Rorate Caeli

Important - The Pope explains the Council
"The Virtual Council was stronger: its results are calamitous"
The Council of the Fathers was replaced by the "Council of the Media"

Giuseppe Alberigo, founder of the "Bologna School"
and founding figure of the "Council of the Media" and of
the hermeneutic of rupture, in a television appearance
In his address to the Roman clergy today, Pope Benedict XVI spoke of his experience of the Council. The official translation has not been made available, but Vatican Radio offers a commented translation, of which the most important part is undoubtedly its conclusion, in which the Pope compares the Council of the Fathers, and what actually reached the regular Catholic faithful, the "Council of the Media".

The same mainstream media that is this very day trying to influence the choice of the next Pontiff by hyping the names of their favorites, those candidates who represent the Church of the Media, the Church of Politics, the hypocritical "Church of the Poor", the "Church of New Ideas", those who have spent the past 50 years, in academia (such as the Alberigo "School of Bologna" and its hermeneutic of politics and rupture), and in news organizations, and as careerist clergymen, distorting, polluting, and destroying everything that was sacred while smiling.

The malignant Alberigo-Melloni "School of Bologna" Church and its disciples, the hermeneutic of rupture Church, the Calamitous Church, the Church of the Media must end and disappear so the real Church may reappear: an entire roadmap for the future conclave.

______________________________


[T]here was the Council of the Fathers – the true Council – but there was also the Council of the media. It was almost a Council in and of itself, and the world perceived the Council through them, through the media. So the Council that immediately, effectively, got thorough to the people was that of the media, not that of the Fathers. And meanwhile, the Council of the Fathers evolved within the faith, it was a Council of the faith that sought the intellect, that sought to understand and try to understand the signs of God at that moment, that tried to meet the challenge of God in this time to find the words for today and tomorrow. So while the whole council – as I said – moved within the faith, as fides quaerens intellectum, the Council of journalists did not, naturally, take place within the world of faith but within the categories of the media of today, that is outside of the faith, with different hermeneutics. It was a hermeneutic of politics. 

The media saw the Council as a political struggle, a struggle for power between different currents within the Church. It was obvious that the media would take the side of whatever faction best suited their world. There were those who sought a decentralization of the Church, power for the bishops and then, through the Word for the “people of God”, the power of the people, the laity. There was this triple issue: the power of the Pope, then transferred to the power of the bishops and then the power of all … popular sovereignty. Naturally they saw this as the part to be approved, to promulgate, to help. 

This was the case for the liturgy: there was no interest in the liturgy as an act of faith, but as a something to be made understandable, similar to a community activity, something profane. And we know that there was a trend, which was also historically based, that said: “Sacredness is a pagan thing, possibly even from the Old Testament. In the New Testament the only important thing is that Christ died outside: that is, outside the gates, that is, in the secular world”. Sacredness ended up as profanity even in worship: worship is not worship but an act that brings people together, communal participation and thus participation as activity. And these translations, trivializing the idea of ​​the Council, were virulent in the practice of implementing the liturgical reform, born in a vision of the Council outside of its own key vision of faith. And it was so, also in the matter of Scripture: Scripture is a book, historical, to treat historically and nothing else, and so on.

And we know that this Council of the media was accessible to all. So, dominant, more efficient, this Council created many calamities, so many problems, so much misery, in reality: seminaries closed, convents closed, the liturgy was trivialized … and the true Council has struggled to materialize, to be realized: the virtual Council was stronger than the real Council. But the real strength of the Council was present and slowly it has emerged and is becoming the real power which is also true reform, true renewal of the Church. 

It seems to me that 50 years after the Council, we see how this Virtual Council is breaking down, getting lost and the true Council is emerging with all its spiritual strength. And it is our task, in this Year of Faith, starting from this Year of Faith, to work so that the true Council with the power of the Holy Spirit is realized and Church is really renewed. We hope that the Lord will help us. 

I, retired in prayer, will always be with you, and together we will move ahead with the Lord in certainty. The Lord is victorious! Thank you.
Benedict XVI
Meeting with Roman Clergy
February 14, 2013

86 comments:

JB said...



Oh boy I take some solace in these remarks, but the participants of the Council who are still with us will simply never accept that the ambiguities in the documents themselves are a huge source of the problems that followed, not just the media's interpretation of everything. It's as if they all suspect it but are scared to admit the full truth.

Benedict Carter said...

And, dear Holy Father, you've left it until NOW to say this???

If you have known this all these years, WHY HAVEN'T YOU DONE SOMETHING ABOUT IT?

Miles Dei said...

Do you know about the "Church of publicity"? It was an hypothesis of Fr. Julio Meinville about the distorsion of the Mass Media on the Magisterium.

Carlton said...

The hermeneutics of politics about which the Holy Father came from within the Council as is well documented by Father Wiltgen in "The Rhine Flows into the Tiber."

There was no better master of the media than Pope John Paul II. He had every opportunity over the course of 27 years to bring forth the "true" Council. The Church lives today with the effects of the Council which was present within its precincts from its beginning -- and which was conceived and fomented by the Popes who had been Council Fathers or periti with the plentiful assistance of their appointed Curia and hierarchy.

Any other view is a rewriting of the historical record.

Whats Up! said...

So were the Councils actual documents part of the "Virtual Council"?
In other words, False?

I have read entirely several different, I hope accurate translations of the Council documents, in their entirety, and large portions of some of them are definitely not in continuity with past and perrenial Church Teaching.

I am not questioning the Magisteriums authority, but is it part of the Churches teaching that Church teaching on dogmatic issuances, can change?

Because according to the documents themselves, in part, they have.

TDC said...

I deeply love the Holy Father and am praying for him all the more. That being said, there wouldn't have been competing interpretations and hijacking by the media if the texts were clear and followed in the line counciliar decrees past.

I am not Spartacus said...

Good Lord, Our Sweet Jesus on Earth. It was not the media which foisted a protestantised Lil' Licit Liturgy upon us.

It was the work of Pope Paul VI who, as Father Cekada has proven, had his hands all over this risible rite which supplanted the Roman Rite.

Lord have mercy on me but if this is what he truly believes I can scarcely believe my eyes.

The problems within Holy Mother Church can not be sloughed-off on the world which has always been our enemy; the problem is with the modernists who tried to make peace with the world; the problem is with the Vatican Two revolutionaries who, now that it is being admitted by more and more of the laity that it was a bleak failure, are trying to escape the blame they justly deserve.

Such questionable tactics are unworthy of the Catholic Church. The world has always hated it, it still does, and it will hate it until the end of time.

What the Catholic Church must do is to restore Tradition to make us worthy of the hatred of the world.

Sacerdos novi ordinis said...

Hello? Is that Pope Benedict speaking, or Bishop Fellay?! For Heaven's sake, SSPX, come back on board while you still have the chance.

Miles Dei said...

The problem is so simple:


"If you have known this all these years, WHY HAVEN'T YOU DONE SOMETHING ABOUT IT?"


And so complex than the virtuality could have a base on the same virtual power of the text. ¿Why did you not answer Gherardini and others, Holy Father, by example?

