Benedict Carter asks “Why do the Revolutionaries who gave us the Novus Ordo hate Catholics so much?”

POSTED BY Benedict Carter

“THE MASS

Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci (‘The Ottaviani Intervention’, 1969) to Pope Paul:

“The Novus Ordo Missae, even when said with piety and respect for the liturgical rules… is impregnated with the spirit of Protestantism. It bears within it a poison harmful to the faith.”

“We have limited ourselves to a summary evaluation of the Novus Ordo where it deviates most seriously from the theology of the Catholic Mass and our observations touch only those deviations that are typical. A complete evaluation of all the pitfalls, the dangers, the spiritually and psychologically destructive elements contained in the document—whether in text, rubrics or instructions – would be a vast undertaking.”

Cardinal Alfons Stickler, November 27, 2004:

“The analysis of the Novus Ordo made by these two cardinals has lost none of its value nor, unfortunately, of its relevance …. the results of the reform are considered by many today to be devastating. It was to the credit of Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci that they discovered very quickly that the change of the rites led to a fundamental change of doctrine.”

Pope Paul VI, October 13, 1977:

“The tail of the devil is functioning in the disintegration of the Catholic world. The darkness of Satan has entered and spread throughout the Catholic Church even to its summit. Apostasy, the loss of the faith, is spreading throughout the world and into the highest levels within the Church.”

“I sometimes read the Gospel passage of the end times, and I attest that, at this time, some signs of this end are emerging”

Pope John Paul II, visit to the USA in 1979:

“We are now standing in the face of the greatest historical confrontation humanity has gone through. … We are now facing the final confrontation between the Church and the anti-Church, of the Gospel versus the anti-Gospel. This confrontation lies within the plans of divine Providence; it is a trial which the whole Church … must take up.”
————–

What has happened to our Catholic Church since the mid-1960’s? A healthy Church (at the level of the laity and much of the clergy) has collapsed. Indeed, the collapse was achieved by the mid-1970’s: all since then has been a series of stases before the next lurch downwards.

We have seen everything change, but nothing has affected us so much as the changes in the Mass. What follows are my own thoughts and observations on this matter since my return to the Church in 2005. I will not enter into a discussion of whether the Novus Ordo is a valid Sacrament per se or not: this essay assumes that it is (although many hundreds of thousands of individual Novus Ordo Masses have undoubtedly been invalid for want of valid matter or form over the last decades). But valid is the very, very least it should be. There should be so much more.

I am certainly of the opinion that the Novus Ordo is ONLY *relatively* safe in the hands of an orthodox priest. In the hands of a free-thinker, a weak priest or an out-and-out heterodox priest it is a lethal weapon against the Catholic Faith.

The Mass, as the centre of our Holy Faith, should:

1. Reinforce the entire Catholic Faith in every aspect – the way we worship contains within itself all that we believe;
2. It should raise up the individual reverently to the majesty and glory of God;
3. It should present to the individual (sic) soul the starkness and finality of the moral choices we have to make as Catholics in order to inherit Eternal Life;
4. It should keep us in safe continuity with the two thousand years of organic (and in fact miniscule) development of the Church’s main western liturgy, so that we can be Catholics hearing the same words and seeing the same gestures as a Catholic in Italy in the 4th century, as a Portuguese Catholic in the 9th century, as a Swedish Catholic in the 14th century, as an Englishman hearing a recusant Mass in the 17th century; as any Catholic at all until 1968. Communion in worship is communion in belief, not only with one’s fellow Catholics throughout the world, but with all Catholics throughout the centuries back to the time of Christ Himself.

The Novus Ordo does NOT fulfill any of these functions of worship. When an SSPX Bishop says that it represents a new religion, he speaks as a Bishop (yes I know, illicitly consecrated and suspended a divinis) and not as the holder of unusual historical opinions. This view should be thought about most carefully by any serious Catholic. It is a terrible charge to lay on the Novus Ordo and I believe that fundamentally it is correct.

That there has been a gigantic rupture in the Church these past fifty years cannot be denied. Those who do deny it are either very stupid, have a vested interest in the rupture or (even worse) are quite happy that it occurred, whatever the damage done; or have been formed by it and don’t know anything else.

I was born in 1963 so came to self-consciousness with the changes already made. I count myself extremely lucky to be the child of parents whose whole lives and characters were formed by and steeped in the Catholic Faith of their parents, people of the First World War generation. So prayers were said, our home was full of religious pictures, statues, music, books and conversation, going to Mass was a very serious matter and the whole world of Catholicism was in our home constantly.

The rupture has caused conflict within families, civil war in the Church, and apostasy on a scale not seen since the 16th century and before that, in the time of Arius; and has lost countless souls. I am sure of this latter point: the changes have cost many, many souls. At the heart of the rupture is the Novus Ordo: quite understandable, as the Mass is the centre and summit of the Catholic Faith. So what is the nature of the rupture, seen most vividly in the New Mass?

I believe with all my heart that at its bottom-most level, it is a loss of faith in the existence of God and the invisible world, which for any authentic Catholic should be the world that has most pull on his mentality, thoughts, conduct, and whole life. This has in turn led directly to the loss of the sense of sin and of its seriousness. And so of course the Confessionals are mostly empty.

It also represents – as anyone understands who knows from whom the New Mass came into existence, and how – the fruit of a significant number of people in the Church Herself who were seeking ways of robbing the Mass of its Catholic nature in order to (a) appeal to German and English protestants, to whom they felt closer than to their fellow Catholics; (b) actively do the Church harm.

These were Modernists who had kept a low profile since the time of Pope St. Pius X but who were still very much around. Their world-view was shaped by the seeming triumph of “historicity”, by the (coming, they thought) triumph of Marxism and its “truths”, and by the onward march of science and technology. The Council experts, or periti, were mostly made up of these people.

A new Mass was needed for the Modern Man formed by all these things they thought, a New Mass giving Man greater “dignity” (= “involvement” = Eucharistic Ministers, laity tramping about the Sanctuary, the destruction of the priesthood). A Mass for the (Marxist Collective) “community” where the individual soul is no longer called to say in his heart “I believe” but, along with the Collective, say “We believe”. The mindset produced by this emphasis is one of “community”: thus the Mass as a “meal”. In fact, it is the Collective at prayer (more properly it is the Collective praying to itself).

It is not a meal for me in any sense: I prefer bangers and mash.

And the New Mass, by eliminating specifically Catholic doctrine about Sacrifice, would appease all those Lutherans and Anglicans to whom we had been so nasty for so long, eh?

And for this New Mass, with its centre of gravity NOT Christ above the individual soul (a vertical relationship) but the Collective (a horizontal relationship), there was needed a new physical orientation: priest and people face each other; the Tabernacle to which I knelt and prayed as a small boy thrust out of sight into some alcove chapel. All barriers (altar rails) that “denied” the Collective its rightful dignity were removed so that the Sanctuary is now the whole Church; new churches built to more represent an ancient Greek theatre where the Collective could gather round itself than the churches of all our forefathers that were built in one dimension – vertically, a line from the faithful to the priest and deacons to God in His Tabernacle.

Culturally, the Novus Ordo has been a catastrophe of world historical proportions. That the Catholic Church, repository of the greatest fruits of human endeavour in history, should have effectively turned its back on Her cultural greatness is like the Irish monks of the 5th to 9th centuries saying, “What the hell, the transmission of all that Greek and Roman knowledge and greatness is boring, let’s chuck all that copying into the Atlantic and have a rest”.

The Novus Ordo goes along with one of its many nefarious bedfellows, iconoclasm (of an order not seen since the Iconoclastic Heresy of the Eastern Church or the so-called “Reformation”); it is culturally utterly impoverished, and all of us are as a result greatly impoverished – a catastrophe.

To sum up (and for what I say about the Novus Ordo, the opposite is the case for the true Roman Rite, the Old Mass, which I refuse to call the “Extraordinary Form”):

• it is a Mass specifically created (the first time this has been done in history) to meet an imagined sociological need of a supposed “Modern Man”.
• as the creation of a committee, it cannot possibly have any organic link with the venerable rite of at least 1,600 years which it replaced;
• it was, without question, designed to deliberately protestantise the Catholic Church;
• it has led to Christ and the Sacrifice of His own life for us sinners being thrust out from the centre to the periphery – both literally and figuratively;
• it is so often proud, oh so proud, trumpeting in its nature a “dignity” of Mankind that we sinners do NOT deserve;
• it is a cultural non-entity; a disaster;
• it banishes the soul’s private communion with God and through noise and distraction makes such communion well-nigh impossible;
• it cries out on every side its sheer infantility;
• it is the deliberate collectivisation of the Church’s worship in Marxist form;
• practically, there are as many forms as there are Masses. I exaggerate only a little to illustrate the fact that there are really many versions of the Novus Ordo, legitimate, semi-legitimate, illegitimate, and even scandalous. This has been admitted by the liturgical experts who, together with then Cardinal Ratzinger, participated at the Fongombault Liturgical Conference 2001 (Proceedings edited by A.Reid OSB in ‘Looking Again at the Question of the Liturgy’ with Cardinal Ratzinger, 2003).

I have found it so difficult to assist at Novus Ordo Masses here in Qatar where I live that in the end I decided to try not to anymore. If I do, I feel I will lose my faith or have a faith so hollowed out by the New Church’s secularism that my conscience would be gravely offended, rather than just my senses or love of beauty. Certainly I will be bored to death by the sheer banality of it all: the laymen and women traipsing about the Sanctuary as if they owned it (as an altar boy, the Sanctuary for me was HOLY, not to be defiled. It was a great HONOUR for me to be anywhere on the Sanctuary).

We have to get the Old Mass back if we ever want the Church to triumph in this world. You can’t abuse it – indeed, it is impossible to assist at the Old Mass and NOT be a Catholic.

One might ask, “if the [poorly formed] priests were [removed], could I be reconciled to the New Mass? Well, I thought I was reconciled to it for some time. But even when I attended it, I wasn’t reconciled in my heart.

The bottom-line problem with the Novus Ordo is that it is fundamentally un-Catholic. It is only because the sad figure of Pope Paul VI couldn’t stomach what Bugnini really wanted to do that we have a valid Mass now at all. And even so he had to be shamed into some kind of stand by the “Ottaviani Intervention” of Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci.

