the briefcase to see who it belonged to. The dossier contained private instructions from the Italian Masonic Grand Master to Bugnini, which convinced the pope beyond any doubt that he was a Freemason. The following is part of what Pope Paul VI read in the dossier and is dated June 14, 1964. Dear Buan [Masonic code-name of Bugnini]: We communicate the task appointed to you by the Council of Brothers, in accordance with the Grand Master and the Assistant Princes to the Throne. We oblige you to spread de-Christianization by confusing rites and languages and to set priests, bishops and cardinals against each other. Linguistic and ritualistic babel means victory for us, since linguistic and ritual unity has been the strength of the Church…. Everything must happen within a decade.” Note the satanic strategy proposed for defeating Christians: To divide is to conquer. The following now is a letter from Bugnini to the Grand Master of the P2 Lodge updating him on the progress of his mission. This is dated July 2, 1967. Peerless Grand Master: The de-sacralization is rapidly taking place. Another Instruction has been issued, which took effect on June 29. We can already sing victory, because the vernacular is now sovereign in the whole liturgy, even in the essential parts…. The greatest liberty was given to choose between the various formulas, to individual creativity, and to chaos! ... In short, with this document I believe to have spread the principle of maximum licentiousness, in accordance with your wishes. I fought hard against my enemies from the Congregation for the Rites, and I had to use all my astuteness so that the Pope would approve it. By luck, we found the support of friends and brothers in Universa Laus [International Association for the Study of Liturgical Music], who are faithful. I thank you for the funds sent and am waiting to see you soon. I embrace you, Your Brother Buan This correspondence is taken from Andrea Tornielli’s Dossier: Freemasonry and the application of the Liturgical Reform, which appeared in the June 1992 issue of 30 Days magazine. In commenting on the two missives, the author admits that “the outcome of Bugnini's reforms fully matches the intention expressed in them.” The letters coincide with Tito Casini’s book of April 1976, “In the Smoke of Satan-Towards the Final Clash,” in which the author states: “The reform has been conducted by this Bugnini who has been unmasked at last; he is indeed what we long suspected: a Freemason.” Casini was reporting on the ‘dossier’ incident of July 1975 which caused Bugnini to be expelled from the Vatican. Traditionalist Catholic writer Michael Davies investigated the allegations against Bugnini and made contact with the priest who had discovered the dossier in Bugnini’s briefcase and who had “this information placed in the hands of Pope Paul VI by a cardinal.” The matter is discussed in his book, How the Liturgy Fell Apart: The Enigma of Archbishop Bugnini, wherein he shows how the pope at this point was convinced of Bugnini’s affiliation with the Masonic lodge. The story about the briefcase also appeared in Piers Compton’s 1981 book The Broken Cross. Therein he states that Bugnini’s Masonic membership was recorded in “The Italian Register” on April 23, 1963, “and that his code-name was Buan.” Moreover, the June 1976 issue of the Italian publication SI, SI, No, No, and four months later, the October edition of the French journal La Contre-reforme catholique, among others, carried the news about the Bugnini dossier. As a result of Pope Paul’s shocking discovery, Bugnini was suddenly dismissed as the head of the Congregation of Divine Worship, whereupon the Congregation itself was dissolved and merged with a new Congregation for the Sacraments, which Bugnini wasn’t even permitted to join. This occurred in July 1975. Thereupon, a plan was in motion to send him into a sort of exile by making him ‘papal nuncio’ of Iran, which was announced in the press shortly thereafter. Shortly after Bugnini’s expulsion, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre declared in his Letter to Friends and Benefactors: "Now, when we hear in Rome that he who was the heart and soul of the liturgical reform is a Freemason, we may think that he is not the only one. The veil covering the greatest deceit ever to have mystified the clergy and baffled the faithful, is doubtless beginning to be torn asunder." The Freemasons of course are a satanic secret society committed solely to destroying the Roman Catholic Church. Their practice of witchcraft, murder and devil worship is no secret, for which reason the Church has always forbidden association with them. Those who join them are accursed. 1. This does not invalidate the New Mass, since the essentials for a valid Mass remain present in the new rite. If the priest is duly ordained and he pronounces the words of consecration, “This is My Body-This is My Blood, the Sacrifice of Calvary is reenacted as in the old Rite. The difference between the old and new liturgy is that the former renders honor to Christ’s Sacrifice while the latter detracts from it, but Christ is present in both.