Don M said...

This speech of the Holy Father is a bombshell!
There are just so many things here.
Benedict Carter asks why now? Why is the Holy father laying all this at our feet, as he heads for the door? (and not just this speech Either)Indeed what is this? Regrets,a confession? The pain must be very heavy for our Holy Father, as Truly he Loves the Holy Catholic Church. Sadly there is no getting away from the Fact that the Church operates from the top down. This council of the media(so- called) has been forced on the Faithful for 40 plus years from the Top down.(and still is)
Jesus Mercy
My family and I pray for the Holy Father, and the Seat of Peter.

Jon Haines said...

This is HUGE. I'm so excited that he actually addressed the elephant in the room and in many ways it's better that he is abdicating because politically, it leaves his successor little choice to pick up where he left off...

I blogged more of my thoughts here: http://goo.gl/va75U , but essentially I think he's started building something to be finished within the year (the year of faith) that its really hard to change to purpose of. I mean the next pope could do it, but it would look really disrespectful....

JB said...



Perhaps it is time for everyone involved at the Council to offer a posthumous apology to Cardinal Ottaviani, who accurately predicted all the chaos that followed:

On October 30, the day after his seventy-second birthday, Cardinal Ottaviani addressed the council to protest against the drastic changes which were being suggested in the Mass. "Are we seeking to stir up wonder, or perhaps scandal, among the Christian people, by introducing changes in so venerable a rite, that has been approved for so many centuries and is now so familiar? The rite of Holy Mass should not be treated as if it were a piece of cloth to be refashioned according to the whim of each generation." Speaking without a text, because of his partial blindness, he exceeded the ten-minute time limit which all had been requested to observe. Cardinal Tisserant, Dean of the Council Presidents, showed his watch to Cardinal Alfrink, who was presiding that morning. When Cardinal Ottaviani reached fifteen minutes, Cardinal Alfrink rang the warning bell. But the speaker was so engrossed in his topic that he did not notice the bell, or purposely ignored it. At a signal from Cardinal Alfrink, a technician switched off the microphone. After confirming the fact by tapping the instrument, Cardinal Ottaviani stumbled back to his seat in humiliation. The most powerful cardinal in the Roman Curia had been silenced, and the Council Fathers clapped with glee.19

Scott said...

Sounds like someone just read "Open Letter to Confused Catholics"!

Jim B. from STL said...

We should remember this Lent that if we are unhappy with the Holy Father (whether past, current, or future), with our Bishops, or with our priests, that their short-falls are punishment for our sins. We need to repent if we want good shephards. Reflect on this quote from St. John Eudes:

"THE MOST EVIDENT MARK of God's anger and the most terrible castigation He can inflict upon the world are manifested when He permits His people to fall into the hands of clerics who are priests more in name than in deed, priests who practice the cruelty of ravening wolves rather than the charity and affection of devoted shepherds. Instead of nourishing those committed to their care, they rend and devour them brutally. Instead of leading their people to God, they drag Christian souls into hell in their train. Instead of being the salt of the earth and the light of the world, they are its innocuous poison and its murky darkness.

….

When God permits such things, it is a very positive proof that He is thoroughly angry with His
people, and is visiting His most dreadful anger upon them. That is why He cries unceasingly to Christians, "Return, 0 ye revolting children . . . and I will give you pastors according to my own heart" (Jer. 3, 14-15). Thus, irregularities in the lives of priests constitute a scourge visited upon the people in consequence of sin."

Chapter 11: Qualities of a Holy Priest, in The Priest: His Dignity and Obligations by St. John Eudes

RogerThat said...

A massive twitter mob saying "Stay, Dear Pope",

Ferraiuolo said...

We might just well be nearing the triumph of the Immaculate Heart after this.

CredoUtIntelligam said...

The Pope isn't say anything here he hasn't said before. He has already criticized the "Spirit" of the Council and urged a return to the "true" Council, which are the texts themselves. He is perhaps more frank here in acknowledging the effects of a false interpretation of the Council.

This was the case for the liturgy: there was no interest in the liturgy as an act of faith, but as a something to be made understandable, similar to a community activity, something profane . . . Sacredness ended up as profanity even in worship: worship is not worship but an act that brings people together, communal participation and thus participation as activity. And these translations, trivializing the idea of ​​the Council, were virulent in the practice of implementing the liturgical reform, born in a vision of the Council outside of its own key vision of faith.

After nearly eight years of Benedict's papacy, the liturgy I am familiar with in the American south has not changed one iota. It is still fully protestantized, not to mention tacky.

I am not Spartacus said...

Since I have been alive, I have heard Popes apologise for the errors of long dead Catholics and following the apologies, promises were made to correct those past errors, plans were formulated to correct the errors of the past, and then those plans were actualised.

Rarely, do we hear apologies from the modern Popes for their own actions which resulted in Mass (two meanings) confusion and disorientation.

I remember two apologies from Pope Blessed John Paul II for the execrable excesses and errors of the new Lil' Licit Liturgy but nowhere are there to be found the apologies for seeking a partnership with our ancient enemy, the world; nowhere are there to be found apologies for the Assisi prayer meetings which encouraged universalism and indifferentism; nowhere are there to be found apologies for the slaughter of the Roman Rite (thankfully resurrected, as an act of "tolerance," by Our Holy Father; nowhere are there to be found apologies for the destruction of the Religious Orders which were "updated" by the Magisterium; nowhere are there to be found apologies for "reforming" Our Holy Sacraments; nowhere are there to be found apologies for an effete ecumenism that cultivated, fertilised, and then harvested a bumper crop of Indifferentism; no, what we hear is an abdication of responsibility and blame-shifting.

This is not the good news of repentance and repudiation of sins and errors that must precede any true metanoia; and, worst of all, these words confess no metanoia can be expected which means that God will withhold His Blessings upon His Church for an unrepentant Magisterium is not disposed to receive them.

Manuel said...

"But the real strength of the Council was present and slowly it has emerged and is becoming the real power which is also true reform, true renewal of the Church. "

I wonder what the Pope is thinking about here. I am afraid we are still light years from a solution to the disease

Manuel said...

The real elephant in the room for me is the NOM, still going unnoticed.

authoressaurus said...

Yes...well, the "media" didn't turn off Cardinal Ottoviani's microphone when he attempted to address the Council of the Fathers. The "Fathers" did that themselves. Bad fathers. Bad parents. Bad churchmen. Bad theology. Bad to the bone. And by their fruits we know them. Overturn this false council, Holy Father, as a parting gift to the future of the Church.

Peccator said...