A bad priest can turn the New Mass into straight-forward sacrilege (clown Masses etc.) whilst a good priest has one arm permanently tied behind his back by it. Which is why I believe that it cannot be reformed. By its very nature it is no good.

And in what does the difference fundamentally lie? In a wholly different theology – about the Church, about Our Lord Jesus Christ, about sin and Redemption. The Old Mass places me where the Faith says I should be – on my knees before God, knowing that only through God can I be saved. The New Mass puts me in the centre, in the place of God Himself, or at the very least, alongside Him. It ASSUMES my deification has already been achieved. But the whole thrust of the Church these last decades is one of PRESUMPTION about our Salvation, no?

So here are a few quotations:

Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, main author of the New Mass, L’Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1965: “We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren that is for the Protestants.” (ie, we must stop being Catholics and change our religion!).
And again, in 1974, he said, “ … the reform of the liturgy has been a major conquest of the Catholic Church”.(These words of Bugnini should be pondered on in silence). Now would follow “The adaptation or ‘incarnation’ of the Roman form of the liturgy into the usages and mentality of each individual Church.”

Father Kenneth Baker, SJ, editorial February 1979 “Homiletic and Pastoral Review”: “We have been overwhelmed with changes in the Church at all levels, but it is the liturgical revolution which touches all of us intimately and immediately.”

Professor Peter L. Berger, a Lutheran sociologist: If a thoroughly malicious sociologist, bent on injuring the Catholic community as much as possible had been an adviser to the Church, he could hardly have done a better job.”
Professor Dietrich von Hildebrand: “Truly, if one of the devils in C.S. Lewis’ The Screwtape Letters had been entrusted with the ruin of the liturgy he could not have done it better.”

Cardinal Heenan of Westminster, autobiography “A Crown of Thorns”: “Subsequent changes were more radical than those intended by Pope John and the bishops who passed the decree on the Liturgy. His sermon at the end of the first session shows that Pope John did not suspect what was being planned by the liturgical experts.”

Cardinal Heenan warned the Council Fathers of the manner in which the periti could draft texts capable “of both an orthodox and modernistic interpretation.” He told them that he feared the periti, and dreaded the possibility of their obtaining the power to interpret the Council to the world. On 26 June 1966 The Tablet reported the creation of five commissions to interpret and implement the Council’s decrees. The members of these commissions were, the report stated, chosen “for the most part from the ranks the Council periti”.

Father Joseph Gelineau SJ, Council peritus, enthusiastic proponent of the post-conciliar revolution, wrote in “Demain la liturgie”: “To tell the truth it is a different liturgy of the Mass. This needs to be said without ambiguity: the Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists. It has been destroyed.”

I am truly sorry to draw the conclusion that, in calling the Novus Ordo and the Old Mass “two versions of the same Rite”, the previous Holy Father was engaged in naive hopefulness at the least. His “reform of the reform” was always doomed: you can’t call a Trabant a Bentley and expect someone wanting to buy a Bentley to believe otherwise. In comparison with the Old Mass, the Novus Ordo is a child’s scribble alongside a Caravaggio. They are different and mutually antagonistic things. The one is Catholic to the last syllable. The other is a cuckoo planted deliberately in the Catholic nest, to the latter’s very grave injury.

The Second Vatican Council said this regarding the reform of the Liturgy (from the constitution “Sacrosanctum Concilium”):

“…no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.” (22.3)

“…care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing.” (23)

“…the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.” (36.1)

“The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as especially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.” (116)

“The texts intended to be sung must always be in conformity with Catholic doctrine; indeed they should be drawn chiefly from Holy Scripture and from liturgical sources.” (121)

From which it can be seen that the present liturgical life of the vast majority of parishes in the Catholic world as well as, arguably, the Mass of Paul VI itself, is in blatant defiance, betrayal even, of the Second Vatican Council.
Who amongst the laity was asking for the Novus Ordo in the first place, before in was introduced? No-one. It was simply imposed; and millions were squandered for printing endless paperwork, vandalization of churches, for brainwashing young seminarians, for subversive work of confidentially organized pressure groups, for organization of refreshment courses. Are not the new church buildings the monuments of uncharity, “as ugly as sins” as one architect called them in his book. Where are the works of art which our ancestors left us as a precious heritage and our liturgical gurus took liberty to demolish in order to satisfy their monstrous appetites? Many books have been written and many more could be written about the scandal to which we were and still are exposed.

The bishops and the priests have forgotten Latin if they ever knew what it was, people are used to the street vernacular “translations”, to the lazy, mechanical “active” repetition of phrases with their minds elsewhere, to sit comfortably most of the time, “feel well”; and the priests are “pleased” for being so “pastorally relevant”. The Old Mass requires an active involvement, whether in a silent prayer of one’s own choice or in following the priest’s prayers from their Missals – all that requires a substantial effort, whether one can read Latin or chooses to follow the text in a vernacular. It will obviously require much time, resources, active involvement of the clergy, instructions by the Hierarchy, to rebuild what was easy to vandalize in such a short period of time by those who had no sense of duty, no filling of responsibility, no charity, no faith – only their own barbaric instincts.

Isn’t it tragi-comic that the patient, polite, persistent, fifty years’ work of true Catholics who love the Church have eventually won the day and put our hierarchy to such a shame that they now do not know how to get out of the swamp they jumped into on their own initiative ? Let them all go to the Greek Church and learn there what is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and realize what a mess they have made or allowed to be made of it in our churches. And, paradoxically, the Greeks are supposed to be “schismatics” and our bishops “Catholics”.

I do not dispute that the Mass in any valid form is the “the perfect re-presentation of Calvary.” But you don’t need a degree in theology to understand that the effect the Mass has on those present does not depend on its validity alone. The ritual itself (in which what is essential for the validity is found), can make the Mass’s impact on an individual the opposite of what the Sacrifice of Calvary upon the altar offers us: it can, and regrettably with the Novus Ordo does, empties Christ’s Sacrifice of all meaning, as we all know from youtube, endless reports from around the world, and all the tragic experience of the last fifty years.

We have even had a public apology of the Pope John Paul, unprecedented in the entire history of the Church: “I would like to ask forgiveness – in my name and in the name of all of you…in the episcopate – for everything which…may have caused scandal and disturbance concerning the interpretation of doctrine and the veneration due to this great sacrament. And I pray.. that… we may avoid in our manner of dealing with this Sacred Mystery anything which could weaken or disorient in any way the sense of reverence and love that exists in our faithful people” (Dominicae Cenae 1980).

Nothing has changed since. He complained again in his Encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia 2003 (9/6, 52/1), the CDW issued Redemptionis Sacramentum 2004, listing the pages of abuses – all in vain. It is now 40 years that we have been enjoying the “benefits” of these abuses; there is no improvement in sight, and we must accept the fact that these so called “abuses” are what the New Mass is all about, and that the Mass of the kind celebrated in the London Oratory is – abuse. It should be now clear that the term Inferior Form reflects the reality of the OF.
“…no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.”

- this is done all the time by many priests.

“…care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing.”
- the new liturgy did not grow organically from the old, but arose from a wholesale revision of the liturgy by a commission of a few Bishops who were not representative of either the College of Bishops or the laity. Even Paul VI argued much with this commission, whom he frequently chastised for going too far.

“…the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.”

- obviously the Council, though wanting to provide limited space for the vernacular, did NOT mandate that the WHOLE liturgy should be celebrated in it.

“The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as especially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.”

- though Gregorian chant is prescribed in the new missal, it is in reality invariably replaced by vernacular songs (the word “hymn” seems to have disappeared).

“The texts intended to be sung must always be in conformity with Catholic doctrine; indeed they should be drawn chiefly from Holy Scripture and from liturgical sources.”

- aforesaid songs are most frequently NOT drawn from either Scripture or liturgical sources, at least not primarily.
“To conclude, innovation should not be made unless when real and definite advantage will accrue to the Church” (SC 23).

What are these advantages which were the condition for an allowance for innovations? The numerous documents complaining against abuses confirm that there are no advantages. Admittedly, the complaints are usually preceded by a glorification of “benefits”, but we are never told what these benefits are all about.
The body of “experts” chosen to tailor the liturgy did not seem to have been competent in matters of sociology and psychology (Fr. A. Nichols, OP, Looking at the Liturgy 1996). They seem to have had some DIY idea as to what is … “better for the people”, and chose to carry the matter through without any preliminary sociological or psychological studies. Can one imagine such a reconstruction, without preliminary studies of its possible impact, in any serious business? But obviously, our “experts” did not have to put at risk their own pockets: their experiment has to be paid by their experimental rabbits – “the people of God.”

In summary, let us always keep to the front of our minds the fact that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is crucial ; it’s paramount ; it’s intrinsic to everything. Like all Sacraments which are portals to eternity, as sacramentals are whispers and ‘brushings’ with it.

So let us never forget what the Mass IS:

The Sacrifice of the Mass is the Church’s heartbeat; it’s the Church’s breath. All of reality returns to Calvary to the source of our Redemption to be nourished, re-invigorated, revitalised. We cannot live without Our Lord’s Body and Blood. Let us worship Him in the most beautiful and gravest manner possible, using the Rite of Mass developed since the earliest days by so many generations of our ancestors, who loved and revered it.

Why do the Revolutionaries who gave us the Novus Ordo hate Catholics so much?”

M Donnelly: Benedict – thank you for the hard work you have obviously put into this.  It took a while before I could find the time to read it properly so apologies for the delay.

I can only remember the new form so that I am not aware of what I missed previously. I know that even in its present form I find the Mass is essential to strengthen my relationship with God.

90 comments to Benedict Carter asks “Why do the Revolutionaries who gave us the Novus Ordo hate Catholics so much?”

  • AkP

    “2. It should raise up the individual reverently to the majesty and glory of God;” The only chance of this happening is if I keep my eyes closed as much as possible. I think the essential starting point, for change, is the celebration of Mass ad orientum (facing the people just makes NO sense at all) – at least during the Preparation of the Gifts and for the whole of the Eucharistic Prayer. I understand and agree with all of what you say here, Benedict, but I don’t see how the NO can be done away with, barring a miraculous intervention. There is zero provision for the TLM [Traditional Latin Mass] where I live or nearby, so my only experience of it is when I travel. If it was available I would go exclusively.

