Rorate Caeli

no proclamation of Saint John Mary Vianney as patron saint of all priests

In one of the most stunning and symbolic about-faces of the entire Pontificate, and as we had reported yesterday, Pope Benedict XVI did not proclaim Saint John Mary Vianney as Patron Saint of all priests of the world following the closing Mass of the Year for Priests, celebrated this Friday in Rome.

The holy Curé d'Ars did not need this honor. He did not ask for this honor. His entire life was a life of holiness shining through humility and disregard for himself. But that had been the Vatican's decision, the logical end of the fact that the Year for Priests was set to celebrate the 150th anniversary of the death of Saint John Mary Vianney.

In fact, when the Year was first announced by the Holy See Press Office, in March 2009, that proclamation was already mentioned:
During the course of the Year, Benedict XVI will proclaim St. Jean Marie Vianney as patron saint of all the priests of the world.
And that was confirmed by the Office of Liturgical Celebrations last month:
San Giovanni Maria Vianney ... in questa occasione sarà proclamato dal Santo Padre patrono di tutti i sacerdoti.
The meaning of this about-face? We cannot but share the view of our reader Martin in a comment in an earlier post:
It might be the case that St Jean Marie Vianney was not the best choice in the first place for monastic priests, but, since that decision had long been made, the revoking of it at the last minute would be one more blow to the "restaurationist" view of this papacy, a viewpoint which has already suffered some other severe setbacks.

This is quite regrettable, for things started quite well back in 2005. But I am afraid that we are now again in fully frozen mode, and that the wolves are getting ready for the next conclave.
All in all, a very sad day for the dignity of the Papacy.

Sancte Ioannes Maria Vianney, ora pro nobis!





Anonymous said...

Don't even tell me they are the same religion!

Anonymous said...

The Italian "vaticanistas" Paolo Rodari and Andrea Tornielli say the reason could be bureaucratic: The motu proprio was not ready.

See and

Mr. Ortiz said...

You know, I just can't stand that "not the same religion" remark.

Honestly. The early years of Eucharistic celebration were not--outwardly--like a missa cantata of the 16th century--but it was the same religion.

I detest all leveling down of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as well. I am not arguing for a minimalist neo-Thomist view of the sacraments. However, these liturgical abuses, when not touching the words of institution, or the intent of the priest, do not stop the Lord arriving sacramentally to the altar.

Bring back the TLM, but don't forget the humility of Our Lord who delivers himself into the hands of men each day.

Francesco said...

Tal vez, simplemente, el Santo Padre mismo haya decidido, luego de analizar todo, no proceder a este acto. No es justo decir, con los elementos que tenemos, que es una debilidad del Papa o que sus enemigos han hecho que diera un paso atrás.

Sabemos por experiencia que cuando el Papa realmente considera que algo es necesario para la Iglesia, lo hace, independientemente de las críticas y de los golpes que fuera a recibir. Por eso, no creo que esto no haya sido fruto de su decisión.

Anonymous said...

I Give Up....

Anonymous said...

Yes, and so goes the modernist shell game. Undoubtedly, many so-called trads will excuse and explain away this latest slap in the face from Benedict XVI & company. I refuse to be strung along by use of the old 'bait and switch' tactic. Serious people who love the Faith should recognize the MALICE of these men. It's a war we're fighting! Stop giving them the benefit of the doubt! They are ENEMIES!

Sean said...

Mr. Ortiz,

You said:

"I detest all leveling down of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as well. I am not arguing for a minimalist neo-Thomist view of the sacraments. However, these liturgical abuses, when not touching the words of institution, or the intent of the priest, do not stop the Lord arriving sacramentally to the altar."

I disagree. A Catholic in mortal sin truly receives the Body and Blood of Christ when receiving the Sacrament. But the reception is a sacrilege.

Likewise, while the the Blessed Sacrament may be confected validly in the circumstance of a balloon/clown Mass, it is done amidst a sacrilege as it obliterates the Sacrifice of Calvary by word and deed amidst the faux "ritual."

If you think that Pope St. Pius X would have considered it the same religion, I think you'll be in for a big surprise when someday (please God) you meet him.


Dymphna said...

I thought St. John already was the patron saint of priests?

Anonymous said...

50 yrs a priest, I can remember the Mass (now EF) being garbled in parrot-like fashion, in a most unedifying manner - but then the faithful in the pews didn't have a clue. I despise the present balloon or whatever Masses just as much, but now the faithful in the pews mostly know better.
I think progress is being made.

Anonymous said...

For true belivers in the N.O. world the church was started in 1969. Real catholics know it began over 2000 years ago.

New Catholic said...

Second Anonymous,

It may happen, but it will then be a second about-face, since the declarations of Fr. Lombardi to news agency I.Media yesterday were quite clear (about the Curé d'Ars not being an adequate example for the 21st Century and all that - he could just have said that there were procedural delays).

I really do not believe that a short document on this could have taken so much time, more than 15 months after the Year for Priests had been publicly announced. Maybe the fallout from this backtracking will force the second backtracking after all (a full 360...).


Jordanes said...

Father Lombardi's comments about the Cure not being an adequate example for the 21st century are absurd and offensive. If he doesn't want to tell us the real reason, he should just keep his mouth shut and not make up foolish stuff that makes him and the Holy See look like they don't know what they're talking about.

ACS said...

I don't understand why this matters? I'm truly inquiring. What does this have to do with or say about Benedict XVI's papacy? I'm lost. Someone enlighten me.

Carlos Antonio Palad said...

Tornielli also mentions rumors that non-European Episcopal Conferences had protested the choice of someone "too identified with the Old Continent".

If these rumors are true, then it should be quite easy to identify which Conferences these would be, since only a handful of non-European Episcopal Conferences would have the influence to force the Supreme Pontiff to backtrack on a decision he's already made.

Anonymous said...