Despite the strength of the closing words against the "Virtual Council", this talk does not strike me as much different in its interpretation of the Council than the celebrated discourse of 22 December 2005 (on the "hermeneutic of reform in continuity"). The bulk of the talk is an admiring, if at times nuanced, apology for not only the conciliar texts, but also the event of the Council. The Holy Father's appraisal of the drafting and text of Dei Verbum reveals again the heart of the rift between Rome and the SPPX (according to the imperfect transcription on Vatican Radio, emphases added):

"The idea had emerged that Scripture is complete, everything can be found therein, so there was no need for tradition, and that [the] Magisterium has nothing to say to us. Then the Pope sent the Council, I believe, 14 formulas of a sentence to be included in the text on Revelation . . . [and] said: 'One has to be chosen to complete the text.' I remember, more or less, [Latin] that the formula spoke of the Churches’ certainty of the faith is not based solely on a book, but needs the illuminated subject of the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit. Only in this way can Scripture speak and bring to bear all of its authority. We chose this phrase in the Doctrinal Commission, one of the 14 formulas, it is crucial, I think, to show the indispensability, the necessity of the Church, and to understand what tradition means, the living body in which the Word lives from the beginning and from which it receives its light, in which it was born."

I struggle to see how this is not a replacement of the conception of Tradition as one of the two sources of the depositum fidei (cf. Trent and Vatican I) with "living tradition"--the Church's developing interpretation/understanding of Scripture.

Stephen said...

So it was all the media's fault? Talk about punting. Never mind that all those Church fathers - born, bred and formed in the so-called pre-conciliar Church - promoted and allowed those changes to occur, and 99% of Catholics worldwide embraced them. That's the real continuity. But we can't look to closely, cuz it's the media's fault.

David Joyce said...

This, in substance, is little different to Pope John Paul II apologising for the excesses of Vatican II over 30 years ago:

"I would like to ask forgiveness-in my own name and in the name of all of you, venerable and dear brothers in the episcopate-for everything which, for whatever reason, through whatever human weakness, impatience or negligence, and also through the at times partial, one-sided and erroneous application of the directives of the Second Vatican Council, may have caused scandal and disturbance concerning the interpretation of the doctrine and the veneration due to this great sacrament. " (DOMINICAE CENAE)

The Pope's words on "the true Council is emerging with all its spiritual strength" is particularly hard to reconcile with reality - most of the strength that is emerging draws it inspiration from Church's Tradition, not the reforms of the Council.

Mike said...


Folks,

You forget that a Pope, like a head of state--which he is--must speak at least somewhat diplomatically.

Translated into ordinary language, which is its real meaning: this is a very strong criticism of the Council and its fruit.

Miles Dei said...

The Pope isn't say anything here he hasn't said before.
................................

Not true at all.

"the virtual Council was stronger than the real Council"

That is new.

And in 50 years only was what Amerio called "desistence" in Magisterium. And now we have a Pope that renounces for make honor on that.

Jeremiah Methuselah said...

Slowly, agonisingly slowly, things seem to be a’changing, for the better.

Dum spiro spero.

Miles Dei said...

Julio Meinvielle:

El misterio de iniquidad consiste precisamente en que el "Aparato publicitado de la Iglesia" que debía servir para llevar las almas a Jesucristo, sirva en cambio para perderlas y esclavizarlas al demonio. Aquí está el "misterio de perversidad": Que la sal se corrompa y deje de salar (Mt. 5, 13). Fíjese bien el lector que no decimos que la Iglesia deje de llevar las almas a Jesucristo. La Iglesia es indefectible y durará como tal hasta el fin. Pero la Iglesia de Jesucristo puede no identificarse con el ''Aparato publicitado de la Iglesia". La Iglesia de Jesucristo puede mantenerse en las almas fieles a la doctrina que se conservaría en algunos sacerdotes y obispos adheridos a la Cátedra del Pontífice de Roma, mientras que el Aparato mismo de lo que el mundo conoce como Iglesia puede seguir otra doctrina y otra pastoral elaborada por la soberbia de los grandes y publicitados teólogos de la nueva teología.

Tom said...

I don't discern anything new in what His Holiness declared in regard to the Council. He said as much for years as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and even Pope Benedict XVI.

What he has said as Pope carries, of course, more weight than did his declarations as Father/Cardinal Ratzinger.

But the bottom line is that His Holiness has presented that which the Holy See has held in regard to Vatican II.

The Council itself did not wreck the Church. The collapse of the Church is not the fault of the Council.

Therefore, for better or worse, there really isn't anything new in regard to Rome's stance on Vatican II.

Tom

El Cid said...

This will not be a surprise to people here, but log on to the Zenit site to see how the Holy Father's remarks are covered--absolutely zero mention of the Council issues.

B. said...

I have a lot of respect for our pope and I had hoped he would stay with us for a long time, but to me this analysis is nothing but blame-shifting like a child that points the finger to anyone standing nearby saying "it wasn't me".

his Council created many calamities, so many problems, so much misery, in reality: seminaries closed,
Who expelled seminarians for saying the rosary and reading St. Thomas? For being "rigorist" and "not open-minded"? The mass media or the bishops? And who appointed those bishops? The mass media or the pope?

convents closed,
Who forced all religious orders to rewrite their constitutions, to ditch the constitutions written by their Saintly founders? The mass media or the Vatican? And who called for such a revision of religious life? The mass media or the Document "Perfectae Caritatis" of Vatican 2? Who wanted the Sisters to ditch their traditional habits? The mass media, that still to this day displays nuns exclusively in preconciliar habits in Hollywood Movies and TV ads, or the same document?

the liturgy was trivialized
And again, who trivialized the liturgy? The mass media, or the pope and his infamous committee, run by an Archbishop that was later exiled to Iran under suspicion of freemasonry?

The crisis in the Church will not end before those questions are not looked at honestly and without trying to shift the blame to somebody else.

Elizabeth said...

What am I missing? I'm reading many people here and on other blog sites happily talking about these words of the Holy Father. To me, it sounds like he's blaming the media for the problems since the Second Vatican Council.

I don't sense anything particularly different here from other pieces of his regarding the Council or the new Mass over the years, although I suppose I've not heard him actually blame the media before.

In fact, I find this somewhat annoying. Good Lord, blame anything but the Council itself!

LeonG said...

The post-conciliar church is a direct result of the councils. It is not a virtual or mediatised consequence. There is a rupture in absolute terms - liturgy; pastoral processes; ecumenism; interreligious politiking; collegiality; religious liberty; anthropocentrism; horizontalism; perennialism and primacy of conscience. This we can demonstrate by the reality we can see and its chaotic and catastrophic outcome.

This started prior to the councils in disobedience to doctrinal and papal directives. The Councils enabled the liberal modernists to implement their programme of novelties and changes. The Vatican has propagated this by direct papal example - we have the photographic documentation available together with copious prolix writings still in dire need of clarification that feed this seemingly endless period of ecclesiastical disturbance and obfuscation. Bishop against bishop; cardinal against cardinal and fruitless compromises that have deconstructed The Faith leaving only confusion.

JB said...



Tom, I can't agree. He has never said anything this stark and withering about events connected with the Council. "Calamitous" is an extraordinarily strong word coming from a pope, almost if not totally unprecedented in relation to a council. The most he said before was that the period after V2 was "markedly unfavorable." He also said that V2 was not a "superdogma." This takes it to a new and important level.

Bill said...