In a recent video, Taylor Marshall stated that while still a cardinal, Pope Paul VI met with Saul Alinsky THREE times, and spoke of him approvingly. He goes into details and documentation in his upcoming book, Infiltration: The Plot to Destroy the Catholic Church from Within. The more I learn of the post VII Church, the more I believe we've been had.
https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/in...es-for-radicals-when-paul-vi-met-saul-alinsky Saul Alinsky and "Saint" Pope Paul VI: Genesis of the Conciliar Surrender to the World Featured Christopher A. Ferrara[/URL] The Revolutionary Fellowship of Pope Montini, Jacques Maritain and Saul Alinsky This article, adapted from a presentation given at the 2018 symposium of the Roman Forum at Lake Garda, examines the origin of the current unparalleled crisis in the Church at its origin: the neo-Modernist uprising during the Interwar Period, culminating in that catastrophe known as the “opening to the world” at Vatican II. The conciliar “opening to the world” was assisted mightily by two deluded “conservative” visionaries whose roles were absolutely decisive: Jacques Maritain and his disciple Pope Montini, whose relationship and mutual connection to none other than Saul Alinksy are the focus of this piece.
https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/in...2971-the-fruits-of-radical-catholic-modernism The Fruits of Radical Catholic Modernism? When Saul Met Paul Was it Cromwell that said, “It is time to investigate history and learn what is really at stake at this moment in time.” That being said, it is time to investigate relevant secular history and learn what is really at stake at this moment in time. You have to wonder what impact Saul David Alinsky had on Pope Paul VI, on the Second Vatican Council, and on contemporary modernist Catholicism – especially in the United States of America. Pope Paul VI, before being elected pope, spent two weeks consulting with Saul David Alinsky “on the Church’s relationship to local Communist unions.” Saul Alinsky was already a famous published author when they met: “In 1944, the University of Chicago Press signed Alinsky to write a book promoting his vision of a new American radicalism. Six months before its publication, Agnes Meyer, who co-owned the Washington Post with her husband Eugene, lionized Alinsky and his movement in a six-part series titled “The Orderly Revolution.” President Truman ordered 100 reprints of Meyer’s series. By the time Alinsky’s manifesto, Reveille for Radicals, hit the bookstores in January 1946, he was already famous. Reveille became a national bestseller, and Mrs. Meyer began funding Alinsky’s Industrial Areas Foundation.” [Horowitz and Poe, The Shadow Party, pages 58-59.] Alinsky later published Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals in 1971 – during the reign of Pope Paul VI. How do we know that Pope Paul VI consulted with Saul Alinsky? In The Rite of Sodomy Randy Engel wrote that Saul Alinsky met Pope Paul VI while Pope Paul VI was still Archbishop of Milan: “It was said of the new Archbishop of Milan that he didn’t hear church bells, he heard factory whistles. “It is not surprising therefore that on one of his visits to the Archbishop’s residence, Jacques Maritain, the once great Thomastic philosopher, brought with him, Saul David Alinsky, the “Apostle of the Permanent Revolution.” Montini [then Archbishop of Milan, later Pope Paul VI] was so impressed with the man who Maritain called his “warm personal friend” and “one of the really great men of this century,” that the archbishop invited Alinsky to be his guest for a fortnight in order to consult with him on the Church’s relationship to local Communist unions.” [The Right of Sodomy, page 1143] Alinsky’s meeting with Pope Paul VI is essentially corroborated by Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton. In Hillary D. Rodham’s (Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton) 1969 senior thesis at Wellesley College Clinton wrote: “Alinsky often worked through the Catholic Church, and at the urging of his friend Jacques Maritain even consulted with the Vatican about development problems in southern Italy.” [digital page 28 of 92] Footnote number 27 [digital page 28 of 92] attributes Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton source to: “Alinsky interview, Boston” [digital page 45 of 92] In the Personal Interviews section of her Primary