Weak, very weak.
Yet again, a repudiation of authority.

Cruise [the proverbial] Groove

Anonymous said...

I do not ascribe malice and emnity to the Holy Father! We do not know the whole story on this or why the snafu.

Nothing detracts from St. John Marie Vianney's glory in heaven. That holy priest who overcame so many obstacles and made so many sacrifices brought tens of thousands to souls to Christ in his lifetime and continues to do so now. (whether he is totally recognized for his role here on earth or not),

Anonymous said...

Satan told the Cure of Ars that if he had four more priests like him in the world, it would put him out of business.

Sad day indeed. And, please, the "pope is surrounded by enemies and his hands are tied" excuse is wearing thin since I've been hearing it for forty-five years.


New Catholic said...

Oh, brother! Let me state it clearly: there is no problem with the papal decision itself, obviously fully within the Pope's power.

What is strange and distressing is the fact that this backtracking seems to have happened in the last few hours, after almost two years during which the decision had been announced, by the Vatican Press Office and by the Papal Office of Liturgical Celebrations, as something which had already been firmly and freely chosen by the Pope himself.

It is either a sign of weakness and undue pressure on the Pope or a sign of bureaucratic incompetence of the worst kind.

ACS said...

New Catholic,

Your answer is still not clearing things up for me. Perhaps I am dense. How is this so-called backtracking a sign of weakness? Why did the pope need to repeat that Vianney was the patron saint of priests? He said it last year right? What am I missing?

Anonymous said...

Why did anyone ever expect anything good from Pope Benny?

Just look who he had at the altar with him today during the closing of the Year for priests....Sodano, Arinze, and Bertone....three people who probably would have been the most against St. John Vianney as Patron of Priests.

A Saint as holy and as pure as St. John Vianney didn't deserve the insult of being patron of this rabble of Vatican II priests anyway.

Did anyone see how slovenly they were mostly all dressed for the Vigil on Thursday.....and the disgraceful way they grabbed for the Sacred Host during Holy Communion at the closing Mass.

The only dignified priest was the Pope. What can he do in a sea of corruption such as this.

He's a good man....but very weak.

Anonymous said...

Well, its now up to the laity to defend the Teachings of Holy Mother Church:


Anonymous said...

The men, bishops actually, above they will give You a baloon.

The man beneath will, Sain John Maty will convey the Grace of Christ.

There is the difference!

Anonymous said...

What amazes me is that we Traditionalists still get our hopes up, truly wanting so bad to believe this Pope wants a restoration. It's like Charlie Brown truly believing Lucy won't pull the football away THIS time.

Ever since collegiality and the institution of a "secretary of state" the Vatican has been more concerned with politics than the faith. They are running the Church as a pandering politician would run a country. Try to appease everyone just enough to keep yourself in power.

Anonymous said...

A priest wrote:

"50 yrs a priest, I can remember the Mass (now EF) being garbled in parrot-like fashion, in a most unedifying manner - but then the faithful in the pews didn't have a clue. I despise the present balloon or whatever Masses just as much, but now the faithful in the pews mostly know better.
I think progress is being made."

You must be kidding, Father. This is a joke, right? Do you really think that the devotion of yesteryear was just ignorance or that those in the pews could not afford glasses strong enough to read their handmissals? Reading is better than hearing, not worse. When we read and miss a work or an idea, the eye can skip back. Those of yesteryear knew the faith and the Mass better, not worse, than do those of our day.

The proof, of course, lies in any measurable criterion of faith you may care to consider: numbers of vocations, per centage of faithful in church on Sundays, per centage of faithful sending their children to Catholic schools, numbers going to Confession, even numbers having their children Baptized.

If putting in all in the vernacular and making it understandable had this result, I suggest we have all our Masses in Chinese!


Anonymous said...

Mr. Ortiz wrote:

"Honestly. The early years of Eucharistic celebration were not--outwardly--like a missa cantata of the 16th century--but it was the same religion.

"I detest all level[l]ing down of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as well. I am not arguing for a minimalist neo-Thomist view of the sacraments. However, these liturgical abuses, when not touching the words of institution, or the intent of the priest, do not stop the Lord arriving sacramentally to the altar."

Our Lord arrives at the Altar even during a Black Mass and certainly during a Greek Orthodox Divine Liturgy or even a Protestant service if the minister was formerly a priest and has the right intention. In every outward sign, the New Mass and all the other changes signalled the arrival of an entirely new and different happy-clappy singalong religion. Each Protestant sect is known for some special feature, such as absolute predestination for the Presbyterians. NewChurch is just a Protestant sect with a special emphasis on Mary.

Of course, I am not saying that everyone who attends the New Mass is an adherent of a new religion called 'NewChurch'. What I am saying is that a new Protestant sect was born out of the post-conciliar reforms and that it is advanced by all those reforms. It is, in fact, at war with the Catholic Church in her very parishes and in her flock.


Anonymous said...

Jordanes writes:

"Father Lombardi's comments about the Cure not being an adequate example for the 21st century are absurd and offensive."

Well of course the Curé is not a good example of a 21st century priest. that dishonour goes to Frs. Shanley, Geoghan, and now O'Grady, along with all those priests who prefer pop music to Gregorian Chant and who dress up as clowns at Mass, thereby revealing their real character.

In a way, it is fitting that the holy Curé d'Ars not be associated with this present lot of priests or, rather, that this present lot of priests not be associated with St. Jean-Marie Vianney. Let's not insult this holy man by associating him with this lot.

Pontifical Task No. 1: Fire Cardinal Grocholewski and send him packing.

No. 2: Annul the current seminary document and issue a new one. The new one will purge the priesthood of the inverts and the perverts.

No. 3: Make the holy Curé d'Ars their patron.


Anonymous said...

Anon. writes:

"The men, bishops actually, above they will give You a baloon."