As others have mentioned, this speech seems like a development of the familiar "Spirit of Vatican II" theme. It does, however, seem to acknowledge the need to flesh out that theme.

The theme is hard to understand on its face. How did the Spirit work, exactly? Vatican II was implemented, roughly, by the same bishops who wrote, debated, and voted on its documents. How did the Council Fathers almost all and almost simultaneously catch this exact same Spirit? And why did it take so many decades for anyone in authority to notice that this Spirit was loose? And why was nothing done?

It does sort of look like HH is proposing an explanation. He seems to say that the Council Fathers intended one thing, the true council, but the media reported a false council to the laity. And then the laity, I guess, agitated for the Spirit of Vatican II and achieved it. In the explanation, they were able to achieve this because of decentralization. This story, being entirely new to me and apparently contrary to the various first-hand reports I have heard and read, seems strange. It would be nice to see this theory of how it's all the laity's and the media's fault fleshed out, though.

Truth Seeker said...

I believe that the present Pope's "hermeneutic of continuity" is EXACTLY how Vatican II should be interpreted.

Maybe he's waiting until now to speak his true mind. Let us hearken to him.

Remember that the Pope is infallible ONLY under certain carefully defined conditions. But he has NEVER been omnipotent.

Tom said...

What His Holiness has said in regard to the "Council of journalists" is, of course true

But on November 26, 1969 A.D., it was Pope Venerable Paul VI, not The New York Times, who declared that the "new rite of the Mass" was a "liturgical innovation."

"A new rite of the Mass: a change in a venerable tradition that has gone on for centuries.

"We must prepare for this many-sided inconvenience. It is the kind of upset caused by every novelty that breaks in on our habits.

"No longer Latin, but the spoken language will be the principal language of the Mass. We will lose a great part of that stupendous and incomparable artistic and spiritual thing, the Gregorian chant."

It was "wreckovating" Cardinals and bishops, not Time Magazine, who authorized "in the name of Vatican II that sledgehammers and wrecking balls be smashed against beautiful altars, sanctuaries and churches.

It is priests, not journalists, who, "in the name of Vatican II," have placed dogs upon sacred altars.

Again, the above examples are not authentic Vatican II teachings. But they did not flow from journalists. The United Press International did not force Cardinals, bishops and priests to misrepresent Vatican II.

Tom

2little2late said...

This is the sign Benedict should be willing to give. http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2009/12/this-is-sign-of-church-always-sign-of.html

Pax said...

The modernists triumphed at the Council, and it was a disaster for the Church. I doubt they will ever admit that it was they who launched the Church into this unprecedented crisis.

All they can do is blame others and pretend that the "true council" is yet to be discovered. Hopefull the next pope will detest that wicked council and admit what all who have eyes to see already know. Then we can hope for a restoration.

Oremus said...

(1) True from what I've heard in regard to women covering their heads, but, instead of insisting, the Vatican dropped the requirement from the new edition of Canon Law. (2) I think the media/celebrity circus went to some people's heads and frightened others so that they went farther/ did not protest in certain instances. (3) I think the pope's abdication shows he too has given in to this media/celebrity pressure and definition of the papacy. I certainly wish he would resist and stay in office.

Judith said...

"The real strength of the council was present and slowly it has emerged and is becoming the real power which is also true reform, true renewal...The true council is emerging with all its spiritual strength."

I am honestly completely bewildered by these statements.

What could the Pope possibly be referring to here? How can you acknowledge that the Council was and is an unprecidented disaster resulting in "many calamities, so many problems, so much misery, in reality: seminaries closed, convents closed, the liturgy was trivialized," but then turn around and say that's all over now. We got a redo. It's all okay now.

What can he possibly be referring to as the signs that the "true" council has now emerged?

I don't wish to be disrespectful to the Holy Father, but these remarks are what is known in the field of psychology as the defense mechanism of projection.
"A person subconsciously denies his or her own negative attributes by ascribing them to the outside world instead."

The "virtual" council was bad, but the "real" council was good. The "virtual" council wreaked destruction, but the "real" council is now emerging as a force for good.

In charity, you have to take the Holy Father at his word that his mind is not right. Sadly, his remarks are a metaphor for the mentality of the "virtual" Church.

Tantumblogo said...

Jim B. from STL:

Thank you! I think it is possible to take St. John Eudes very valuable advice too far, and exculpate the manifest failures of the clergy from the lowest to the highest levels of the Church due to moral failings of the laity, but I think by and large he's right. Why hasn't the Church enforced Humanae Vitae? Because the vast majority of so-called Catholics would fall away if they did. I'm not saying that excuse is valid, not in the slightest, but what we see is the consequence of sin by hundreds of millions of "Catholics" playing out in the episcopate God has given us.

Prayer and penance is the key.

Dr. Timothy J. Williams said...

I understand what you are trying to say, but the Church cannot "enforce" Humanae Vitae, any more than it can "enforce" Thou Shalt Not Lie. It would be helpful, however, if an entire generation of "catholic" politicians could not hide behind the pro-life banner just because they support an increase in the minimum wage. In other words, the faithful have a right to expect clear, orthodox teaching. In most dioceses, we have gotten nothing close to that for forty years. That isn't the fault of the "press." It is a logical outgrowth of aggiornamento.

Christopher Leo Biddle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Christopher Leo Biddle said...

Nice! I've been waiting years for Pope Benedict to condemn collegiality. I just never thought it would happen as he was abdicating the papacy.

New Catholic said...

Hey, "Justin", do you see your comment here? Goodbye, then.

Jim B. from STL said...

True Tantumblogo.

I think St. John Eudes agrees that though a "bad" clergy may be a punishment for our sins, this in no way exculpates them, nor, for that matter, does it mean that God desires their sinfulness.

Here is the paragraph from chapter 11 thats "in-between" (the dot-dot-dot) the paragraphs I quoted above:

"St. Gregory the Great says that priests and pastors will stand condemned before God as the murderers of any souls lost through neglect or silence. Tot occidimus, quot ad mortem ire tepidi et tacentes videmus. Elsewhere St. Gregory asserts that nothing more angers God than to see those whom He set aside for the correction of others, give bad example by a wicked and depraved life.' Instead of preventing
offenses against His Majesty, such priests become themselves the first to persecute Him, they lose their zeal for the salvation of souls and think only of following their own inclinations. Their affections go no farther than earthly things, they eagerly bask in the empty praises of men, using their sacred ministry to serve their ambitions, they abandon the things of God to devote themselves to the things of the world, and in
their saintly calling of holiness, they spend their time in profane and worldly pursuits."

Even so, let's repent and pray that He does not permit a Pope that this horribly sinful world deserves, but rather, that in His Mercy, He blesses us with a holy Pastor after His own Heart.

Tom said...

Judith said..."What could the Pope possibly be referring to here? How can you acknowledge that the Council was and is an unprecidented disaster resulting in "many calamities, so many problems, so much misery, in reality: seminaries closed, convents closed, the liturgy was trivialized," but then turn around and say that's all over now. We got a redo. It's all okay now."

Pope Benedict XVI did not say that Vatican II — the actual Vatican II — was an unprecedented disaster.