Sources, Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton wrote: “Alinsky, Saul D.: Mr. Alinsky and I met twice during October in Boston and during January at Wellesley. Both times he was generous with ideas and interest. His offer of a place in the new Institute was tempting but after spending a year trying to make sense out of his inconsistency, I need three years of legal rigor.” [digital page 45 of 92] This is the same Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton whose 2016 presidential campaign tactics and rules of ethics arguably mirrored Saul David Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals." Moving on… Arguably, Saul Alinsky met Pope Paul VI between 05 January 1955 and June 1963 while Pope Paul VI was still Archbishop of Milan. They met several years after Alinsky’s 1946 publication of Reveille for Radicals and before Alinsky’s 1971 publication of Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals. What else do we know about Pope Paul VI?The Second Vatican Council was first announced by Pope John XXIII on January 25, 1959, and opened on October 11, 1962 – while Pope Paul VI was still Archbishop of Milan. On 29 September 1963, five days after his election, Pope Paul VI reconvened the Second Vatican Council for the next three sessions; the Second Vatican Council ended December 8, 1965. [Hardon, Modern Catholic Dictionary, definition of Second Vatican Council, page 495] On July 17, 1967, during the papacy of Pope Paul VI, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith replaced Pope Saint Pius X’s 1910 Sacrorum antistitum, Oath against Modernism, with a much less rigorous Profession of Faith. Arguably, the replacement of the 1910 Sacrorum antistitum Oath against Modernism reopened the modernist floodgate – and the litany of changes attributed to the Second Vatican Council. As a result, July 17, 1967, is a date that will live in modernist infamy. Read the rest at the link
I checked and Pope Paul VI’s papacy began June 21, 1963. That is an error in the above article saying it was in September. I remember because I made my Profession of Faith and First Holy Communion during the interregnum between Popes. I don’t think the error detracts from the meaning. Great articles.
Very interesting. Bugnini was an apostate Freemason, and also a perfidious liar who would deceive the Pope saying, the Consilium wants it, and deceive the Consilium saying, the Pope wants it. The OP article, "When Bugnini faced opposition which was “not only massive but, one might say, close to unanimous” he would carry the day by declaring that “The Pope wills it!” From Paul VI himself Bouyer would learn that Bugnini pressed the pope to approve the removal of the cursing psalms by asserting a unanimous, but non-existent, recommendation from the Consilium." This is just treacherous dishonesty from this Freemasonic infiltrator into our Church. We must desperately pray for a wider release of the Traditional Latin Mass, for it is only this which can minimize or mitigate the coming chastisement to the utmost, and release all the plenitude of graces necessary for our sanctification and the salvation, and the world's conversion. The good news is the TLM's Good Fruits are increasingly evident to many, and more and more Priests are beginning to offer it for God's Greater Glory, and the sanctification and salvation of the flock. "Really, when I began to say the TLM I thought it was just for the good of my priestly spirituality. I never thought the TLM would catch on again in any wider scope; ever. This past year, I have been doing a National Study on the TLM only parishes in the USA. Currently, there are around 70 of these but they are exploding in numbers with each passing year because the TLM priestly vocations are outpacing Novus Ordo priestly vocations by more than 7 to 1. My preliminary numbers are exceeding my initial expectations. There is a huge wave transforming the Catholic landscape and it is largely being ignored by the Catholic leadership. I can now say what I suspected last year. The Novus Ordo is dying and it will be replaced by the Vetus Ordo sooner than anyone had foreseen, but certainly by 2050 the TLM will be the dominant liturgical practice once again." From Fr. Donald Kloster at Liturgy Guy: https://liturgyguy.com/2018/10/08/vocations-foundations/ One can safely say, in light of that, that the TLM produces at least around 10 times more grace than the NOM, if not