Well, our bishops are well symbolised by balloons. Balloons are empty and useless; no, they are full of hot air. They also come in loud flashy colours, amusing infants but displeasing those who have any taste.

St. Jean-Mary Vianney, on the other hand, is full of the love of God, a spiritual air enclosed within the heart, not displayed without, not touted on a string.


Gideon Ertner said...


St. JMV is at present only the patron of parish priests. Last year it was announced that the Holy Father would declare him patron of all priests, i.e. including monastics. This was widely seen as a great gesture to draw people's attention to the holy life and example of the Saint.

It seems some influential people decided that example was not worth drawing attention to after all, perhaps because they considered it an affront to the 'ecclesiology of Vatican II' [spit]. Or it might just be that they decided that St. JMV was not the best example for monastic clergy - I can see some justification for that argument, but since the announcement had already been made it would still be a singularly odd reason to backtrack.

Anonymous said...

I've got just the person for the honor and,hey, why wait until he dies?

Fr. Hans Kung!


Mr. Ortiz said...

"NewChurch is just a Protestant sect with a special emphasis on Mary."

That is not a serious statement, it is therefore not worth taking seriously.

It shows no understanding of the Catholic notion of sacramentality and the reality of being in union with the Holy See.

Give me a break.

Go worship +Williamson if you want, but I will stay with Peter.

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr. Ortiz:

Examine any revolution and you will see that the revolutionaries concentrate on changing the outward signs and symbols. The Jacobins even changed the names of the days of the week; the Bolsheviks used force to require everyone to address one another as 'comrade'. There is a reason that the Aquarian Revolution of the Sixties had to touch every aspect of Catholic discipline and devotion--even the rubrical terminology. It was to insist that one religion was being changed for another. The similarities between NewMass and Cranmer's Satanic Order are striking. That's because the NewChurch created by the liberal heretics is only a Protestant sect with a special respect for the Blessed Virgin.

Now we have two religions sharing the same premises, the same bricks, and the same mortar. In these premises are real Catholics and Marian Protestants. Sadly, it is mostly the latter who have been running the show from 1965 to 2005 and even beyond, although times are achanging somewhat.

That is why, Mr. Ortiz, the disjunction is so striking. Notice how the behaviour and symbols of NewChurch are not only different but even the opposite of everything we held dear? For example, the beauty of a pre-conciliar sanctuary is the antipode to the ugliness of a death-of-God postconciliar one, complete with its disproportions and potted plants. In my old N.O. Parish, at Hallowe'en, they put a pumpkin on the Altar. Boo! As for the Altar Cross, it was removed ages before, and the priest attached a little note in handwriting at the Tabernacle. It explained why it was wrong to have a cross anywhere near the Tabernacle.

Sorry, Mr. Ortiz, but the emperor has no clothes. Nobody here wants to find that NewChurch is a Protestant sect with a special interest in our Lady, but that is the truth of the matter. Let us look the truth in the face.

No, we don't have to go to the S.S.P.X to find the Catholic Church. I never suggested that and nor has the Society. It says that it is only a part of the Catholic Church, which is more than you can say for these episcopal jerks with their balloons.

The real Catholic Church still exists in the dioceses throughout the world but only as an underground movement and a persecuted minority. That is changing for the better, I think, although there is much to do and this Pope is no spring chicken.


Thomas John said...

"..but then the faithful in the pews didn't have a clue. I despise the present balloon or whatever Masses just as much, but now the faithful in the pews mostly know better.."

But now the faithful in the pews know WHAT better, Father? Good Father, the comparison of an unedifying offering of the Immemorial Mass to the suffocating liturgical banality that has subjugated the Church for the last 40 years is an incredible notion. Goodness! Is that what the faithful now know better? how mediocrity has risen and called itself just?

Anonymous said...

Some here are terribly disappointed by this volte face of Benedict XVI. I am less concerned than are many here.

Typically, a slap to tradition to please liberals means that something else good is coming for tradition. Tit for tat and all that. So I'd keep my eyes peeled and my ears to the ground, esp. after Bishop Fellay delivers the bouquet of 20 million rosaries. Let's see now:

29th June: Feast of SS. Peter and Paul, which celebrates the prerogatives of the popes. A good time to grant something to someone without the bishops being able to say a peep about it.

7th July: 3rd anniversary of S.P.

14th September: 34rd anniversary of its implementation.

There is much to pray on.


Anonymous said...

Mr. Ortiz writes:

"Go worship +Williamson if you want, but I will stay with Peter."

I never mentioned worshipping or supporting Bishop Williamson.

Which Peter are you referring to? Judging from the clowns and balloons in NewChurch, I'm wondering if it's Peter Pan.


Jack said...

Contrary to what some people want to think, balloons and the like are not common in the Mass of Paul VI.

They are rather the exception; if you pardon the expression, extraordinary.

Jack said...

\\Satan told the Cure of Ars that if he had four more priests like him in the world, it would put him out of business.\\

I know three others:

Fr. Beshara (Melkite Catholic)

St. Nicholas Panas (Orthodox)

St. John of Kronstadt (Orthodox)

St. Nicholas and Fr. Beshara were contemporaries and very much alike, even celebrating various services in people's homes where there was no church.

Pascendi said...

It is very interesting. Whenever there is a "political" piece of news there is always a great clatter of response. Whenever a spiritual piece. near silence. Not always, but a very strong trend is there. Sad,,, very sad.

Anonymous said...

Whatever might be the Pope's motivation for this latest move, he would do well to remember Matthew 10:28, "And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell." The first 31 Popes were martyrs-and the Church flourished. Death comes to all men and few are saved.

Paul Haley said...

Would St. John Marie Vianney countenance the abuses prevalent in what is called the Ordinary Form or would he turn and run as fast as his feet would carry him to the nearest Traditional Latin Mass? Once there would he, on his knees, pray to God for the souls of those lost in the "Ordinary Form"?