His Holiness said that there were two Councils. The "Council of journalists" and the authentic Vatican II of the Holy Catholic Church.

The fake Vatican II, the "Council of journalists," resulted in the "unprecidented disaster ...many calamities, so many problems, so much misery, in reality: seminaries closed, convents closed, the liturgy was trivialized," according to Pope Benedict XVI.

Again, he did not blame the above upon the authentic Vatican II. The opposite is true. The Pope praised the authentic Council.

He declared that the authentic Vatican II is "within the faith" and will bring "true reform and "true renewal" to Holy Mother Church.

There were actually, if you will, three Vatican II Councils. The authentic Vatican II, which His Holiness praised.

There was/is the fake Vatican II, the "Council of journalists" — the news media attempt to spin and report the Council as they see fit. That is, to misinform the Faithful as to Vatican II's authentic teachings.

That is an easy task as probably 99.9 percent of Catholics have not read even one Vatican II document, let alone the entire Council.

There is the third Vatican II, also fake, but not mentioned by Pope Benedict XVI. That is the Council that bishops, priests (neo-cons and liberals alike), theologians, religious and prominent lay Catholics who wield power, particularly within parishes , have foisted upon us.

It is they, not The Los Angeles Times, who ripped the Traditional Roman Mass from us. It is the bishops and priests and, incredibly, even laymen at times, who offered bizarre all-vernacular Mass devoid of Latin, Gregorian chant and any hint of the sacred.

Our Churchmen, not The Miami Herald, approved awful translations of the Novus Ordo.

Our bishops, not the Associated Press, who ordered that beautiful sancturies and churches be demolished and replaced with ugly wreckovated replacements.

Roger Cardinal Mahony, not The Los Angeles Times, is responsible for the ugly Cathedral in Los Angeles.

Bishops and priests, not The Detroit Free Press, allowed laymen to overrun sanctuaries.

Interestingly, in a 1988 A.D. address to the Bishops of Chile, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (His Holiness) declared that in the years following Vatican II, "many priests" had "desacralized" and "despoiled" the Mass and parishes.

On that day, he blamed priests, not journalists, for the above.

Tom

mundabor said...

This seems to me the usual flight from reality and search for excuses. If the Church had remained orthodox, no amount of media manipulation would have caused any big damage.
The BBC will never persuade us that the Church of Pius XII was Modernist, would it now...

Mundabor

The Pope's Butler's Nemesis said...

Truth seeker said, "Remember that the Pope is infallible ONLY under certain carefully defined conditions."

...same with Vatican II, where no such carefully defined conditions were made.

Anonymous said...

This is unbelievable news. I'm overwhelmed with joy!

This is a bomb that's been waiting to go off for over 30 years, since Paul VI's "smoke of Satan" adress.

The Council was hijacked, plain and simple.

He's waited and now the time is just right. Clerics in the Church, over the past decade, have been exposed as indifferent, corrupt or both, and rightly so.

The culture of death is on the move, across the globe: America, Ireland, France, Britain and the Phillipines, just to name a few with anti-life legislation in the works.

The eyes of the "media" are upon Benedict, since he revealed his abdication, so everything he says until the 28th is momentous importance. You don't think he knows that?

We all know that the Holy Father has a long term plan for the Church. He's abdicating right in the middle of this Year of Faith, in which he wanted to see the reinterpretation of Vatican II, and in which substantial liturgical rennovations are rumored to be forthcoming.

But, more than "the media", the College of Cardinals are watching and listening to the Holy Father, as well. And, they know their backs are against the wall, through ignorance, neglect, and for more than a few, active cooperation.

This adress is tremendous.

Libera Me said...

I am frightened to appear and answer for my life before the Living God.

But I am also very frightened for this Pope when he comes before Almighty God and must answer as to why the SSPX are still denied faculties after his reign. He had and still does have the power to simply declare it with no strings attached. Please Holy Father the only way you will live the rest of your life in peace is to FIX this situation with the SSPX!

God help us!

Tom said...

JB said..."Tom, I can't agree. He has never said anything this stark and withering about events connected with the Council. "Calamitous" is an extraordinarily strong word coming from a pope, almost if not totally unprecedented in relation to a council. The most he said before was that the period after V2 was "markedly unfavorable." He also said that V2 was not a "superdogma." This takes it to a new and important level."

I hope that you are right. But I don't see it as you do. However, I will hope that you are correct.

I believe that it's important to note that he did not connect the collapse of the Church to the actual Council. His Holiness blamed the collapse of Liturgy, seminaries, etc. upon the "Council of journalists."

The actual Council has remained blameless for the collapse of the Church, according to Pope Benedict XVI.

In fact, the Pope said that the real Vatican II will result in the "true reform" and "true renewal" of Holy Mother Church.

His Holiness' bleak assessment of the state of the Church (he believes, however, that "true renewal" is on the way...someday) is in line with his declaration that in vast areas of the world, the Catholic Faith is in danger of near-total extinction.

As Father/Cardinal Ratzinger, he predicted that the Church would collapse to a staggering extent.

Many years ago, as Cardinal, he blamed to a great extent the collapse of the Church (Latin Church) upon the manner in which Pope Venerable Paul VI had implemented Vatican II liturgical reforms.

Again, he did not blame the actual Council for said collapse.

Tom

Elizabeth said...

@Christopher Leo Biddle: Where do you read His Holiness condemning the novelty of collegiality? Or am I missing out on the joke? :)

@Judith: Couldn't agree more.

Picard said...

That´s one of the most shameful, embarrassing things I read for a long time.
No, it ist not pointing to the elephant in the room and not that "bomb" many blind, guided by the blind, called it but exactly the opposite, vice versa.

So it is only the bad media that is creating this elephant... No, there is no elephant...

No, the emperor is not naked, only the bad media suggests so or made him so...

Puh leaze!

As one said above: It is just like a child pointing to some other person saying: "It was him, not me!" - childish.

Shameful, disapointing, pitiable, sordid!!
Disgusting!
And distressing, deplorable!

Outrageous!

Picard said...

Yes, Judith, - sadly - yes!

NBW said...

I am sorry to see Pope Benedict VXI go. He spoke very well and said what needed to be said.

Laurence said...

Our dear Holy Father is just like my 85 year old father,once he gets an idea in his head, it just won't budge. The pope was a major player in Vatican II, it has been his life's work to implement it's reforms. It is inconceivable to him that anything could be wrong with the council.

New Catholic said...

Holywoodave, do you see your comment here? Goodbye, then.

Judith said...

Tom....
I am perfectly aware of what the Pope said, how he said it, and exactly what the Pope meant.

I even know why he said it.

I think we all do.

Let me clarify my remarks, if that is necessary.

Everyone knows that in the real world, there is and was only ONE Counsel wasn't there?

Because there really was only ONE Counsel, the Pope's remarks are figural, aren't they?

To claim that there was a good Counsel with good results, and a "virtual" counsel with bad results is not true, is it Tom?

That is my point.

There was only ONE actual Counsel with tangible, provable, bad results.