    • Lynda

      Yes, so many of us have to endure serious liturgical abuses in the sanctuary. We pray in penance for the irreverence for Our Lord in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar. If it doesn’t pierce one in the heart, there is something wrong with one’s Faith and love for God.

  • Neil Jennison

    I am 100% in agreement.

  • Excellent post! During a Mass I attended in 1970 handouts of various songs were passed out to the people in the pews. The priest explained that “new hymns” were being written for the New Mass and what we had been handed were a few of the first ones. He also said that soon we would be getting proper hard covered hymnal books in the Church with more of them. My mother, who was a convert from Protestantism, looked them over and was astonished to see that they were the hymns she had sung as a Methodist. She was puzzled because she had been taught that Catholics weren’t allowed to use them because they contained heresies. How, she asked in bewilderment, was it now okay to sing them? She asked the priest after Mass and he admitted that they were Protestant hymns but said they were just being used until the Catholic ones came out. Well . . . when the hymnal book came out the next year it contained not only the songs in the handouts but also quite a number of other Methodist hymns. They are still there to this day.

  • Augustine

    “Why do the Revolutionaries who gave us the Novus Ordo hate Catholics so much?”

    Actually it was Pope Paul VI who gave us the Novus Ordo and I don’t think he hated Catholics. Most reasonable people recognise that Paul VI was a Catholic himself.

    I think he was probably a saint.

    Members of the Society of Pius X regard him as a revolutionary and probably a heretic. And of course some members of ACTA regard him as a conservative and a reactionary – and will never forgive him for Humanae Vitae.

    Way back in the early 1970′s, I remember some ultra-extremist Catholics who claimed that the real Pope Paul VI had been kidnapped and a look-alike Freemason (it had to be a Freemason!) had been installed in his place.

    To “prove” this they produced two photos of Pope Paul: one when he was first elected aged 66 – and another photo of a rather tired-looking 80 year old and now wearing spectacles! :-)

    But I can’t remember how they explained why this impersonator of Pope Paul would have volunteered to exchange himself for Aldo Moro (who Pope Paul had known since the mid 1930′s) and who had been kidnapped by the Red Brigades.

    • solly gratia

      Thank you. Nothing depresses me more that reading the sort of thing this article presents. I was a protestant; there is nothing protestant in the mass; it may not be Catholic enough for some lacking the bells and smells, the lace and chant of days of yore favoured by latter day medievalists, but that is a different matter. Protestants may copy the mass, as Anglicans do, and maybe Lutherans, but as a whole, they don’t come within a million miles of it, and generally have a very very low view of ‘communion’: usually a cube a bread and a small beaker of ribena passed around the congregation. I became a Catholic partly as a reaction to this low view.
      And yes, i hate the modern hymn book too, since I sang most of the songs as a Protestant. That does need dealing with.

      • Hanna Lowther

        Nothing Protestant in the Novus Ordo, says Solly.

        But it is almost a direct copy of the Cranmerian Rite of the 16th Century which set out deliberately to strip the Mass of all its Catholic content …. just the objective Bugnini and his six protestant chums set out to reach in the 1960′s.

        So your assertion does not stand up even to the most cursory of scrutiny.

    • Benedict Carter

      Dear Augustine, your sneers prove the Traditionalists’ point. Thank you for doing so.

      Yes, some people – maybe very many people – actually lost their peace of mind because of the changes. Some went mad. A few, trying to square it all rationally, came up with this or that substitution theory.

      These are the fruits of Vatican II and the Novus Ordo! Good, pious people, lay and cleric, with their psychological health and their spiritual lives broken in half.

      Well done.

      • Augustine

        Not sneers at all – just mentioning facts from the 1960′s that you are unaware of.

        And no reason for you to be sarcastic about thanking me for “proving your case”. I do not think I have insulted you. If I have please explain precisely how.

        “Post hoc non est ergo propter hoc.”

      • Augustine

        Benedict Carter April 1, 2014 at 8:19 am · Reply

        “Dear Augustine, your sneers prove the Traditionalists’ point. Thank you for doing so.”

        Benedict Carter April 1, 2014 at 6:30 am · Reply

        “It is a mark of the liberal-progressive hedonist that they hate the truth, so, having no arguments, they resort to playing the man as a first resort.”

        Post hoc non est ergo propter hoc.

    • iggy o'donovan

      Yes Augustine I agree Paul VI was a saint. I will be in Rome for the canonization of John XXIII and John Paul II. I think it would have been appropriate if Montini had been twinned with Roncalli for canonization.
      I would twin John Paul II with Pius IX as suitable bedfellows.

      • Benedict Carter

        “Bedfellows”?

        • Augustine

          Perhaps not the best phrase to use – and as Pius IX died many years before John Paul II was born, obviously they never met.

          But Fr Iggy is a Church Historian and there are certain historical similarities between Pius IX and John Paul II: both of them became Pope at a relatively young age and both of them reigned for a very long time.

          Both were hailed by the world as “liberals” when they first became Pope and were very popular amongst non-Catholics.

          All this changed later on and they were vilified by the world.

          A bit like Our Lord being welcomed by the crowds on Palm Sunday – who then called for Him to be crucified on Good Friday.

          I am not a betting man, but I suspect the Mass Media will turn on Pope Francis when they finally realise that he is not going to change the Church’s teaching on faith or morals.

          Remember the public burning of an effigy of Pope Francis?

  • Joanne

    Exemplary work Benedict Carter! I agree with all of it but I still don’t know why they hate us so much. When you are lost, you don’t continue on the same wrong road. You turn back until you find the right road you passed. They simply will not turn back and continue on the same wrong road hopelessly lost.

  • Joyce

    A few comments:
    Nothing, I repeat, nothing! could have prepared us, two converts, for what we were to discover: more than anything else the incredible noise, called “music” during Mass. Shrieking laidies(usually) with harsh and totally untrained (to say the least) voices, “accompanied” by disco volume guitars, drums,or whatever. The texts and the “music” is usually decided by the same (usually very uneducated) ladies and a few men. They draw their inspiration exclusively from the pop-and rock world that surrounds them all over. They DON´T appreciate the very few(if ever) invited profesional(or similar) singers and musicians, whom they are incredibly and openly and shamelessly envious of. In the midst of their stunning self assurance, built on air, they seem at least to sense that it is only the catholic church that offers them a stage( sorry, but that is how they behave) around the altar where they can endulge freely in their lack of talents. So, naturally they are prepared to fight for their continued existence and “rights” to entertain the pàrishioners at Mass. Pure, but poor, entertannment,that is what they are offering, usually supported by the parish priest, as well, whether he likes this poor quality (which far too many seem to do) or just have decided to keep quiet, just go along, to avoid conflicts( just as many). Usually, when a priest dares to challenge this, by trying to introduce dignified and beautiful music, engaging talented singers and musicians, he(rather, the invited musicians) is / are met with a mountain of envy. the result is, at least in all the parishes we have seen, that the “shrieking ladies”, in their own ways, challenge the priest, who seem astonishingly afraid of them and the same(some of them very neurotic) ladies, encouraged by a few unhappy and seemingly insecure men, subject the musicians with various kind of envious calumny.
    And the parishioners? Many of them would prefer more dignified music but when it really comes to it they just wouldn´t care to raise their voices to promote or encourage any improvements. Since most catholics attend Mass out of habit, being cultural catholics.
    One expert on liturgy has said that it is impossible to even imagine a reevangelization without restoring the beauty and dignity of sacred music.
    In northern Europe, one can enjoy quite beautiful music at Mass; in southern Europe, the music, especially(if there is any “music” at all) is so poor, so downright bad, such a great suffering to endure, that no words could possibly suffice to describe this satisfactorily.
    Even when very high ranking officials in the church are celebrating Mass, the low “standard” of the “choirs” is often(with a few lovely exceptions) simply beyond words. To anybody, it is beyond doubt that these “choirs” have not even cared to practise, to rehearse, nothing! And all of this, a shamefully arrogant view on anything having to do with music, they are demonstrating, week after week, even on TV when a special Mass is transmitted all over the world.We are speechless. Even our non catholic friends have commented on the incredibly low standard of the music in southern Europe, especially.
    And the priests and bishops on these occasions are, seemingly, just accepting, or maybe even(?) enjoying all this painful and embarrassing amateurism. As long as it can be labelled “Participation”. This hurts. And it hurts a lot. We have come to prefer a totally silent Mass,since all this horrendous and scandalous noise and lack of beauty and dignity DOES cause much harm to all the souls searching for the beauty of Mass, as it once was. And as we had imagined it to be!
    Look at the Russian Orthodox church! LISTEN to their incredibly lovely music! They haven´t changed the liturgy since St John Chrysostomos.
    Very few priests in the parishes have recieved any training or education on liturgical music, which of course is none of their fault. The problem is, and a huge one! that these very same priests often behave as they would be experts on liturgical music. That is, if HE, the priest, decides that pop songs or (poorly sung) gospel is what he considers holy music at Mass, ANYTHING like Gregorian chant, even in its simplest forms, or classical music, is excluded. Always. Without any explanation or excuse.
    We love the catholic church more than we can possibly express; the pope, the saints, the tradition, the teachings. IT IS WONDERFUL! and we do love and respect priests very much, praying for them a lot.
    If only this tragic chapter of incredibly poor and harmful “music” could come to an end.

  • John Thomas

    I would encourage all those who have never been to an EF [Extraordinary Form] or Tridemtine Rite Mass to go to one with an open mind, ignoring the polemics, and focussing on the spiritual realities they will encounter therein

  • Lynda

    It can be understood properly only with advertance to the aim of Satan and his minions to take as many souls as he can and to destroy the Church, the means for our salvation. Many in the Church, and especially in the episcopate, priesthood and among theologians and others with influence in the Church, hate God and His Holy Church and are cooperating with Satan.

  • Benedict Carter

    Dear Mrs Donnelly, thanks very much for finding the time to read this. When you have been to the Old Mass maybe fifteen times you will begin to understand all – everything will start to come together in your mind. And you will end by asking yourself, “They took THIS away from us?”