Answers to these questions are instructive. They signify a lack of desire on the part of most members of the hierarchy, it would appear, to associate themselves with that great saint.

When Christ saw the Temple being desecrated by the money-changers, He fashioned a whip and drove them out. He most certainly didn't, pay any attention to the thought that the Pharisees and their sympathizers would think evil of him for doing so. He knew what was right and He did it.

Who are the modern-day desecrators of the Temple? Who are they who treat disrespectfully, irreverently, or outrageously the Most Blessed Sacrament of the Altar, the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ? Who is he that must fashion a whip and drive them out of the Temple?

This whip could be a definitive declaration using apostolic authority of the one empowered to do so that the abuses must stop else perpetrators will be excommunicated. However, I am under no illusions concerning this matter for it would certainly take guts and resolve to deal with defections from the ranks, especially and probably most appropriately, members of the hierarchy.

So, in a nutshell, it's probably good that the the name of the illustrious St. John Marie Vianney was not invoked in a ceremony(?) that might make him turn over in his grave.

Mr. Ortiz said...

"I never mentioned worshipping or supporting Bishop Williamson."

True, and I didn't mean to suggest you did. However, New Church is his handle, so to speak...

"a new Protestant sect was born out of the post-conciliar reforms and that it is advanced by all those reforms."

I don't like many of the reforms either, but I simply think this is overstating the case.

Personally, I wish the Pope would legislate ad orientem at the NO, the canon must be in Latin, Communion on the tongue while kneeling. He hasn't. Perhaps he never will. Perhaps his successor will.

But let's be careful of sounding like the scribes, despising others who don't get it.

Most the blame goes to the priests and bishops and cardinals anyway.

Enoch said...

Quote from article:

"The holy Cure d'Ars did not need this honor. He did not ask for this honor. His entire life was a life of holiness shining through humility and disregard for himself."

The above quote is a good example of the rare qualities of the Cure d'Ars, which is why he is a good example for priests to follow. It's unfortunate that he was not proclaimed patron saint of all priests, but what would Saint John Mary Vianney's reaction be to this news? Would he be outraged? Would he think that the modernists have won? Would he use it as an excuse to leave the Church? I think not.

Quote by 'Martin,' in article:

"This is quite regrettable, for things started quite well. But I am afraid that we are now again in fully frozen mode, and that the wolves are getting ready for the next conclave."

The above quote is an over-reaction. It may well be a case of "two steps forward, and one step back." The cause for the restoration of the Church is not frozen because of this one issue. No pope, for many decades, has done for the cause of restoring the Church's proper order than Benedict XVl.

Great patience is required these days. It didn't take long for modernism to wreak havoc in the Church after Vll, but fixing the problems will take time. It cannot all be done in one pontificate, by one pope. The Church has benefitted greatly from our current pope. With all of the modernists in the Church today, somehow he was elected pope...which is a bit of a miracle in itself.

Anonymous said...

The same piece of action can be given the label "about-face" or "learning".

It could be that for reasons we do not yet know, Benedict in this matter did not back down from doing what he knows is right, but rather learned over time that it would not be right, and so chose not to do it. That would go against all the readings presented here so far.

Kip McNebbinsworth

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr. Ortiz:

I have been using the term 'NewChurch' for many years. I didn't get it from Williamson or from that wild Traditio site. I normally spell it with the captial letter on N in the centre of the word.

Archbishop Lefebvre once said that the New Mass was a Protestant liturgy that turned Catholics into Protestants. He was right if his words be properly interpreted. He meant that the New Mass is Protestant in its outward forms, in its aspect, in its tenor. And that is important!: lex ordandi, lex credendi.

I have mentioned here before the matter of the Offertory and could also mention the change in emphasis in the part accorded to Scripture in NewMass. But before embarking on such a project I wish to make an important overarching point. Much of the meaning in liturgical change is determined by context. For example, there is nothing in principle wrong with receiving Holy Communion in both kinds, and this was indeed the practice of the early Church. It may have been discontinued for sanitary reasons or to emphasise the special royalty of the ministerial priesthood, which could then alone partake of both kinds.

Nevertheless, at the Countil of Trent, it was decided to retain reception in one species for the laity. Why? It was because the Protestants were insisting that to do otherwise was blasphemy. In order to correct a current heresty, the Church needed to counter emphatically that we receive our Lord whole and entire under either species. Suddenly an ancient practice was directly refused in order to exclude a present heresy.

The same sort of thing can be said in terms of the Offertory. Early Roman Offertories are not very sacrificial in terminology, if at all. The Sarum one, for example, is very sparse. There we see only a shadow of the priest's prayers after an abbreviation of the old Offertory verse. The Roman Offertory developed during the fourteenth century under the guidance of the Holy Ghost. It lays special emphasis on the sacrificial nature of the Mass and does this by anticipating Calvary in the use of terminology.

The Protestants wanted to affirm that Mass was not a propitiatory Sacrifice but only one of thanksgiving and praise; and they wanted to teach that Mass was a commemoration of the Last Supper and not an unbloody re-enactment of the Sacrifice of Christ. Hence Luther said that, "From the Offertory on, the Mass stinks of sacrifice".

That is why the Protestants abolished any hint of propitiation in their prayers before the Canon. The N.O. Offertory was crafted so as not to refer specifically to a sacrifice of Christ Himself. They had to remove any reference to a Divine Victim, any Hostia. They went further than that, of course.

Bugnini also tried to abolish the Roman Canon but Paul VI would not agree. But the liberals comforted themselves knowing that, by using the N.O. Offertory and E.P. No. 2, and with the Placeat Tibi abolished, they could 'preside' at a 'liturgy' that was at least open to a Protestant misinterpretation. This provided them space for celebrating the 'Service' of a new Protestant sect. Given the context of the Reformation, the substitution of one Offertory for the other is Protestant in effect.



Anonymous said...