There are no good results at all as far as I know. The Holy Father was able to accurately list many, not nearly all, of the bad results. But, he was unable to concretely name ANY of the good results which he says exist.

There is absolutely nothing in the real world that anyone could possibly point to that could be considered a spiritual renewal resulting from the one and only REAL Counsel.

There are only the disasterous results that the Pope accurately listed as the result of ONE REAL Counsel.

If anyone would try to claim that an obviously bad outcome to a real world event exists in or was caused by a "virtual" reality, and further claim that there is a good result which no one can discern, but which represents reality, most people would have to conclude that the person was either scamming or delusional.

The Pope's remarks are not part of the world of truth, Truth, or reality.

There is only the one, real, Vatican II and the results are as calamatous as the Pope clearly understands them to be.


Lynda said...

I agree.

Lynda said...

Some might "fall away" but more would be strengthened in their Faith, and more would return to it.

Anonymous said...

The modernists, then, realized they can have a powerful ally and capitalized on it...the media.

G



Johannes de Silentio said...

The language here seems especially frank. I think it is most notable that he has precious few public opportunities to sheperd the flock, and this is where he focuses his attention.

Athelstane said...

Folks here really should read the whole address. New Catholic has posted the spicy conclusion of the speech; but there is much, much more of great interest in the Pope's description of his experience of the Council and its preparation.

Note what he says: It all started with the liturgy. That's where the great reform efforts initially converged, and where the consensus seemed the strongest. And note that the Holy Father still affirms the basic justice of this need for reform of the Roman Rite:

Referring to the reform of the liturgy, the Pope recalled that "after the First World War, a liturgical movement had grown in Western Central Europe," as "the rediscovery of the richness and depth of the liturgy," which hitherto was almost locked within the priest’s Roman Missal, while the people prayed with their prayer books "that were made according to the heart of the people", so that "the task was to translate the high content, the language of the classical liturgy, into more moving words, that were closer to the heart of the people. But they were almost two parallel liturgies: the priest with the altar servers, who celebrated the Mass according to the Missal and the lay people who prayed the Mass with their prayer books”. " Now - he continued - "The beauty, the depth, the Missal’s wealth of human and spiritual history " was rediscovered as well as the need more than one representative of the people, a small altar boy, to respond "Et cum spiritu your" etc. , to allow for "a real dialogue between priest and people," so that the liturgy of the altar and the liturgy of the people really were "one single liturgy, one active participation": "and so it was that the liturgy was rediscovered, renewed."

And then, a bit later, he reaches the problems that resulted from this drive:

The Council also pondered the principals of the intelligibility of the Liturgy - instead of being locked up in an unknown language, which was no longer spoken - and active participation. "Unfortunately – he said - these principles were also poorly understood." In fact, intelligibility does not mean "banalizing" because the great texts of the liturgy - even in the spoken languages ​​ - are not easily intelligible, "they require an ongoing formation of the Christian, so that he may grow and enter deeper into the depths of the mystery, and thus comprehend". And also concerning the Word of God - he asked - who can honestly say they understand the texts of Scripture, simply because they are in their own language? "Only a permanent formation of the heart and mind can actually create intelligibility and participation which is more than one external activity, which is an entering of the person, of his or her being into communion with the Church and thus in fellowship with Christ."

Which I think delineates pretty well the liturgical position of Pope Benedict even today. He has been sympathetic to traditionalist desires for the 1962 Missal, but it is not really what he thinks ideal. He thought it in need of reform, and he still thinks that today, it seems. But that does not mean that he likes what the 1970 Missal actually became in many respects, either. If he has an ideal, one suspects, it's probably somewhere between the 1965 and the 1967 revisions.

So here many of us will part ground from the Holy Father. But it does help to understand what the concerns were about the Mass at that time, and how widely shared they were. And that widespread background of dissatisfaction with the lived reality of the Roman Rite became the opening and the justification for a far more ambitious and radical program of reform. I think it explains, too, why resistance to its campaign of conquest was so feeble.

Gratias said...

All of a sudden we have dozens of Popes here at Rorate Caeli, and in Lent.

It was to Benedict XVI we implored to here before Universae Ecclesiae was promulgated. The SSPX's intransigence will make the pendulum swing and it is us Summorum Pontificum types who will unjustly have to pay for their pride.

Cum Papa nostrum,

Gratias

beng said...

I am Not Spartacus
What the Catholic Church must do is to restore Tradition to make us worthy of the hatred of the world.

That is a great quote. You should patent it.

Gregory said...

It seems that most commenters have only read RC's excerpts (welcome though they are). If you haven't done so, do have a read of the whole (pretty poorly constructed, it has to be said) translation.

For if I'm not mistaken, His Holiness is pretty disparaging about the Traditional Latin Mass. Citing "parallel liturgies" (i.e. the priest at the altar, whilst the faithful used their prayer books) and "the lone altar boy responding 'et cum spiritu tuo'" – etc, etc...he issues some of the truly tiresome sideswipes we've all heard a zillion times these last 50 years. Sure, what His Holiness goes on to say about "the virtual Council" is music to one's ears. But this is all balanced against those opening - and pretty tedious - side-swipes against the TLM.

Unless the true context has been missed here (e.g. perhaps the Pope was raising his eyebrows to the audience, or applying other such body language, and he was actually criticising the arrogance of those [like him] in the pre-Conciliar era who were dismissive of the so-called "parallel liturgy" and "the lone altar boy" aspect of the TLM and have since learned how hasty they were to be so hip), then I think this whole speech is a generally depressing read.

GQ Rep said...

Perhaps now that Pope Benedict XVI has resigned, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger will now have the freedom to speak of the errors and misinterpretations of Vatican II that he could not as Pope due to opposition from Bishops.

As Pope, he had to be mindful of the very grave danger of rebellion by the liberals and dissidents even in the Vatican, who could and did undermine much of his pontificate. Cardinal Bertone was a supreme hypocrit at his speech at the Ash Wednesday Mass and final appearance of Benedict XVI, because he and Sodano did much to undermine the initiatives of Benedict XVI to bring the Catholic Church back to tradition.
The single one good suggestion Bertone did have-launching a campaign to bring back the sedia gestatoria when Benedict XVI started havin problems walking-was rejected unfortunatly by Benedict XVI himself.
But now, as a Cardinal and simple priest, perhaps ex-Benedict XVI can speak out against the errors of the Council and its misrepresentations as he did several times before becoming Pope.
His voice would be extremely important....and could and should undermine any initiative of any new Pope to once again depart form Catholic tradition to introduce disasterous changes etc. that many increasingly aged forces still clammor for.

JB said...



I should clarify that what I think is underlying the pope's dramatic end comments in that address is at least a subconscious awareness on his part that the whole endeavor of the Council was a mistake. Now he will never say that at 85 given, as many have pointed out, that it was his life's work. It would be too much to openly state that the Council itself was improvident and responsible for a vast falling away of millions of souls from Christ and the Church. Too much to expect.