  • Mike2

    It can’t be denied that the Church in Western Europe and the Americas has been suffering badly for several decades. It seems that there are three main explanations put forward.

    The first is that it is mainly due to the Novus Ordo Mass. Daphne McLeod has pointed out that the Novus Ordo Mass has not prevented the rapid expansion of Catholicism in Africa and Asia so that seems to suggest that the Novus Ordo explanation is not especially convincing.

    The second explanation is that it is due to faulty catechesis. The advocates of this explanation claim that if only young Catholics were properly catechised then we would not be seeing all this decline. There can be no question that many young Catholics have not been properly catechised but many leading figures in the Church have suggested that there is something else which is much deeper that is often missing. This has been summed up in the phrase, ‘catechised (or sacramentalised) but not evangelised’. Through catechesis, people can come to know about Jesus Christ but it is much more important that they know Jesus Christ. For the latter to happen, people need to be converted first to surrender their lives to Jesus. Only people who have been evangelised can become true evangelisers. An important part of being an evangeliser is being able to give testimony to the effect that Jesus Christ has had in our lives. This view says that young people are not likely to accept something nowadays just because someone in authority says it; but they are more likely to accept something that people tell them from experience. Putting it simply, you first have to capture the heart. Then you can educate the mind.

    On a personal level I came back to the Church in 2009, having been away for several decades, although I would prefer to say that I came back to God. I attend the EF [Extraordinary Form] Mass on most Sundays but very happily go to the OF [Ordinary Form] Mass during the week. At both types of Mass I am nourished by the liturgy and by receiving the Body and Blood of Christ. I’m not very enthused by some of the hymns sung at the OF Mass and if I were in charge I would suggest that EMHCs are not especially necessary. I would love to have the kind of music which was recommended by the Second Vatican Council. But as Michael Voris said to those who object to things at OF Masses, put away your abusometers and just offer up to God anything you do not like.

  • Mark L

    Benedict Carter [very moderated comment] should have nothing to do with your blog. This is a huge error of judgement.

    • Mark – I am concerned that you are posting comments about this under different names. I have posted this but not one by ‘Maria’, I am also not posting ones by ‘Norman Wrigley’. Please forgive me Mark, Maria and Norman if I have wrongly thought you are all the same person. Your comments are just so similar in style.

      • Benedict Carter

        ROFL!

        It is a mark of the liberal-progressive hedonist that they hate the truth, so, having no arguments, they resort to playing the man as a first resort.

        In six years’ of Catholic blogging, I have become more than used to it. See how a defence of the Mass enrages them?

        • Just in case there is anyone else out there who hasn’t blogged much or watched football, Nick explained to me that ‘playing the man’ is instead of playing the ball in football. That is, you kick the man in the shins… well you learn something new everyday!

    • Lynda

      The post ought to be taken at face value. It does not mean Mrs Donnelly agrees with all or any of Mr Carter’s opinions. The readers of this blog are for the most part well-informed Catholics who can assess material themselves.

    • JabbaPapa [Julian Lord]

      Hello “Phil” — are your pp and your Bishop aware of your EXTREME misuse of online social media ? Or have you just come in here to demonstrate your gloating that Deacon Nick has been silenced, but not yourself ?

      Get out of your shed, man, and get rid of your unwholesome internet addictions — there’s a whole world outside for you to discover …

      • Umm – I think looking at past posts ‘Phil’ could also be George D.

        Please remember that I will try to remove posts where it appears that you are posting similar comments unfairly under different names…

  • jacobi

    The answer (to your very lengthy article ) is quite simple.

    The Reformers who pushed the original valid Pauline Mass of 1965 and its later unapproved and liturgically misleading variations, had a clear objective which was to reduce the Mass to a lowest common denominator, ecumenised, protestantised service, but not because they were protestants or whatever. No, this was simply a stage on the way to relativising and diminishing all Christian belief which as Relativists (with the help of their many gullible liberal allies), was their ultimate goal.

    Now, they are still out there and at it, and still making steady headway.

    The reason they hate simple orthodox Catholics is that such people (and the Holy Spirit of course, but then they do not believe in Him) are the only real barrier to achieving their aims.

  • Amanda Peter

    Bella Dodd who was a member of the communist party before she left said,
    “In the late 1920’s and 1930’s, directives were sent from Moscow to all Communist Party organizations. In order to destroy the [Roman] Catholic Church from within, party members were to be planted in seminaries and within diocesan organizations… I, myself, put some 1,200 men in [Roman] Catholic seminaries”.

    We had many communists infiltrate the church. They got ordained but were never genuine priests at heart. The Russians are the best chess players in the world. They had their strategy to bring down the Catholic Church. Many of these working for Moscow were at the Second Vatican Council.

  • Julie

    The Novus Ordo or New Mass although valid and ‘orthodox’ so to speak, it is only minimally Catholic. This Mass and the ambiguous and error ridden ‘pastoral’ Vatican II is responsible for the vast world wide apostasy that we experience in the Church today. We need to return to the authentic faith our fathers. Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi

    • Lionel Andrades

      Julie:

      The Novus Ordo or New Mass although valid and ‘orthodox’ so to speak, it is only minimally Catholic.

      Lionel:
      It is the Sacrifice of Jesus.

      This Mass and the ambiguous and error ridden ‘pastoral’ Vatican II is responsible for the vast world wide apostasy that we experience in the Church today.

      Lionel:
      There is a specific error in the interpretation of Vatican Council II which I avoid.So there is no apostasy for me when I attend the Novus Ordo Mass.

      We need to return to the authentic faith our fathers. Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi

      Lionel:
      Yes we can return to the authentic faith of our fathers by acknowledging an irrationality in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and other magisterial documents.
      If you interpret any document, secular or religious, with an irrationality you will get non traditional, un real conclusions.
      This has happened in the Church on a big scale.

  • Amanda Peter

    Marie Carre published a diary she found called AA-1025.( anti apostle number 1025) He was a priest but really a communist. It’s a chilling read and much of his ideas to subvert and destroy the Catholic Church have been played out. The Russians have always been the best chess players. It’s appalling the lengths they went to. AA-1025 is a good read.

  • Chloe

    Thank you Benedict. I will keep that by me and reread it.

  • jacobi

    Mrs Donnelly. Oops. The bracket should have come directly after Catholics!

  • shaun the sheep

    I remember the glowing comments which Pope Francis made recently about the VII liturgical reform which bore no resemblance to reality as I perceive it as I look around at the liturgical landscape.

  • polycarped

    Thank you, BC, for this very thoughtful article – so nice to be able to see what you have to say outside the constraints of a Catholic Herald combox post!

    “And in what does the difference fundamentally lie? In a wholly different theology – about the Church, about Our Lord Jesus Christ, about sin and Redemption.”.

    As someone quite new to the Traditional Mass (having been born after the revolution and not having ever had any in-roads into the traditional movement), this has become more and more obvious to me over the past year or so – this is the absolute heart of the problem I believe. The idea that it could even be a different religion would have been laughable for me a few years back – but not any longer. Here’s the reality though: the theological shift which the New Mass embodies (certainly in the way it is most commonly celebrated – i.e. poorly) is SO deeply embedded in the life-blood of the majority of the ‘faithful, of our priests and Bishops now – and indeed of the post-conciliar Popes as demonstrated in their public worship – that any significant return from this position by the mainstream seems incredibly remote.

    M Donnelly’s comment “I can only remember the new form so that I am not aware of what I missed previously” is clearly THE big stumbling block for the wide return of the Traditional Mass for priests and people alike. I was in the same position until recently but I have made the transition and now assist at the Traditional Mass as often as its availability allows me too. It means making ‘sacrifices’ (which pale into insignificance in the grand scheme of course) but which are worth it – e.g. travelling long distances to Mass with tired and hungry children, ‘losing’ much of what was previously ‘free time’ (N.B: it’s worth every minute ‘lost’!).

    Many people who are new to the Traditional Mass I think will say – and this is my experience – that it’s very hard to get used to it. It really is hard work. This is simply because those of us who didn’t know it have been so completely hard-wired to something else which has become increasingly me-centric (as you have said) – it’s like being so utterly used to Vimto that you just can’t quite appreciate the Chateau Neuf du Pape. It’s a paradigm shift; a major conceptual shift. The Traditional Mass seems, frankly, very alien – we have to be honest about that with potential newcomers; this of course just goes to reinforce your point that because the New Mass has such a variety of interpretations in practice (many of which are unfaithful to the rubrics) and is the product of a revolutionary committee, it is indeed something quite new and different (albeit valid in most cases).

    Recovering the almost-lost theology that would naturally lead souls back to the Traditional Mass – which so clearly emphasises THE sacrifice (not the meal) and sacrifices on a personal level too, both of which the devil unabashedly seeks to entirely eradicate from the face of the earth – will I think only come about (other than through a supernatural intervention) through the sacrifices of several generations of faithful Catholic families and of the traditional orders which will produce vocations and increase the demand for the Traditional Mass. But it will be a painfully slow process. That’s if we have enough time left – something which I increasingly doubt.

    Thanks again and God bless you.

    • polycarped, everything you say cannot be emphasised enough!

      One thing which people should know however is that most priests who say the Latin Mass are true to the Catholic Faith. But, we still need to beware! There are some priests who for cynical reasons appear to accommodate it, even go so far as to say it on occasions. Little things give them away though! Like comments in their homilies, or practices in their parishes. Eg making reference to “the Catholic tradition” when they do not mean traditional Catholic, but Catholic tradition (on an equal footing with various Protestant “traditions”). Same priest selling non-Catholic Bibles in his repositories, etc

      The resistance to authentic Catholicity is a very serious matter as it is most strongly embedded in the hierarchy:(

    • Lionel Andrades

      polycarp

      outside the constraints of a Catholic Herald combox post!

      Lionel:
      I find that the Catholic Herald,U.K does not want to discuss this issue, that is the cause of Vatican Council II being non traditional. They probably have received legal threats under leftist laws in England.
      So to protect themself the Catholic media do not want to discuss the actual cause of the Council emerging liberal and non traditional.

      So we have this non traditional theology and doctrine held by priests and lay people who attend the Novus Ordo Mass. Then it is assumed by the SSPX that the fault is with the Holy Mass.