I was musing about how much has changed/disappeared over the decades and I came across a link from Greece that has three videos of the Liturgy of St. James the Brother of the Lord served in the Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Patras. This is the most ancient liturgy and is typically only served twice a year on the Saint's feast days. It calls for an altar to be set up with the celebrant(s) facing the congregation (in front of the iconostasis). The clergy are understandably rusty since it is a rare celebration but despite it all, there are no balloons. It should be of interest to those interested in liturgics. See:

Anonymous said...

Part III

Before continuing, please remember what I wrote about context. The Protestants devised a liturgy that was far richer in Scripture because they regarded Scripture as prior in authority to the body charged with interpreting it (viz. the Church): the very identity of the Church was determined for each believer by his own understanding of Scripture. They wanted to make the word of God accessible to all and thereby free the people from an evil and venal Roman priesthood. The problem, of course, is that the new interpreters of the Word were just as venal and just as greedy but also far more ignorant.

What does NewMass do? It adds an optional Scripture reading. Not terrible in itself, as there were more than two in the Primitive Church. But consider the context.

NewMass also puts everything in the vernacular and makes it audible, as if the priest had to make himself heard to the congregation, as if he were addressing not God but it. The laics become the addressee because God is to be approached and addressed only through them, where He sits in their hearts. Gone is the sense of a transcendent God made partially knowable only through the wisdom and knowledge of a controlling priestly caste. Long live the plebs!

Now, given the Protestant context, the more time is devoted to the reading of Scripture at Mass, the lower the per centage of time is devoted to the Sacrifice. This effect can be amplified by encouraging priests to deliver long Sermons having even more Scritpural references. The centre of the liturgy shifts to the Sermon and away from the Consecration.

Moreoever, the (optional) addition of a lection and the addition of endless 'prayers from the floor' (i.e. the new General Intercession) delays the Sacrifice and affects the placement of the Words of Institution as the focal point of the Mass. In an N.O., by the time you get to the Consecration, you have been exhausted by three lections, endless sing-alongs between lections, the prayers from the floor, and a long Sermon focusing on a need to help the Sandanista communists in Nicaragua. You just want to go home. Your mind wanders as you pray that Communion can come soon so that you can get out of there. Let's get past these priestly prayers at the Altar. What time is it? Thank goodness the shops are open on Sunday now....

Given the Protestant context, the tone and the effect is to make a Protestant Service for a new Protestant sect. Each sect has its special mark: absolute predestination for the Presbyterians, total doctrinal confusion for the Anglicans, evangelical fervour for the Pentecostals, grass-roots outreach for the Baptists, justification by faith alone and consubstantiation for the Lutherans. The NewChurch sect is Marian, putting (from a Protestant point of view) an odd emphasis on the Blessed Virgin just as Quakers put an odd emphasis on the inner light.

If what we believe is determined by how we worship, and if we worship in a Protestant way, and if NewMass emulates Protestant worship, attending it will turn us into Protestants.


Anonymous said...

Part II: The New Lectionary

Enter the New Lectionary.

Suppose that you are trying to make the Catholic Mass interpretable as a Protestant service. What is the greatest characteristic of the Protestant heresy? It is the replacement of a formal Sacrifice with a Liturgy of the Word. Sola Scriptura. Just as the sacrifices of goats and lambs by the priests of the Old Law were replaced in Judaism by recitation of psalms in synagogue, so also the 'blasphemous' Sacrifice of the Mass--by which the priestly caste tried to restrict and control spiritual needs earned by Christ on the Cross--would be replaced by a commemoration focusing on God's revealed word in Scripture, a word that did not belong to some elitist priesthood but belonged equally to all. Hence the need to abolish all the Latin: make the word accessible to all, for it was given to all and for all!

The Reformation is rightly called a Revolution. It was absolutely crucial in distributing political and social power more evenly in society. Without the Protestant Revolution, democracy (which came much later) would be impossible. The American and French Revolutions and modern democracy followed the Protestant Revolution just as night follows day. Not a problem for me, since I am a royalist who vehemently opposes democracy and Jacobite (not Jacobin) who favours a return of the Stuart successors.

The Reformation released the masses from their 'ignorance' and opened them to a new world, just as literal new worlds were being discovered. Of course, no bishop would mean no king, as the royalist Anglicans would later realise under James I. The real problem is that we are all fallen creatures and we are all subject to sin and death--and greed. Greed on the part of more rulers (viz. 'the people') results in greater overall larceny and at a higher cost. But let's not go there for now. Heaven forbid that we should dare to remind anyone that those who bought the monasteries in Tudor England were far worse for society--and far more tyrannical--than had been the old monks.

Part III coming ....


Anonymous said...

Jack writes:

"Contrary to what some people want to think, balloons and the like are not common in the Mass of Paul VI.

They are rather the exception; if you pardon the expression, extraordinary."


Surely you can see that the balloons and the pumpkins on the Altar at Hallowe'en are symbols of general problems. Referring to them is to engage in a rhetorical strategy in which hyperbole suggests major problems.

The real problems with the New Mass consist in the aural trash that has replaced the Sacred Chant, and the substitution and alteration of ancient texts which, believe it or not, had a reason for being there.


Anonymous said...

Pascendi makes a very good point.

But why does political news elicit more responses?

If we are Catholic, then we read spiritual news and ponder it in the heart. It encourages an address to God rather than to one another.

Spiritual addresses since the Council have also been very long and of dubious value to us. Do we need papal statements to tell us that lying and cheating are wrong? It is more effective to be reminded of that at the Sermon during Mass. Ever since the Council, there has been an endless stream of paper telling us to be good in a thousand different ways. It has been used to distract attention away from (a) the failure of the postconciliar reforms and (b) a sexual abuse crisis that is staggering in its proportions.


Anonymous said...