I have read the whole address now and some of the comments show that he has the same attitude toward the pre-V2 Church as he did in the 1960s, especially the picayune criticism about how there was a sense that the Church wasn't growing quite enough, though vocations were "ok" or language to that effect.

Well look at vocations since then your Holiness. Look at growth since then. You can't blame the media or the Beatles or anything else for the dramatic decrease. And it is not necessary to keep harping that V2 was anything more than it itself declared: a pastoral council which declared no new dogmas of any kind.

Germans in my experience are loathe to admit that they are wrong about anything. It's a national flaw, just like we in America focus on the exception to everything rather than the rule.

Belgian Catholic said...

This is much more than just 'blaming the media'.

"There were those who sought a decentralization of the Church, power for the bishops and then, through the Word for the “people of God”, the power of the people, the laity." THOSE? The media?

"This was the case for the liturgy: there was no interest in the liturgy as an act of faith, but as a something to be made understandable, similar to a community activity, something profane. And we know that there was a trend..." A TREND!

"And these translations, trivializing the idea of ​​the Council, were virulent in the practice of implementing the liturgical reform..." THESE TRANSLATIONS? Who made them? The media?

The media gave a voice to the modernists and so they were able to pretend a majority.

FC in NH said...

The way I read this is that the Pope is not being critical of the the Council. He is still promoting the Council with enthusiasm. Full speed ahead!

New Catholic said...

Folks, the link to the full text has been in the post since it was posted. Stop reposting it here.

NC

Judith said...

Athelstane:

Thank you for adding the Pope's remarks concerning the Liturgy.

Although I have heard this explanation (and many variations on this theme) regarding the changes to the Liturgy, I have always found them to be disengenuous.

If the Counsel was sincerely interested in encouraging participation and understanding, they would have simply translated the existing Tridentine Mass into the vernacular and promoted the "dialogue" Mass.

They didn't do that. They changed almost ALL of the words of the Mass, and by doing that they changed the MEANING of the Mass. They removed many of the prayers.
They reworded others. They changed the meaning of principle parts of the Mass, like the Offertory and the Consecration. They changed things that Pope St. Pius V stated could never be changed. And, they did it with full knowledge of what they were doing to the Faith.

When they talk about "full participation," they must mean everyone join in the tearing down of the Mystical Body, because that's what happened.

Gregory said...

Agree with JB that His Holiness' liturgical outlook really hasn't differed that much between 1962 and the present. We should be grateful, I guess, for Summorum Pontificum.

FROM:

The Furrow, May 1963 - The Second Vatican Council, the first session,

by Joseph Ratzinger

“The liturgical ceremonies of the opening day lacked that community quality which makes everyone feel he is included. Neither were they sufficiently compact. Is it really proper for 2,500 bishops, to say nothing of the many other members of the faithful, to be condcemned to be mute spectators of a liturgy in which, apart from official liturgists, only the Sistine Choir has any voice? The active participation of those present was deemed unnecessary, a symptom, don’t you think, of a state of affairs that needed to be put right?”

Hmmm.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B90I9wrtTeQyZnJIOFZIekRzcmM/edit?pli=1

Athelstane said...

Hello Judith,

Although I have heard this explanation (and many variations on this theme) regarding the changes to the Liturgy, I have always found them to be disingenuous.

If the Council was sincerely interested in encouraging participation and understanding, they would have simply translated the existing Tridentine Mass into the vernacular and promoted the "dialogue" Mass.

They didn't do that. They changed almost ALL of the words of the Mass, and by doing that they changed the MEANING of the Mass. They removed many of the prayers.


All true, Judith.

And as the Holy Father hints here, he thought most of that was the proverbial bridge too far. He sincerely wanted a major reform of the Roman Rite. There's no doubt about that. But what he desired still would have been something plausibly (well, you could argue it, I guess) recognizable as the Roman Rite. Instead, we ended up with what he himself once called (in his article in Vorgrimler's Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II) a "banal, on the spot...fabrication." Clearly there are many aspects that he is(rightly) dismayed with. Not as many as we are. But Ratzinger recognized that instead of his major reform, we ended up with a liturgical Frankenstein.

It does seem to me that we could have done something along your lines to address these concerns. OK, we could say, if many people want more "exterior" participation and access: We create the option for a full dialogue mass. We even allow the readings, parts of the ordinary, perhaps even collects, in a faithful vernacular. We allow the Canon to be fully aloud, sotto voice or silent at the celebrant's discretion. We allow the option of instituted lay acolytes to read the epistles. Maybe we even add an Old Testament reading and some more propers. Throw in an option for the celebrant to publicly announce the mass intentions in the offertory. Of course, a more traditional priest could dispense with these options and celebrate it the traditional way. I'm not saying I would favor these changes, or even that all of them are prudent, mind you, but if it was clear that the demand for change had grown too strong, these are options that could satisfy the most legitimate complaints, and yet preserve the Roman Rite basically intact.

But no: This was used as an excuse by the Church's Jacobins to throw the Roman Rite out the window and build a new rite starting in Year Zero. And by the time that churchmen like Ratzinger realized what they were up to, it was too late, and the tide of 1968 had overwhelmed everyone.

Ma Tucker said...

Gregory,

I hope people won't quote my views held when I was 35yrs old. He seems a sensible man enough to change his position in the face of the sad reality.

Shane said...

This may be of interest.

Jason C. said...

There is no reason to give the Holy Father grief over what some perceive to be "disparaging" or "picayune" comments about the TLM. There is nothing of the sort in the address I read. He states that the TLM itself was in need of no reform at all.

Did being partial to the aims of the Liturgical Movement of the early 20th century automatically render one critical of the TLM (though no doubt this movement was the intellectual vehicle of choice for many that wanted something entirely different) so much as critical of its praxis? The "parallel liturgies" point raised by the Holy Father hardly supports a call for reforming the rite itself so much as the manner in which the people participated. So you should be happy to hear such a statement from the Holy Father: liturgical reform such as that brought on in 1970 was unnecessary! It seems that all the Holy Father suggested that was needed in terms of "reforming" the TLM in accordance with the Liturgical Movement's aims was a broader access to something like the dialogue Mass, so that all were praying the "same" Mass, rather than two parallel Masses.

The constant urge to belittle or look for flaws in even one of the most positive statements of the papacy of our current Holy Father is mind-boggling.

Judith said...

Athelstane

My point was certainly NOT to suggest a discussion on what MIGHT have been more appropriate changes to the Liturgy.

My point is that the repeated claims that the Mass was changed in order to promote participation, as the Holy Father claims yet once again, is observably dishonest.

The Mass was changed in order to eliminate the parts that "the separated brethern" would find objectionable. The Mass was changed in order to eliminate the parts that were "too Catholic." In the process, the Faith was changed into Protestantism.

This is clearly born out in the link which Shane provided, which was indeed "of interest." Thank you Shane.

I'm not really sure who Jason C. is addressing or what he is referring to.

Shane:

My initial response to the document you provided was denial that this could possibly be genuine.

But, I soon realized that the writing style, the message, the tone, all of it was almost exactly the same as the most recent message of the Pope, the one we are commenting on.