more. Vocations would be one concrete result. Fewer souls being delivered from purgatory, or having to wait longer for deliverance, would be one tragic effect that is invisible to us. We must pray that more Priests make the courageous decision to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in its perfect integrity, as offered before infiltration and the machinations of Bugnini, in the TLM. We should carefully review some old warnings from heaven in exorcisms etc, which we have thought to be mistaken in the 70s: "In the beginning, he made some mistakes, which he realised a long time ago, and now his hands and feet are tied,[32] even his tongue. He cries out to Heaven that he would like to restore the old liturgy, the Tridentine Mass:[33] he would like...but his hands and feet are tied. He can do nothing." https://www.tldm.org/news4/warningsfrombeyond.1of3.htm I also believe, as the article from Eponymous Flower says, that the New Mass was somehow forced on the Church against the Pope's will. Nevertheless, it is valid. But validity is not the only thing we look for in the Mass. What matters is Holy Mass must give perfect glory to God, and also obtain complete sanctification for us. That beside the fact that the Holy Mass is the foundation of our religion and the Principal Source of Grace for the Church, since it is the very Sacrifice of Calvary. Even the slightest alteration of it can have catastrophic consequences for faith, morality, vocations, conversions, baptisms, liberation of souls from Purgatory etc. Finally, there is this: "A new survey of Catholics who attend the Traditional Latin Mass / Extraordinary Form found that a staggering majority reject contraception, abortion, and gay “marriage,” while having large families, attending Mass weekly, and giving money generously to the Church. The survey (read full survey below) highlighted data that showed that the opposite is largely true of Catholics who attend the Novus Ordo Mass ... The survey found that 2% of participants approve of contraception, compared to 89% of Catholics who attend the Novus Ordo Mass (NOM) who approve. Even less (1%) approved of abortion, compared to 51% of NOM Catholics. The survey found that 99% attended weekly mass compared to 22% of NOM Catholics. Only 2% approved of homosexual “marriage” compared to 67% of NOM Catholics. The average traditional Catholic family had more children when compared to NOM families.".https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/...es-reject-contraception-abortion-gay-marriage The Catholic Church has not taught to accept contraception. So what can explain this staggering difference, and the unwillingness of many to believe doctrines of the Faith? Only the lack and loss of very many essential graces, imho. Lord have Mercy.
Yes, Lord have mercy. Even after all the scandalous things we now read about the times of Pope Paul VI, I have to reiterate that by some great grace from God he issued Humanae Vitae. A great grace!
I always felt that was a clear sign of the Holy Spirit's guarantee of papal infallibility in faith and morals. He didn't want to do it. He wanted to say okay to contraception but in the end he couldnt. In the end he issued a truly prophetic document and entered into ten years of persecution and purification I think. Thank God for the Holy Spirit.
After I read that document I could not help but think that I had been very wrong about him up to that point. I don't think if he wanted to see the sweeping changes of the sexual revolution that he could have authored such a document it was so crystal clear about the teaching of the Church in that regard. Personally, I think that the popes have been very very close to the tares in the field of God and some of them have historically been painted in a horrible light as a result.
Something else related to this; https://connecticutcatholiccorner.b...atholics-dialoguing-people-into-hell.html?m=1 This is something I have noticed, too. An excessive, ultimately un-helpful emphasis on "dialogue" for the past several decades. So, dialogue sounds great, and sounds like a good idea, and in a few tiny cases may help folks convert. But the vast majority of the time, what do folks come away with? "I'm ok, you're ok, we're all sort of doing the same thing, so no reason to join the Church or even become Christian ".
Dialogue is one of those leftist waffle words. Diametrically opposed to let your yes be yes and your no be no.