Important new historical research has unconvered the Liturgy of Philip the Apostle. It proves that, in the Primitive Church, during Mass, the priest faced the people but he faced their backs. Frescoes show that each worshipper was holding a balloon during Mass and that pumpkins were much in evidence. At the Pax, everyone AT this ancient liturgy broke into a hugathon and then the 'liturgy' was interrupted for a full hour while the participants discussed the happenings of the past week.

Traditionalists need to examine the original sources and read more about the findings of modern sciolists, um, I mean, scholars. This would lead them to an understanding that the postconciliar church is closer to the Primitive one than they think. Fond memories of Mass in the bad old 1940s are no guide for the liturgical richness that can be imbibed, well, absorbed, well, tasted, if one examines the original sources as transcribed by overschooled but undereducated nitwits from modern institutions of higher scamming, um, I mean, learning.

Researchers have also discovered that the apostles certainly did not regard Christ as divine. That notion was not invented until late in the third century. They also had no conception of the Mass as Sacrifice and thought of it only as a supper. It became the centre of their spiritual lives because most of them were underfed slaves. To such people, the idea that the consumption of food was the centre of worship was natural. Archæological psycho-psychologists have found that ....

blah, blah, blah.


Anonymous said...

Jack wrote:

"Contrary to what some people want to think, balloons and the like are not common in the Mass of Paul VI."

They're even less common in the Mass of All Time, the Traditional Latin Mass. What Jack should be asking is how balloons and pumpkins can show up anywhere in the Masses of the Holy Catholic Church. If the text and rubrics don't stop that, there must be something wrong . . . .

Of course, occasionally the liberals engage in self-correction. There was the Mass in Brazil for the Feast of the Ascension. The priest chose to have this Mass outside and, at the very end, up he went! He had a balloon too but it wasn't the kind you hold on a string. It carried him up above the clouds and out of sight. They found the balloon several days later in the Atlantic Ocean. They never did find his body, of course, since it had ascended directly into Heaven. What we need at NewMass is not fewer balloons but more helium, plus Mass outside where a roof cannot prevent the departure of our beloved liberal priests and bishops.

(By the way: this is a true story, except for my interpretative parts.)


Mr. Ortiz said...


Interesting, and often valid points.

You actually describe my pastor quite well, sans the Sandanistas.

I think there is clearly a crisis.

If you look at what some call the neo-con movements (I think the term is stupid), ie, Opus Dei, there simply isn't this Protestant confusion, and yet Opus Dei mostly prays the NO liturgy...yet the adhere to strict pro-Roman line on everything else...ergo...I would say the NO may have huge problems, but is in itself not the source...the font, to me, is modernism, and movements like OD aren't buying it, even as they pray the NO.


Anonymous said...

Dear Mr. Ortiz:

The Modernism of which you speak is suggested everywhere in the innovative texts of the New Mass; the two are inseparable, and that is why the N.O. tends to balloons, while the T.L.M. never does.

Of course one can celebrate the N.O. with dignity. One could also have smells and bells and Chant to grace a Presbyterian Service.

I find that the N.O. when done with dignity is boring and banal; whereas the N.O. done at my old parish was shocking and preposterous. While the second is worse than the first, neither is especially uplifting.

There is a movement afoot now at Rome to convert the N.O. into an unambiguous Catholic Rite by abolising the bad music, tightening the rubrics, restoring the old Offertory at least as an option, removing E.P. No. 2 (for instance), improving translations and so forth. That might help a great deal but it is changing the flavour of a bad thing to make it more like the real thing. The real thing is the Traditional Latin Mass. A shirt with three stains is better than one with ten but why not worship in one which is completely clean?

I think that some in the curia have reached the conclusion that, had the Mass only been altered in accordance with what the Council actually directed, this entire disaster could have been averted. Perhaps, but even the changes suggested by the Council were all bad ideas. Reading translations of the lections, for instance, is better than hearing them in the vernacular, even in a good translation. Why? It is because, when reading, the eye can skip back and re-read passages that were confusing or not at first understood. If comprehension is the purpose, reading a translation while the priest reads the Latin is much better than hearing a translation. If you are hearing it, you can't raise your hand and ask the priest to repeat the third sentence, since you missed its meaning.


ToS said...

Jack wrote:

\\Satan told the Cure of Ars that if he had four more priests like him in the world, it would put him out of business.\\

I know three others:

Fr. Beshara (Melkite Catholic)

St. Nicholas Panas (Orthodox)

St. John of Kronstadt (Orthodox)

St. Nicholas and Fr. Beshara were contemporaries and very much alike, even celebrating various services in people's homes where there was no church.

What an insult to put this great Saint on par with schismatics who are outside the Church.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Ortiz,

Movements like the Legionnaires of Christ? Hardly a model of spirituality. An organization more akin to the mob but culpable of worse crimes.

Anonymous said...

"I think that some in the curia have reached the conclusion that, had the Mass only been altered in accordance with what the Council actually directed, this entire disaster could have been averted."

Until recently we were being told that the Novus Ordo is the implementation of the conciliar reform in full concordance with Tradition.

Anonymous said...

Looking the masses of priests in rumpled slacks and banal headgear it is quite good that the Saint Cure of Ars has not been declared their patron. He has nothing to do with this banal troop of V2

John Lamont said...

Actually on reflection there seems to be a theological case for not making St. John Vianney the patron saint of all priests, because there is a case for not having anyone as patron saint of all priests. The sacramental priesthood is the priesthood of Christ in a literal sense; it is Christ primarily who acts when the sacraments occur, and the human minister is simply the instrumental cause of them. Giving a patron saint to the sacramental priesthood as such would thus be in effect giving Christ his own patron saint, which would be absurd. I am not claiming that this theological reason was what motivated the failure to pronounce St. John Vianney as patron saint of the sacramental priesthood; only that it is a good reason for the decision that was in fact taken. Note that it was not some different, more contemporary priest who was proclaimed the patron saint in St. John Vianney's stead; no-one was proclaimed as the patron saint.