I was struck by how intractable and completely static the Pope's thinking is regarding the Church and the Faith. It has not changed a single whit in 50 years.

If I had read this before, I never would have entertained the slightest hope that there could be a resolution to the separation of the SSPX with the current Pope.

I now fully understand why virtually EVERYTHING AND EVERYONE is at least tacitly acceptable to the Church, except Catholic Traditionalists. I know why Protestants can use Catholic Churches, but Traditional Catholics can not. Tradition is the one singular thing that was determinedly rejected, identified as the only "anti" of the Counsel.

Athelstane said...

Hello Judith,

My point is that the repeated claims that the Mass was changed in order to promote participation, as the Holy Father claims yet once again, is observably dishonest.

The Mass was changed in order to eliminate the parts that "the separated brethern" would find objectionable. The Mass was changed in order to eliminate the parts that were "too Catholic." In the process, the Faith was changed into Protestantism.


Oh, I agree in full, Judith. No question about it. Consilium members were sometimes quite open about that.

authoressaurus said...

Indeed, Shane, this is most revealing. It seems that the present Pontiff still clings to the illusions that he brought to the Council as a young priest, and many of the mistaken ideas as to what was "wrong" with the church that he entertains. One would think that over time, he might have removed some of those rose-colored glasses, but apparently he has not. I found the most revealing comment to be right at the end, where Dr. James H. Nichols, Presbyterian observer from Princeton N.J., observed that "I thought that the Roman Catholic Church was a very closed, complacent, and sectarian body that had nothing to learn from anybody else. I know now, that this is no longer accurate, if it ever was." Hopefully, he learned a thing or two about what has work, since we have learned plenty about what has not.

authoressaurus said...

"We must put aside the negative, "anti attitude," and adopt a positive one."

Norman Vincent Peale would be so proud.

Tom said...

Judith said..."The Mass was changed in order to eliminate the parts that "the separated brethern" would find objectionable. The Mass was changed in order to eliminate the parts that were "too Catholic." In the process, the Faith was changed into Protestantism."

That applies to certain Churchmen, particularly via the Consilium, who helped to "manufacture" the Novus Ordo following Vatican II.

But the undeniable reality is that virtually the entire body of bishops entered Vatican II with the belief that the Church, particularly the Latin Church, was in need of liturgical reform.

That includes Archbishop Lefebvre, who supported liturgical reform.

In regard to the Mass, the Society of Saint Pius X admits — they are forced to as the Archbishop is on record — that Archbishop Lefebvre went as far as to having called for the following:

http://angeluspress.org/The-Mass-of-All-Time

"How many people know that he was in favour of the vernacular for the readings at Mass, and indeed for most of the first part of the Mass called the Mass of Catechumens?"

Just four...only four...bishops at Vatican II voted against Sacrosanctum Concilium — Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy.

At Vatican II, 2,147 bishops, including Archbishop Lefebvre, voted in favor of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy.

Again, 2,147 bishops to 4 at Vatican II voted in favor of substantial liturgical reform.

Throughout the Church, it was acknowledged overwhelmingly that Catholic liturgy had stagnated and required serious reform.

Judith, you also said that "repeated claims that the Mass was changed in order to promote participation, as the Holy Father claims yet once again, is observably dishonest."

That is incorrect as far as Vatican II is concerned. The majority of bishops at Vatican II, including Archbishop Lefebvre, believed that they had supported liturgical changes, such as the introduction of the vernacular, to promote participation.

That is demonstrated by the fact that during the 1967 Synod of Bishops at Rome, bishops were exposed to their first offering of the Novus Ordo Mass.

The majority rejected the Novus Ordo and at Rome and throughout the Church, Cardinals, bishops and orthodox liturgical demanded an immediate halt to the liturgical reform.

Monsignor Bugnini acknowledged that the reform (his revolution) was in dire straits.

Despite outcries against the liturgical revolution for some mysterious reason...very, very mysterious and, of course, disasterous, Pope Venerable Paul VI later foisted the Novus Ordo upon the Church.

In his book, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, none other than Monsignor Klaus Gamber declared that "one statement we can make with certainty is that the new Ordo of the Mass that has now emerged would not have been endorsed by the majority of the Council Fathers."

Tom

tramtrist said...

Thank you Tom. I had not heard that portion of the story. It seems even Archbishop Lefebvre was deceived

WNM said...

Judith:

"The Mass was changed in order to eliminate the parts that were "too Catholic." In the process, the Faith was changed into Protestantism."

I have enjoyed your intelligent and vigorously argued comments very much. But here you go too far. Michael Davies never asserted that Vatican II's changes to the liturgy "changed" the Catholic faith into any other faith. His argument was that the changes in the Mass introduced ambiguities and novelties that made the Mass susceptible to a protestant as well as a Catholic interpretation. That is certainly bad enough, but it is a very long way from changing the Faith itself into Protestantism.

Even the definition of the Mass contained in the 1969 GIRM, published in conjunction with the introduction of the Novus Ordo -- as execrable and clearly protestantizing as it was -- did not change the Faith. This is proven by the fact that that indefensible definition was withdrawn and replaced by a more orthodox definition in a subsequent revision of the GIRM.

And Pope Benedict's rehabilitation of the Tridentine Mass also undercuts your thesis. Summorum Pontificum specifically states that the Novus Ordo and Tridentine Masses are two versions of the same rite and that "These two expressions of the Church’s Lex orandi will in no any way lead to a division in the Church’s Lex credendi [Law of belief]." In other words -- the Church's one Faith is to be understood as expressed in the Novus Ordo as well as in the Tridentine Mass.

I find my self in a position here that I never expected to be in: defending the orthodoxy of the NO. Full disclosure: I regard the NO as clearly inferior to the Tridentine in many ways. Even in its best form, the NO is a truncated, flattened, mutilated version of the Church's perennial liturgy. More often, the vernacular NO as celebrated is dull, irreverent and an actual impediment to prayer.

So I fully subscribe to many of your criticisms of the Council, the NO and the leadership of the Church that apparently cannot bring itself (yet) to acknowledge Vatican II as a catastrophic error.

But I vigorously deny that any or all of these errors changed the Faith. The Faith is still intact, even if often muted or poorly expressed. Your comment in a later post -- "They changed almost ALL of the words of the Mass, and by doing that they changed the MEANING of the Mass" -- is simply wrong. The meaning of the Mass is what it always was and always will be: it is the unbloody re-presentation of Christ's one sacrificial death on the cross in reparation for the sins of mankind. It is Christ Himself coming to the altar in the form of consecrated bread and wine, to visit and bless his people. All else is a distraction and a sideshow.

To deny this is to deny Mt. 16:18. It is -- ironically -- to concede the very thing that you deplore. It is to lose the Faith in trying to defend the Faith. And it is not necessary.

I respectfully appeal to you to draw back from the brink, moderate some of your more extreme assertions, and keep the larger picture in view. Whatever sins and crimes have been committed against the liturgy, the Church will persevere. Our job is to persevere with her. If God is God, he will take care of the rest.