      However the SSPX too, perhaps, to also protect themself from the leftist censorship, will not affirm the Council without an irrational premise.It could be politically correct not to affirm the exact cause of the liberal interpretation of Vatican Council II.

      Since I personally am aware of the irrationally being used widely and not discussed I do not have a problem with any rite. Theology has not changed for me.

  • shaun the sheep

    I am intrigued by the fact that we are having this conversation publically. Only a short time ago, these things were talked about nervously. Now we are having a discussion. It is interesting to note that the election of Pope Francis has forced out into the open conversations that need to be had within the Church, rather than papering over the cracks and pretending everything is ok. Let’s proceed with charity, truth, justice, and caution, but proceed we must!

    • Lionel Andrades

      shaun the sheep

      I am intrigued by the fact that we are having this conversation publically

      Lionel:
      I think we have to thank Mrs.Donnely and Protect the Pope.

  • The damage is done and only a remnant will remain. But, there are many holy people who go to the NO and many unholy people at the TLM. The Mass is the centre of our worship, but it is an expression of belief, of metanoia, of repentance.

    Here is my real concern, and I am a regular TLM participant. http://supertradmum-etheldredasplace.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-exterior-reveals-interior-part-two.html

    Neither the NO or the EF mean a thing, if Faith is not lived daily and with zeal.

    • Benedict Carter

      Indeed, Marie, but that is not the question under discussion.

      In the essay I am asking which Rite is Catholic, and which is not? And which will therefore build up the Catholic Faith (which should then be lived daily with zeal)?

      The answer is clear and very obvious.

      • @Benedict Carter: [W]hich Rite is Catholic, and which is not?

        Both forms of the Roman Rite are Catholic. It is not a question of one being Catholic and the other not, and we’re not going to get anywhere until people on both sides of the liturgy wars accept that.

        Whether the OF or EF better expresses the Catholic faith, or which is more spiritually beneficial for the faithful, and why – those are the sorts of questions one needs to ask.

  • Thank you, thank you, thank you. This says so many of the things I’ve said at so many different times but never all in one place. The quotes are a fantastic addition to truths which should be (and alas, are not) self-evident.

    I am most frustrated at the impenetrability of the minds of most Catholics who either cannot or will not see. I started my path to tradition in a defensive posture, seeking to protect the Inferior Form from those who would seek to cast it into the outer darkness as one of history’s great mistakes. I literally got a red pen and sat down with the Ottaviani Intervention (recommended to me by a family member who had been recently ordained, and had discovered how bad the Novus Ordo really was first hand) and I don’t know if I even made a single mark. I do know that I walked away from that reading a changed man. Because everything they were warning about were the very things I always found myself criticizing in the Church’s praxis. Suddenly, after a lifetime of seeing the effects, I had been exposed to the cause.

    It is a source of hope to see things like this written, especially by writers whom I do not know. I wish that there were more us, but any growth is better than none.

  • Benedict Carter

    Polycarped, thanks so much for kind comments. I myself think (at present, anyway) that, as far as the institutional Church is concerned, we have passed the point of no return. When Cardinals oppose Cardinals, Bishop opposes Bishop, are we not in the middle of the events foretold by Our Lady at Fatima and Akita, and as foretold by Heaven through many mystics, stigamtists, Saints?

    All will be re-made and all will be restored after the Great Chastisement. But it will be the doing of God. His faithless men have deserted him.

  • Southwell.com

    Great piece, thank you.

    It is essential if we have the blessing to be able to attend and assist at a Latin Mass to let others know about it and not keep this great good fortune to ourselves! It is a matter of sharing the gifts that God has given is to strengthen people in the Faith and as acts of mercy and charity. We must invite as many people aboard as possible and start (respectfully, without disrespect or angry polemics) advertising these masses.

    For those who haven’t had the blessing of attending a Latin Mass regularly or even at all, it will become a vital missing link and give the true understanding of the state of the Faith and what has happened to us all. It is VITAL to seek out and not to spur the opportunity to attend this Mass, 50 years or so since many acted as though it were wiped off the face of the Earth, and many danced on it’s grave. We have a duty to understand ‘Why?’ otherwise we are running from perhaps the most urgent questions, without which we choose to block our ears and minds and bury our heads in the sand. Is this fear of asking honest questions sinful? Or is it a greater sin to willfully turn from what must be faced with an open heart and mind?

    There are many extremely devout and good Catholics who attend the Novus Ordo who, if only they knew or could experience the fullness of the beauty, truth, doctrine and prayerful devotion that are part and parcel of the Latin Mass would have a ‘lightbulb moment’, and would understand much and be reinvigorated in the Faith, the Faith of our Fathers, the Faith handed to Peter and the Apostles. It is not an act of revolution to attend and assist at the Latin Mass! It is the right of every Catholic. The stumbling block must be overcome – it is the key! The stone the masons rejected will become the corner stone. Do not be afraid!

    Finally, I (and my children and the small children of all the others I see at Mass) do not find the Latin Mass ‘difficult’ at all – that is just a falsehood peddled by people with an agenda centred on their pride. It is simply untrue. At the Latin Mass everything is geared up towards devotional prayer, even a child without language can naturally understand this. With the Novus Ordo however, to approach it with the same level of prayerful devotion as the Latin Mass, is often an exceptionally difficult trial, which we all know very well. Those good Catholics who regularly attend the Novus Ordo every week and often have to work so hard to adore God and to thank Him with their whole being for his Sacrifice as though it were a matter of life or death, would, by attending a Latin Mass, not just be granted a strengthening of their Faith, as well as a sense of peace, and closeness to God – they would be truly rewarded for their strong and persistent Faith in the midst of a great storm. These are the people who ‘deserve’ the Latin Mass most of all. It’s time for many of us now to overcome our pride and find out ‘for ourselves’ and for our souls, what brought this storm about that rages around us and what must we try to do in our own small way to defeat it with all our heart, with all our strength and with all our soul.

    The enemies of the Faith have tried and continue to strive to suppress , destroy, marginalise, slander, ridicule and abuse the Latin Mass and those who assist at it and those who protect it. By their acts you will know these enemies (lay or clerical). You will recognise them by their fruits. Be strong!

    • polycarped

      Dear Southwell,

      Just a comment on one of your points which obviously is quite different to what I was saying in part of my earlier post (not that you were necessarily responding to it) “Finally, I (and my children and the small children of all the others I see at Mass) do not find the Latin Mass ‘difficult’ at all – that is just a falsehood peddled by people with an agenda centred on their pride.”.

      My admission of having found getting used to the Traditional Mass ‘hard work’, whilst it may indeed have something to do with my pride at some level, is not a falsehood and certainly not an agenda – it’s simply a lived experience which I’m glad to say is no longer an issue. My point is that some people (not all), like myself, because of what I suggested was our ‘hard-wiring’ to the Novus Ordo over the period of our whole lifetimes, can find the transition to the Traditional Mass very challenging (rightly or wrongly) even with a very strong desire to assist at it. I totally agree with you that younger children take to it like ducks to water though – it is so natural – they do not have the ‘baggage’!

  • A fine piece of writing indeed!i remember the days when they robbed us of of the holy sacrifice of the mass in latin; removed the altar rails; removed the choir which sang the palestrina mass in latin without fear or favour. look at confession now =not many go to it, but they all go to holy communion! Myself, and my brother, served the latin mass and we voiced our dissent to our priest who looked down at us in the presbytery and said-are you being disobedient to the Pope? We said no Father!!it was the hippy 68 ers and liberal fanatics that got us into this mess but it will be the traditional movement which will get us out of it as well. I am off to the Birmingham Oratory on Sunday for high mass-now that will take some beating. God bless the oratorians everywhere. Philip Johnson.

    [moderated capitals and spaces]

  • Burt

    Benedict Thank you for this eloquent and insightful summary of the betrayal of the council fathers decisions which have robbed the Church of it’s Heavenly treasure.
    The Church has been hijacked by those who as your headline implies hate Catholics. I would only correct that to say it is Catholicism itself they hated and indeed still hate.
    And yes many many souls have been lost because of it. Whole generations have been denied the authentic Mass where they would have known the intimate connection with Our Lord receiving holy communion on their knees, directly on the tongue by the priest in personae Christi.
    They say nothing is sacred anymore, well if even the Mass is not sacred what ever can be.

  • buckle

    My own view is that there is no way back. We are staring at the total collapse of the Church in Europe and the Americas inside twenty five years. I suspect that after this period (perhaps a little longer) we shall have the first internet generation of bishops. Those who have been educated in the seminary in parallel with the web and not ex post. Having said that, I was surprised to discover a very bright straight ‘A’ seminarian who affected that he didn’t read the internet. In any event, it is at this point in the future that a revival will occur. It takes about seventy years for these disasters to run their course and we are about fifty years into ours.

    • I was so sorry to read your post. Nick always tells me this quote when I get down, it is from Mother Teresa but I may slightly misquote it…
      “Let nothing make you so sad that you forget the joy of the resurrection of Christ”.

      And another one that I like… “Don’t worry – pray”. God bless you

  • scary goat

    Thank you BC. Wonderful article.

    I too am comparatively new to the TLM. It was actually BC back in the Catholic Herald days who encouraged me to go. As a convert having only ever known the NO and having a certain amount of Latin from school days, I thought I knew the Mass and went to my first TLM thinking I knew what to expect. It proved to be quite a shocking experience and although I felt it “alien” my overwhelming feeling was: so this is what we lost! What have they done?! I sat on the fence for a while taking some comfort in the familiar but determined to persevere and understand the TLM. As the weeks went by and I became familiar with the TLM, I found it increasingly difficult to go back to the NO. I recently started to take my 12 year old son to the TLM….just as an education and leaving it up to him to make his own choice later. It took about 4 months from first disgruntled “I don’t understand a word of it” to “I understand this better and I don’t want to go back to the old parish”. We are now going to the TLM pretty much exclusively except on the odd occasion where it is necessary to attend an NO. We actually attend a local SSPX chapel where we get the full Traditionalist works…not just the TLM but Traditional sermons etc. My son loves it….I can see his ears wagging with interest as he listens to the sermons and we come home afterwards and he is bursting to discuss what he has learnt. At 12 years old he can see that the Traditional teachings are coherent and it makes sense to him. It is wonderful to watch it sinking in. On the odd occasion when we still go to our local parish, I can see his eyes glazing over with lack of interest, and he usually says something like: what was he on about? or did you hear what he just said?! I’m afraid that having been subjected to Traditional teaching for some time now, even at his tender age he also picks up on the modernist errors being taught.