New Catholic said...

There are millions of "good" reasons for the decision, Mr. Lamont - the only one that was given, on the eve of the proclamation which had been repeated over and over for more than one year, was the one indirectly given by news agency I.Media reporting what Fr Lombardi would have said, i.e., that Vianney was not a "contemporary" example, et cetera.

It would be interesting if what you said had been said by the Holy Father himself, or even by an official Vatican spokesman, that no man can be patron of all priests. But... why not?... naming a saint Patron of all "anything", or Our Lady "Queen of all Priests", for instance, does not detract at all from the position of the Lord. That is a quasi-Protestantized view of the Communion of Saints.

Anonymous said...

On Mr. Lamont's remarks:

Christ does not simply use a priest to confect the Sacrament in the way Mr. Lamont might use a pencil to write a note. Sacramental acts involve and take account of the co-operation of the priest in constant positive acts of surrender. A priest who is especially pliable to the Lord in administering the Sacraments therefore becomes an example for emulation. Hence a model for priests is proposed. There are many such models and the holy Curé d'Ars was especially appropriate.


Anonymous said...

The Council of Trent and the Tridentine Latin mass produced the greatest flowering of the Catholic Faith since the 12th Century, and gave us some of our greatest Saints....including St, John Vianney.

Vatican II on the other hans, has given us scandal after scandal, crisis after crisis, and lunatic joker priests, bishops, Popes, and Cardinals...people such as this loser Cardinal Schonborn pictured with his balloon.

The graces from the Council of Trent which gave us such Saints as John Vianney came from Heaven itself.

The corruption from Vatican II, and the disasters from it, and the antics of people liek Cardinal Schonborn and a thousand others came from elsewhere.

I'll leave it to everyone to guess from where....but it wasn't from Heaven.

Anonymous said...

And so the rant starts ...

Mr Ortiz makes a most valid statement.

And Dear Sean, the commission of a sacrilege does not a change in religion necessarily imply. One can be a Catholic with a true un-heretical faith and still commit a sacrilege. A sacrilege being a sin, and not necessarily equated with a heresy. Methinks some on this blog need to learn the Catholic definition of heresy; oh, and yes, I mean the traditional Catholic definition of heresy as would be properly explained by the Council of Trent for example.

And while you purport to know the mind of a saint in heaven, St Pius X would definitely be shocked at the impiety of many NO masses, and no less by clerics holding balloons with a trampling of the altar space by the laity in immodest clothing by their side, and one might even consider that the Saints consider the institution of the NO Mass itself as a papal abuse, but none of this would necessarily imply that the *religion* itself, or the faith, has changed.

One can certainly feel that the practice of the faith has changed, and that some influenced by or influencing the changes are motivated by a change in religion, but one cannot be certain of such a thing.

The fact is that St Pius X stood by and defended the doctrine that the Sacrifice of the Mass truly effects the transubstantiation when a priest uses the correct words of institution "This is my body ... This is my blood", and with Catholic intent means to effect transubstantiation, the Lord arrives at the altar.

Of course this presumes that Cardinal Schonberg has the appropriate intention in the Mass captured with his balloon entourage, but that is another issue.

One might be forgiven for thinking that Cardinal Schonberg has espooused a religion different than Apostolic Catholicism when looking at this picture, but as Mr Ortiz stated, in humility, one must recognize that one cannot be outrightly certain of such a thing, although it is a real possibility.

Let us refrain from judging where we are not called to judge. And the Novus Ordo, imposed by liturgical revolutionaries at the command of a Pope who possibly was abusing his authority, but also employed their revolution well beyond that Pope's own intentions, can, imperfect as it is, still confect the Mass.

The Anons who rashly make the judgements they do, need to consider that the Mass is something distinct from the Ordo, although the Ordo is what packages the Mass. You are not bound to like or promote or support the Novus Ordo. You may, as I do, justly feel that the Novus Ordo fogs and as much as it can blunts the glorious effects of the Holy Sacrifice, but the Mass/Sacrifice it confects is the same Sacrifice that Our Lord Jesus Christ offered on Calvary 2000 years ago and eternally in Heaven, and I would not want to have to answer to Him at my particular judgement for calling into question His One Sacrifice, regardless of what Ordo it was made present with.

Sincerely, MKT.

Kathleen said...

Our Holy Father just corrected our course on the matter of Fatima -- it was huge that he changed course from the Sodano/Bertone dictated insistance that Fatima was fulfilled in the attack upon JPII and that Fatima was OVER.

The wolves are furious.

This is a follow up attack by the wolves.

Our Holy Father is the pope for our flawed and weak age. He can be seen as an embodiment of it. We have to pray and offer penance not only that he be purified, but that we be purified so that we deserve better.

And, Our Lord IS purifying him and HAS blessed us immensely on that front but, yes, there is so much further to go and this is a terrible set back.

This turnaround breaks my heart.

The Church and most especially her shepherds need the example of Saint Jean Marie Vianney desperately.

That's why the wolves have attacked.

We should not just let this go. On any front, prayer or action.

Paul Haley said...

Look, we were given a brain and my brain tells me that the NOM is not the same as the TLM - much as some would like it to be. If we flee from the NOM, it is not because we are judging those who attend the NOM nor the priests who celebrate it. It is because we do not believe it signifies that which it should, i.e., the Unbloody Sacrifice of our Lord as on Calvary.

The NOM signifies a meal under the sponsorhship of a "president of the assembly" and it signifies the cult of man in its humanistic focus, rather than on the Divinity of Christ. As long as it does, we are obliged to avoid it.

Now as far as traditionalists being too "judgmental" allow me to point out that we judge and discriminate every day - in what we wear, in what we eat, in what entertainment we seek, in all sorts of endeavors. That is a natural function of our brain and it proves nothing except that we are more complex than the animals.