    I will never be able to thank BC enough for teaching me, and for the impact it has had on my son’s understanding, and I would encourage everyone to try attending a TLM if possible, and don’t be put off if at first it seems alien. Just persevere for a few weeks, a couple of months, and it will all fall into place and you will never look back.

    • polycarped

      That’s fantastic, Scary – you must also be so proud of your son. Now that I am also over the initial shock, I could not agree more with the message that you say came across to you “so this is what we lost! What have they done?!”. Our experiences are very similar indeed. I hope that many more get to experience this wake up call too. God bless.

  • Augustine

    Mike2 at March 31, 2014 at 6:58 pm makes a very cogent point when he writes: “Daphne McLeod has pointed out that the Novus Ordo Mass has not prevented the rapid expansion of Catholicism in Africa and Asia so that seems to suggest that the Novus Ordo explanation is not especially convincing.”

    This demolishes Benedict’s main argument in favour of the Extraordinary Form of Mass.

    Benedict (as always) makes some good points – but then makes some exaggerated claims that rather destroy the rest of his argument. (eg “Why do the Revolutionaries who gave us the Novus Ordo hate Catholics so much?”)

    Pope Paul VI (who gave us the Ordinary Form of Mass) did not hate Catholics – and he was not a revolutionary.

    And bad music is not compulsory with the Ordinary Form – nor are dubious hymns.

    You can have the Ordinary Form of Mass with good music – and in fact Vatican II recommended Latin Plainchant.

    • Benedict Carter

      “Pope Paul VI (who gave us the Ordinary Form of Mass) did not hate Catholics – and he was not a revolutionary.”

      Oh but he WAS a Revolutionary! Do you not know of his great friendship with Saul Alinsky, the Marxist and anarchist theorist, one of whose books was dedicated to Lucifer?

      Pope Paul – an anguished soul for years before his death as the reality of what he had unleashed came home to him – was the first Pope IN HISTORY to decide to meddle materially with Tradition. Did you not read the two quotations made by him above? There are many others like them.

      No, Augustine, you are not going to get away with a white-washing of the reality for hundreds of millions of Catholics – that the very guts of their Church have been ripped out.

      And a word about Africa/Asia/Latin America. This idea that the Church has grown is a total myth:

      a) The proportion of Catholics in the world has remained steady at about 17.5% for many years. In the West it has collapsed, while in these other areas the head-count has grown, but only because of higher birth-rates in those regions. What we do NOT see is an increase in the proportion of Catholics in the world, which blows your thesis out of the water.

      b) And what kind of Catholics are these? Vatican II-ised Catholics. That means they know nothing whatever about the actual teachings of the Faith. As I saw first-hand when I lived in Kenya.

      c) The Pentecostalists, “Prosperity Gospel” and other sects are making MASSIVE in-roads into the Church’s membership in these regions. The modern Church feeds them spiritual stones. They leave – as they left by the millions in the West 20-30 years ago.

      The Novus Ordo and Vatican II are DIRECTLY responsible for all this. Your position is that of a man determined to remain blind.

      • @Benedict Carter: Pope Paul… was the first Pope IN HISTORY to decide to meddle materially with Tradition.

        Demonstrably untrue: for one thing, there is the radical Breviary reform of Pope St Pius X at the beginning of the 20th century.

        Going back further we find Pope Paul III authorising the use of the Breviary of Cardinal Quiñones, another radical reform (that in this instance never really got going and was superceded by the Tridentine Breviary about 30 years later).

        • Benedict Carter

          I wrote, “Pope Paul… was the first Pope IN HISTORY to decide to meddle materially with Tradition.”

          With TRADITION.

          The Old Mass certainly falls into that category, expressing as it does perfectly the truths of Revelation.

          • Augustine

            I remember the changes in the Holy Week Services introduced by Pius XII in the 1950′s.

            Was he meddling with Tradition too?

      • buckle

        Ben, P6 had lots of friends and it seems reductio ad absurdam to define him by one friendship. I’d like to think that F1 had P6 in mind when he spoke of a certain naïveté in the Church. One might be tempted to suggest that this a feature of all the five papacies of my lifetime prior to F1.

        One acid test, in the short term, will be vocations. My suspicion is that vocations are about to nosedive again. We shall see. For whilst F1 is refreshingly machismo, I am not sure his personality cult will work in that area. Let’s hope I am wrong!

      • Augustine

        Dear Benedict,

        “It is a mark of the liberal-progressive hedonist that they hate the truth, so, having no arguments, they resort to playing the man as a first resort.”

        “Your position is that of a man determined to remain blind.”

        People who really know me would not ever accuse me of that.

        I do hope that I have not made any personal attacks on you. If I have I would like to apologise.

        Although you may not realise it, our paths crossed a few years ago several times on “Holy Smoke” when I tried to answer some of the questions you posed – usually with quotations out of the old “Penny Catechism”. I think you were just returning to the practise of the Faith. You seemed to appreciate my attempts to explain things clearly – although someone else dismissed my attempted explanations as “nonsense copied off a cornflakes packet”!

        In fact I grew up with the Penny Catechism and the Extraordinary Form of the Mass in the 1950′s and I know and love Latin Plainchant.

        I am very well aware that there have been lots of sensational claims floating around for the last 50 odd years. But if Pope Paul VI was part of some diabolical conspiracy to undermine the Catholic Church, it would appear that Blessed John Paul II and Pope Benedict were also part of the conspiracy.

        I do not think that is true.

        In a few weeks’ time, Pope Francis is going to canonise Blessed John Paul II and Blessed John XXIII. Some scholars regard canonisation as coming within the remit of Papal Infallibility – others do not.

        But there is also the matter of the miracles that the Church now attributes to their intercession. If Blessed John Paul had been part of an evil conspiracy, why would Almighty God grant a miracle through his intercession?

        God bless you.

      • Augustine

        CONCEDO
        There are far fewer faithful Catholics in Western Europe now than in the early 1960′s when the Second Vatican Council began.

        DISTINGUO
        “Post hoc non est ergo propter hoc.”
        To blame this lamentable decline solely on the Ordinary Form of Mass is to assume that there are no other factors involved…such as….

        - the Permissive Society
        - Hedonism and the Sexual Revolution of the 1960′s
        - the influence of the Entertainment Industry (films & pop music influence especially the young)
        - the breakdown of trust in all forms of Authority (religious, political, juridical, educational…)
        - the huge rise in the Standard of Living in the West & the worship of Mammon
        - belief in Materialism & disbelief in the spiritual aspects of reality
        - poor Religious Education and Catechesis
        - the adulation of Scientific progress

        It is easy for westerners to forget about the Eastern Rite Churches – both Catholic and Orthodox. But although their Rites were not changed after Vatican II, they have suffered similar haemorrhages in their communities in the West over the last 50 years.

        For modern Western Europeans whose languages often have close connections with Latin, it is not so difficult to learn Latin. It was not so easy for Eastern Europeans – and in the mid 800′s when Saints Cyril and Methodius spread the gospel in the East they celebrated Mass in Slavonic with the permission of Pope Adrian II.

        The Church in Poland, of course, was blessed with strong leadership during and after Vatican II. No huge drop in either Church attendance or vocations there. But Processions, Pilgrimages, Benediction and Marian Devotions were not abandoned as they were in the West. No abandonment of sound Moral Theology either.

        But I often wonder whether the faith would have taken root in Europe 1500+ years ago if Our Lord had been born in China and if the Traditional Mass was in Mandarin. Of course Orthodox Jews still pray the Psalms in Hebrew – but perhaps Almighty God decided to select His Chosen People from a particularly talented gene pool!

        • scary goat

          Augustine, I don’t think anyone is naive enough to suggest that VII caused the downfall of western society as a whole nor that all losses from the Church were caused by it. You are of course correct in saying that the cultural revolution of the 60s had a huge role in all this. The last 50 years have been tempestuous times culturally…..the problem is that in these times when we most needed the Church to stand strong against what was going on outside….it didn’t. If you look at the rejected Schemas, hey follow the normal pattern of the Church standing against the errors of the world. I know HV stood against modern trends…but with the “spirit of VII” already unleashed, no-one took any notice….and look at where we are now. Bishop Egan talking about not giving Communion to renegade politicians while the Bishops’ Conference shoots him down and undermines him.

          HH BXVI talked about a smaller, purer Church. I think if the Church had been strong in Her position in the first place, people, with their free will would have had to make their choices a long time ago….in or out…but let the Church get on with shining as a light to the world. Because the Church failed to take a strong position, now we are driven to the point where we need a synod on “family matters” and views such as Kasper’s are being aired in public and the Pope is trying to do some sort of juggling act to avoid schism….it has become a “numbers game” rather than being about the Truth.

          And regarding the TLM…catechesis is the answer to any language difficulties…and as you point out, it has been totally inadequate since VII. I don’t think this can be viewed as coincidental, not really. And also, as you point out concerning the Mass in Slavonic, while the Latin has some uses, the language in itself is not the main issue. If it was really deemed necessary to have the Mass in the vernacular for a good reason, for example evangelisation in areas where Latin is an alien language and/or where people have poor levels of literacy, why not translate the TLM into the vernacular? Although Latin does have its purpose, the language is not the be all and end all. The change from the TLM to the NO was far more than a translation to the vernacular. For me, although I like the Latin, it is the other things that go with the TLM that actually matter more to me. I actually wouldn’t have a major objection to a translated TLM where necessary. Actually the original plans for the NO included a lot of Latin so the language was not the primary consideration. People seem to think the NO was about making the Mass in the vernacular for ease of understanding…it wasn’t.

          • Augustine

            SCARY GOAT April 4, 2014 at 12:33 am
            “Augustine, I don’t think anyone is naive enough to suggest that VII caused the downfall of western society as a whole nor that all losses from the Church were caused by it.”

            Actually that is precisely what Benedict Carter is arguing.

            Benedict Carter April 1, 2014 at 9:50 pm
            “The Novus Ordo and Vatican II are DIRECTLY responsible for all this. Your position is that of a man determined to remain blind.”

            Having asserted this statement (which is of course quite impossible to prove) he then violently attacks anyone who disagrees with him.

            He also implicitly denies that the Ordinary Form od Mass is Catholic:

            Benedict Carter April 2, 2014 at 9:23 pm
            ‘ “Both forms of the Roman Rite are Catholic.”
            You may say so, Matthew. You may believe so.’

            And he then reveals that if he is unable to go to an Extraordinary Rite Mass, he prefers not to go to Mass at all.

            And this is all on a blog called “Protect the Pope”!

            I do not think that Benedict Carter really approves (or approved) of Pope Francis or Pope Benedict, or Pope John Paul II, or Pope John Paul I – any more than he approved of Pope Paul VI.

        • Benedict Carter

          No, Augustine, [moderated comment I think we] have been protestantised and the Church lies in ruins. That wasn’t the secular society or the Pill or Woodstock. It was all deliberately self-inflicted wounds.

          The Traditional Orders, Societies and growing number of Traditional Catholic (= Catholic) lay faithful are in rude good health, though persecuted by the protestantised mainstream. [moderated comment]. Traditional Catholicism is growing, and that it is persecuted.

          [moderated comment]

          • Benedict – I always worry when I moderate a comment in case people think there was something really bad there that I had to remove. I want to be clear that this was not the case in your post – rather you were being ‘strongly robust’ and probably I could have just left it. I do not think I have materially altered the substance of what you are saying but I think I have made it less (personally?) pointed.

            I know this is my personal preference but it would be really helpful to me if everyone posting could be constructive in their comments and avoid things which might be taken badly as a personal criticism rather than an exploration of the point of view.

      • Augustine

        “The Novus Ordo and Vatican II are DIRECTLY responsible for all this.”

        Merely repeating this does not (and even using capital letters) does not strengthen your argument.

        Post hoc non est ergo propter hoc.

  • @Benedict Carter: [The Novus Ordo] is a Mass specifically created (the first time this has been done in history) to meet an imagined sociological need of a supposed “Modern Man”

    I don’t agree with all of your article, but this particular point raises an issue that goes far beyond the ordinary of the Mass.

    Lately, I have become especially puzzled (and ever more irritated) by the tweaking and editing of all the collects, prayers over the offerings, and post-communion prayers in the Ordinary Form by the Consilium. The claim is sometimes made that the OF Missal is better than the EF because it has a richness that is lacking in the EF, for the OF uses much more material from ancient sacramentaries and missals (e.g. Gelesian sacramentary, Missale Gothicum, etc.). Well, this is only half-true. Prayers from these ancient texts are used in the OF Missal, but often they have been been subject to editing in light of ‘modern man’. Take the post-communion prayer for December 21st as an example:

    English (2011 Missal): Lord, may participation in this divine mystery provide enduring protection for your people, so that, being subject to your glorious majesty in dedicated service, they may know abundant health in mind and body.
    (Latin: Sit plebi tuae, Domine, continuata defensio divini participatio mysterii, ut, maiestati tuae plena devotione subiecta, salvationem mentis et corporis affluenter accipiat.)

    This prayer is based on one found in the Veronese Sacramentary (Ve 1305), also known as the Leonine Sacramentary. The parts of the text that are ommitted/changed in the OF Missal are italicised, and my English translation is based around the 2011 Missal.

    Latin: Sit plebi tuae, Domine, continuata defensio divini participatio sacramenti: ut, carnalibus vitiis non teneatur obnoxia; ut maiestati tuae plena sit devotione subiecta; ut salvationem mentis et corporis et incessabiliter expectet, et affluenter accipiat.
    English translation: Lord, may participation in this divine sacrament provide enduring protection for your people, so that, not held guilty by carnal vices, and so being subject to your glorious majesty in dedicated service, they may know and unceasingly hope for abundant health in mind and body.

    My Latin translation skills are quite poor, so I’m hoping someone can do a better job. However, I trust that, in spite of my poor translation, the above example goes some way to illustrating the point. Sacrament in the original prayer is replaced by mystery in the OF Missal: not in and of itself a problem. However, the complete omission of the mention of carnalibus vitiis is in keeping with a ‘modern’ mentality for ‘modern man’ that wishes to minimise sin and guilt. And why cut out the unceasing hope? The original prayer as found in the Veronese Sacramentary is really fine as it is; there doesn’t seem any pressing need to edit it, yet edited it was.

    Yes, the ‘riches’ of the liturgical books of ages past are indeed there for us in the post-conciliar Missal – it’s just that they’ve been edited, or taken out of context, or mixed together to create hybrid prayers, or have served as the ‘inspiration’ for newly composed prayers. There seem to be very few prayers in the OF Missal that have been taken from previous Missals or other texts and have been left intact!

    In the whole hermeneutic of continuity/rupture debate, the editing of the OF propers doesn’t get much of a look in – probably because the relevant source texts are still very difficult to get hold of, and there’s not been a huge amount of scholarly work done in this area. But I think that, as time goes on, the work of the Consilium in this regard will need to be looked at and questioned in detail. Given the amount of editing, emending and rewriting of the sources, in what way can it be said that the 1970 Missal is continuous with the previous liturgical tradition?

  • SteveD

    The Pope has praised Orthodoxy for its synodal form of government and the fact that it has found a way to include the divorced in sacramental life AND he has praised it for its use of a reverent and ancient liturgy. While it appears that he may to want to emulate them in one or both of the first two matters, he seems to want to prevent this in respect of the third. I am struggling to understand why.

    • Augustine

      Lots of us are also confused.

      But he is a Jesuit. Jesuits have been the subject of religious jokes about their apparent lack of enthusiasm about the Liturgy.

      I remember back in 1961, the Parish MC (who had been taught by the Jesuits) told me this (old) joke:

      Q: What is the definition of chaos?

      A: A Jesuit in Holy Week.

      I remember reading Evelyn Waugh’s account in his diaries of his reception into the Catholic Church by Fr Martin A’Arcy sj in Farm Street. He was very fond of Fr D’Arcy (and in fact dedicated his Biography of Edmund Campion to him). But Waugh remarked that Fr D’Arcy got into a terrible muddle over what would have been a relatively simple Service of Reception and Conditional Baptism.

  • Lionel Andrades

    Benedict Carter

    “THE MASS

    Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci (‘The Ottaviani Intervention’, 1969) to Pope Paul:

    “The Novus Ordo Missae, even when said with piety and respect for the liturgical rules… is impregnated with the spirit of Protestantism. It bears within it a poison harmful to the faith.”

    “We have limited ourselves to a summary evaluation of the Novus Ordo where it deviates most seriously from the theology of the Catholic Mass and our observations touch only those deviations that are typical. A complete evaluation of all the pitfalls, the dangers, the spiritually and psychologically destructive elements contained in the document—whether in text, rubrics or instructions – would be a vast undertaking.”

    ‘the Novus Ordo where it deviates most seriously from the theology of the Catholic Mass’

    ‘…the theology of the Catholic Mass ?

    Lionel:
    I attend Holy Mass in Italian and also the Traditional Latin Mass and there is no difference in theology for me.Ecclesiology has not changed.

  • Lionel Andrades

    Benedict Carter
    …A complete evaluation of all the pitfalls, the dangers, the spiritually and psychologically destructive elements contained in the document—whether in text, rubrics or instructions – would be a vast undertaking.”

    Lionel:
    All this is not needed.There has to be only simple action and all will come in harmony. We only have to acknowledge a simple. specific error and then avoid it. See http://protectthepope.com/?p=10239

  • Lionel Andrades

    Cardinal Alfons Stickler, November 27, 2004:

    “The analysis of the Novus Ordo made by these two cardinals has lost none of its value nor, unfortunately, of its relevance …. the results of the reform are considered by many today to be devastating. It was to the credit of Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci that they discovered very quickly that the change of the rites led to a fundamental change of doctrine.”

    ‘…they discovered very quickly that the change of the rites led to a fundamental change of doctrine.”

    Lionel:

    False.The change in doctrine was independent of the liturgy.
    I attend the Novus Ordo Mass and the Traditional Latin Mass and there is no change in doctrine for me. Vatican Council II is not a problem.

  • Lionel Andrades

    The Mass, as the centre of our Holy Faith, should:

    1. Reinforce the entire Catholic Faith in every aspect – the way we worship contains within itself all that we believe;

    Lionel:
    Yes it should but this depends on the priest who offers the Mass and delivers the homily.

    2. It should raise up the individual reverently to the majesty and glory of God;

    Lionel:
    It can do that still.I recall a beautiful Novus Ordo Mass offered by an Italian Franciscan of the Immaculate priest in Rome.

    3. It should present to the individual (sic) soul the starkness and finality of the moral choices we have to make as Catholics in order to inherit Eternal Life;

    Lionel:
    This depends upon the priest offering the Mass and delivering the homily and is independent of the liturgy.

    4. It should keep us in safe continuity with the two thousand years of organic (and in fact miniscule) development of the Church’s main western liturgy, so that we can be Catholics hearing the same words and seeing the same gestures as a Catholic in Italy in the 4th century, as a Portuguese Catholic in the 9th century, as a Swedish Catholic in the 14th century, as an Englishman hearing a recusant Mass in the 17th century; as any Catholic at all until 1968.

    Lionel:
    This is independent of the liturgy of the Mass and depends on the priest.
    The Traditional Latin Mass is being offered by priests who reject the old ecclesiology or are not permitted to express it in public.
    This would also be true with the Greek Byzantine Mass offered in Rome.
    The liturgy does not determine doctrine.

    Communion in worship is communion in belief, not only with one’s fellow Catholics throughout the world, but with all Catholics throughout the centuries back to the time of Christ Himself.

    The Novus Ordo does NOT fulfill any of these functions of worship.

    Lionel:
    The Novus Ordo Mass is idependent of all these functions of the Church.Doctrine and theology is independent of the liturgy.

    When an SSPX Bishop says that it represents a new religion, he speaks as a Bishop (yes I know, illicitly consecrated and suspended a divinis) and not as the holder of unusual historical opinions.

    Lionel:
    The SSPX bishop could be making an error in doctrine and then attributing it to the Novus Ordo Mass.