But, when we select the TLM as our mode of worship and, by so doing, reject all others, we are exercising a much greater intellectual power than reason alone. We do it because our Faith tells us it is right and due to the supernatural impulse we receive from a much higher authority than any human being on this planet - God Himself through the Holy Spirit.

Most of us made this decision long before Summorum Pontificum and, God-willing, we will continue to decide in favor of the TLM as long as Almighty God, through the many traditional priests and bishops that celebrate it, makes it available to us.

Anonymous said...

Dear Paul Haley,

The Novus Ordo is not the same as the Ancient Ordo, your brain need not warp on that one.

But please distinguish the Ordo from the Mass. NOM and TLM, in so far as they offer the one same unbloody Sacrifice, are the same. But the Ordos themselves clearly are nowhere near the same.

But the Mass is the Mass regardless of the Ordo it is presented in, although to the extent of the effectiveness of the Ordo it is presented in, the Mass will effect greater or lesser graces.

I believe it is useful to critique the Novus Ordo itself being an innovation. But not the Mass which it presents which is the same as the Mass that is ever presented to the Almighty Father.

Sincerely, MKT.

Mr. Ortiz said...

MKT---I agree.

Paul Haley said...

"But the Mass is the Mass regardless of the Ordo it is presented in, although to the extent of the effectiveness of the Ordo it is presented in, the Mass will effect greater or lesser graces."

The Mass must signify that which it represents, the Unbloody Sacrifice of Our Lord at Calvary. Otherwise, it is simply a meal or a recollection of the Last Supper which by the way is the interpretation of certain Protestant sects.

So, to say that it is the Mass, regardless of the Ordo it is presented in, is a non sequitur. That which signifies a meal and the cult of man is not the same as the Unbloody Sacrifice and you're saying it does not make it so. At least, that is my opinion and I stand by it.

But, in the final analysis this matter must be settled by those engaged in the doctrinal talks which, I suspect, is far above our own level of sophistication. To be sure, it is a matter that separates the traditionalists from the modernists.

Anonymous said...

Dear Paul Haley,

Certainly a modernist would have a great love for the wreckovation that the revolutionaries who instituted the Novus Ordo.

I assure you, I am no modernist.

Sincerely, MKT.

Enoch said...

The great Cure d'Ars is not only a good example for priests to follow, but his sermons to the faithful are something for us to consider, too.

Here's a sermon that he gave, called, "Who Has Charity?" It is a good reminder for us traditionalists to not consider ourselves as somehow "better" than other Catholics who attend the Novus Ordo.

Here's the sermon:

"Who has charity?

Ah, dear Lord, how Christians are damned through lack of charity! No, no, my dear brethren, even if you could perform miracles, you will never be saved if you have not charity. Not to have charity id not to know your religion; it is to have a religion of whim, mood, and inclination. Carry on, carry on, you are only hypocrites and outcasts! Without charity, you will never see God, you will never go to Heaven!

Give away your wealth, give generous alms to those who love you or please you, go to Holy Communion every day if you wish: you are only hypocrites and outcasts. Continue on your way and you will shortly be in Hell!

You cannot endure the faults of your neighbor because he is too tiresome; you do not like his company. Go away, unhappy people, you are but hypocrites, you have only a false religion, which, whatever good you are doing, will lead you to Hell. Oh my God! How rare this virtue is! Alas! It is so rare that they are rare, too, who will be going to Heaven! I don't even want to see them, you will say. At church, they will distract me with their mannerisms.

Ah, unhappy sinner, say rather that you have no charity and that you are but a miserable creature who loves only those who agree with your sentiments and enter into your interests, who never go against you in anything, who flatter you on the subject of your good works, who love to thank you for your kindnesses, anf give you plenty of attention.

You will do everything for such as these; you do not even mind depriving yourself of some necessity to help them. But if they treated you with contempt or returned your kindness with ingratitude, you would no longer love them. You would never wish to lay eyes upon them. You would avoid their company. You would be very happy to cut short any dealings with them. Ah, dear God, what false devotions these are which can only lead to a place among the outcasts.

If you doubt any of this, my dear brethren, listen to St. Paul, who will not lead you astray. If, he tells us, I should give my wealth to the poor, if I should work miracles by raising the dead, and have not charity, I am nothing other than a hypocrite."

The Cure then goes on to give an example of St. Simeon, who didn't want others to know the good works he was doing, and instead, wanted others to think he was bad...even though he was only doing good.

Here's the link to this sermon and others by the Cure d'Ars:

Sean said...


A Protestant minister who validly, though illicitly, receives the Sacrament of Holy Orders (which is done far more often among Lutherans and Anglicans than many would think) validly confects the Sacrament of the Eucharist during his respective worship service if he uses the words of Consecration within it.

QUESTION: does the Protestant minister offer the Sacrifice of Calvary?

QUESTION: If SOME New Rite Masses so alter the ritual or form of the Mass that it effectively fails to signify the Sacrifice of Calvary, is the Sacrifice of Calvary necessarily offered (even with a validly consecrated eucharist)? Must the Mass, like the sacraments, signify what it accomplishes?


Paul Haley said...

MKT said:
Dear Paul Haley,

Certainly a modernist would have a great love for the wreckovation that the revolutionaries who instituted the Novus Ordo.

I assure you, I am no modernist.

No, you're not and I don't mean to imply that you are. If the NOM signifies clearly that which it represents - the Unbloody Sacrifice of Our Lord on Calvary, then it is a Mass without question. Whether it signifies the Theology of the Mass as stated by Session 22 of Trent, well, that is another question and is possibly being debated by higher powers than we.

My only point is that as it is celebrated in many places it signifies more a meal to me than the Unbloody Sacrifice. Hopefully, this will change in the near future if Pope Benedict XVI is successful. Be of good cheer, bro, I think we're on the same page.