    This view should be thought about most carefully by any serious Catholic. It is a terrible charge to lay on the Novus Ordo and I believe that fundamentally it is correct.

    Lionel:
    I believe it is fundamentally wrong.

  • Lionel Andrades

    That there has been a gigantic rupture in the Church these past fifty years cannot be denied. Those who do deny it are either very stupid, have a vested interest in the rupture or (even worse) are quite happy that it occurred, whatever the damage done; or have been formed by it and don’t know anything else.

    Lionel:
    There has been a rupture.

    I was born in 1963 so came to self-consciousness with the changes already made. I count myself extremely lucky to be the child of parents whose whole lives and characters were formed by and steeped in the Catholic Faith of their parents, people of the First World War generation. So prayers were said, our home was full of religious pictures, statues, music, books and conversation, going to Mass was a very serious matter and the whole world of Catholicism was in our home constantly.

    Lionel:
    The same with me. I was born in 1954.

    The rupture has caused conflict within families, civil war in the Church, and apostasy on a scale not seen since the 16th century and before that, in the time of Arius; and has lost countless souls. I am sure of this latter point: the changes have cost many, many souls. At the heart of the rupture is the Novus Ordo: quite understandable, as the Mass is the centre and summit of the Catholic Faith. So what is the nature of the rupture, seen most vividly in the New Mass?

    Lionel
    ‘At the heart of the rupture is the Novus Ordo: quite understandable,..’
    No it not the Novus Ordo Mass. It is reflected in the Novus Ordo Mass. It is also reflected in the Traditional Latin Mass offered in Rome.

    ‘So what is the nature of the rupture, seen most vividly in the New Mass?..’

    Lionel:
    It is the use of an obvious irrationality to change doctrine and suggest there is a New Revelation in the Catholic Church.It is a specific error. Get rid of the error and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Vatican Council II and other magisterial documents become traditional.

    When these documents are found to be traditional by the majority of Catholics, the priests and laity will express this during Mass in the different rites.Then there will be a natural hermeneutic of continuity.

    as the Mass is the centre and summit of the Catholic Faith. So what is the nature of the rupture, seen most vividly in the New Mass?

  • Lionel Andrades

    I have found it so difficult to assist at Novus Ordo Masses here in Qatar where I live that in the end I decided to try not to anymore. If I do, I feel I will lose my faith or have a faith so hollowed out by the New Church’s secularism that my conscience would be gravely offended, rather than just my senses or love of beauty. Certainly I will be bored to death by the sheer banality of it all: the laymen and women traipsing about the Sanctuary as if they owned it (as an altar boy, the Sanctuary for me was HOLY, not to be defiled. It was a great HONOUR for me to be anywhere on the Sanctuary).

    Lionel:
    I understand what your saying. I too quit as an altar server when the priest gave the Eucharist at Mass in Italian, to a young woman scantily dressed.

    Even now at some churches when I attend Holy Mass they reject the doctrines of the Catholic Church.

    When I attend the Novus Ordo Mass I receive the Eucharist on my tongue and on my knees. Thank God for my strong knees!

  • [...] den Novus Ordo und seine Auswirkungen gehören zu den besten, die ich je von Laien gelesen habe: http://protectthepope.com/?p=10267 Noch kurz zu dem im Blog „Protect the Pope“: Der Bloggründer Deacon Nick Donelly, ständiger [...]

  • Benedict Carter

    Steve Skojec:

    Thanks for very kind words. I looked at your site http://blog.steveskojec.com/ and liked it very much. A fellow warrior!

  • Thanks, Benedict. It was a pleasure to read. I’ve shared it with a number of people. I know for a fact that it’s being sent around at certain parishes as well.

  • Pius XII made changes to the Easter Vigil and other liturgical dates. Paul VI was NOT the first. And, there were changes made throughout history, including at Trent and before Trent, back to the Fourth Century.

  • Benedict Carter

    Marie Dean. You have missed the point made as well. Think about it carefully. The Mass is the supreme example of lex orandi lex cedendi. I refer you to Cardinal Stickler’s comment at the top of my essay. I am not referring only to a textual change but a doctrinal change. No other Pope had ever done such a thing. Certainly he altered the content of Tradition, and the knowledge that he had done so haunted him until his death. Because, despite his known liberalism (a historical fact), he was still a Catholic. A tortured and very sad soul. Self-inflicted wounds, unfortunately. As for the Church, the wounds he gave it have never healed and are now gangrenous.

  • I consider Paul VI saintly for one reason, the promulgation of Humanae Vitae, the most prophetic encyclical in the past 130 years.

    As to doctrinal changes, the liturgy has not change[d] things doctrinally-the changes came first-in the seminaries of the pre-Vatican II Church. If priests are interpreting doctrine in a false manner, that is their problem, not that of the liturgy.

    Such novelties as Communion in the hand are disastrous, but do not change the doctrine of the True Presence. Do such changes cause confusion? Yes, but doctrine has not been changed. Do some priests not believe in the True Presence, yes, but that has been the case since Catherine of Siena’s Dialogue and before.

    If anyone thinks that the NO is invalid, that person is a heretic, as it has been declared as valid by the Church. Outside of Rome, there is no salvation, and the Church protects us from being more Rome than Rome. If you read my blog, you will note that the Mass alone cannot save a person. Many evil people attended the TLM long before Vatican II. Hell is full of hypocrites.

    Beware of that false status of making judgments. I am a Latin Mass person and I remember the Church pre-Vatican II. It was not a perfect Church, as the Church has always contained sinners. Has the Church been infiltrated by communists, Marxists, sodomites, heretics? Yes. That is not deniable. And, of course, I believe in lex orandi, lex credendi. But, an excellent Catholic may go to the NO and still be an excellent Catholic. All the saints are not at the TLM. Nor are all the damned at the NO.

    If you have read my blog since 2007, you would know that I do not disagree with the superiority of the TLM, but I also do not agree that the Mass is a panacea. One becomes a saint through suffering, grace, and hard work, not merely by attending the TLM.

    Do you want a list of tyrants and evil people who attended the TLM all their lives? Start with the Tudor renegades and their immediate followers. One either avails one’s self to grace or one does not. To think otherwise is magical thinking and not the teaching of the Catholic Church.

  • Augustine

    Dear Benedict you write:

    1. “many hundreds of thousands of individual Novus Ordo Masses have undoubtedly been invalid for want of valid matter or form over the last decades”.

    How can you possibly know that – unless all the priests who celebrated those Masses told you that?

    You are just making things up.

    2. “I have found it so difficult to assist at Novus Ordo Masses here in Qatar where I live that in the end I decided to try not to anymore.”

    So you choose to break the Third Commandment rather than go to a Novus Ordo Mass. And you brag about it.

    That is like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

    3. You were born in 1963. By then I had been serving the Old Mass for years – two Masses each Sunday plus Benediction in the afternoon plus getting up very early to serve the 7am Mass on a weekday before going home for breakfast and then preparing for school.

    I do not pretend that the Novus Ordo Mass is perfect.

    But it is the Mass.

    And if I am travelling abroad I will go to Mass even if I don’t speak the local language. (Yes I realise the irony – in the old days it was all in Latin.)

    From ‘Alex Guinness: A Commonplace Book’
    “On our return from church:
    Lapsed Catholic: ‘Have a nice Mass?’
    Self wanted to reply: ‘Oh, you know; the same old thing. The Real Presence at the altar, body, blood, soul, divinity of Christ, as usual.’ ”

    Like Alex Guinness I don’t go to Mass to be entertained.

  • Benedict Carter

    Mrs Donnelly, I hardly think the disastrous state of the Church, so admirably proved so often by this blog, necessitates the level of moderation of comments you refer to in your note to me above. The time for anything but plain speaking is long past.
    —-

    St. Antony of the Desert (251-356), friend of St. Athanasius and the Father of Western Monasticism):

    “Men will surrender to the spirit of the age. They will say that if they had lived in our age, Faith would be simple and easy. But in their day, they will say, things are complex; the Church must be brought up to date and made meaningful to the day’s problems. When the Church and the world are one these days are at hand. Because our Divine Master put a barrier between His things and the things of this world.” (Disquisition CXIV.)

  • The problems began before Vatican II, as Vatican II was a result of the growing apostasy of the bishops and clergy, in America and in Germany, mostly. Those of us who have studied Church history in detail know that the rot set in during the acceptance of the Protestant New Criticism in the last 19th century and the growing threats of both the list of Modernist heresies and the heresy of Americanism. Vat II was a direct result of bad seminary training in the 1930s, 40s and 50s, with the emphasis on false ecumenism (as a result of the horror of two world wars, which made many bishops believe only a pan-Christianity could keep Europe Christian), and the infiltration of the communists into the seminaries beginning at the latest between the two wars.

    Vatican II was led by those bishops and clergy members who wanted Protestantize the Church and those who had already lost their faith in tradition.

    The changes to the Liturgy also stared before Vat II, some with Pope Pius XII, with the Dialogue Mass and the changes to the Easter Vigil, among other things.

    To point to the Council as the beginning of troubles is not only naive but historically and theologically incorrect.

  • I think that Dr. Dudley, from Fisher More college, argued that contraception and Vatican II were the pillars of the downfall of Western Civilization. That’s what got the college into so much trouble.

    And yet, I find it difficult to find fault with his speech:

    http://fishermore.edu/wp-content/uploads/Dudley-Faith-in-Europe.pdf

  • Benedict Carter

    “To point to the Council as the beginning of troubles is not only naive but historically and theologically incorrect.”

    I agree with every word of your comment Marie except for the last sentence. How to sum it up …? Vatican II was the culmination of all the processes you yourself list.

    Remember the Synod of Pistoia? After that early “Modernist” effort of some Italian Bishops, the then Pope ruled that no Catholic can be bound by ambiguous documents: indeed, he has a duty to resist them. It took a long time for the Church to officially embrace ambiguity to its bosom but embrace it the Church did.

    We have every right to refuse to accept Vatican II until the ambiguity is swept away once and for all. And that includes the Novus Ordo.

    I am simply astonished at the ability of so many Catholics to understand that the Church has been protestantised yet simply to go along with all of it. Probably people simply don’t care.

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>