Will Pope Francis’ Inter-Faith Peace Prayers Please God? If So, Which One?

Will Pope Francis’ Inter-Faith Peace Prayers Please God? If So, Which One?

ImageVatican City, Jun 6, 2014 / 08:56 am (CNA/EWTN News).- The Vatican has released the details for Sunday’s prayer between Pope Francis and the Israeli and Palestinian presidents, stating that although peace will not be immediate, it’s a starting point.

“The intent of this encounter is to open the road to peace,” Fr. Pierbattista Pizzaballa O.F.M., Guardian of the Holy Land, revealed to journalists in a June 6 press conference, telling CNA that “My hope is that this event will help to bring a new atmosphere in the Middle East.”

Speaking to other journalists, he explained that “the goal is not to change dramatically the peace process in the Middle East, but to bring back in the atmosphere among the people in the Middle East the desire, the real desire for peace.”

Detailing the itinerary for the prayer, Vatican spokesman Fr. Federico Lombardi S.J. stated that Presidents Shimon Peres of Israel and Mahmoud Abbas of Palestine will arrive to the Vatican within a few minutes of each other, and will meet Pope Francis and Patriarch Bartolomeo I of Constantinople at the pontiff’s residence in the Saint Martha guesthouse.

Afterward the four will travel together by car to the Vatican Gardens, where a brief explanation of the celebration will be given in English.

The prayer, the spokesman noted, will be divided into three parts following the chronological order of the three faiths: Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Beginning around 7 p.m., the first part of the prayer will be recited in Hebrew, honoring the Jewish faith. It will include an initial prayer, a brief musical interlude, a prayer of forgiveness, a second musical interlude, a prayer invoking peace, and finally a Jewish musical meditation.

The second part of the prayer, dedicated to Christianity, will follow the same structure, and will be recited in English, Italian and Arabic. ImageThe third part, honoring the Muslim community, will only be said in Arabic.

Following the three parts of the prayer, Pope Francis will give a discourse invoking peace, and then invite the Israeli and Palestinian leaders to give their own, beginning with Shimon Peres, who will be followed by Mahmoud Abbas.

After giving the speeches, the Pope and the presidents, along with Patriarch Bartolomeo I, will exchange a sign of peace in shaking hands. Pope Francis and the two presidents will then plant an olive tree together as a symbol of peace.

Concluding the celebration, the four will stand side-by-side as the delegations of each come to greet them, and will then travel to the Casina Pio IV nearby for a private discussion, after which the presidents will depart for their own residences, while the Pope and Bartolomeo I go to Saint Martha’sSource


The following information is taken from a report of today’s event published in The Times of Israel – information which is notably omitted from the Catholic News Agency report. Am I alone in thinking that what follows are highly revealing – and disturbing – tidbits?  

Every detail about Sunday’s meeting has been sensitive — the explanation for the delay in publishing the composition of the delegations taking part.

Friday was excluded since it is a Muslim holy day and Saturday for the same reason for the Jewish community, while Sunday is Pentecost for Catholics — a day of celebration of the Holy Spirit considered appropriate.

The choice of the Vatican Gardens is also significant since it is considered the most neutral territory within the Vatican City, with none of the Christian iconography that might be seen as offensive to the other two faiths.  END. 

Over to you. I’m speechless.   



Comments (212)

  • Leo

    Fidelity Always

    With respect, and in charity, I can only say that you continue to present us with very serious error and confusion. Having clearly demonstrated that your understanding of papal infallibility and the Ordinary Universal Magisterium are way off beam, you have treated us to your views on the Mass, which include the false claim that the Mass of Tradition was “abrogated”.

    “Even Pope Benedict who rewrote history, legislated for the reintroduction of an abrogated Rite…” – June 13, 6.08 pm

    Regulars will be familiar with the following, but I think it is worthy of constant repetition:

    “Pope John Paul asked a commission of nine cardinals in 1986 two questions. Firstly, did Pope Paul VI or any other competent authority legally forbid the widespread celebration of the Tridentine Mass in the present day? No. He asked Benelli explicitly, ‘Did Paul VI forbid the old Mass?’ He never answered –never yes, never no. Why? He couldn’t say, ‘Yes, he forbade it.’ He couldn’t forbid a Mass which was from the beginning valid and was the Mass of thousands of saints and faithful. The difficulty for him was that he couldn’t forbid it, but at the same time he wanted the new Mass to be accepted. And so he could only say, ‘I want that the new Mass should be said.’ This was the answer all the princes gave to the question asked. They said that the Holy Father wished that all follow the new Mass.

    “The answer given by eight cardinals in 1986 was that, no, the Mass of St. Pius V has never been suppressed. I can say this: I was one of the cardinals. Only one was against…

    “There was another question, very interesting. ‘Can any bishop forbid any priest in good standing from celebrating a Tridentine Mass again?’ The nine cardinals unanimously agreed that no bishop may forbid a Catholic priest from saying the Tridentine Mass. We have no official prohibition and I think the Pope would never establish an official prohibition.”

    – Cardinal Alfons Stickler in The Latin Mass, Summer 1995, p.14.

    June 13, 2014 at 11:09 pm
    • fidelityalways

      Mgr Perl disputed the account, and logically Pope Benedict, a stickler for details, does not refer to the so called Commission, when rewriting history, which would be an obvious thing for him to do when writing his novel polemic on the history of the abrogation.

      He does, however, in his documents list every Indult lifting the Universal abrogation for specific needs, and says I am going to make those provisions universal again.

      If I have missed Pope Benedict referencing that Commission, as Cardinal Ratzinger, or as the Pope, please provide the full details of that referencing. He does not, for example, mention it is The Spirit of The Liturgy, Or Summorum Pontificum.

      June 14, 2014 at 1:38 pm
  • Leo

    Fidelity Always

    You really do need to withdraw these totally unsustainable comments:

    “…the renewed liturgy is part of the unchanging Tradition of the Church.”- June 13, 8.57am

    “As Pope Benedict says there isn’t a new Mass. There is one Mass. Full stop.” – June 13, 1.01pm

    “…The Ordinary Form, and that is part of the one unbroken Tradition.”- June 13, 3.55pm

    “I am pretty sure that anyone that helped produce The Ordinary Form believed what we believe.”- June 13, 3.17pm

    We’ve had the New Theology, New Pentecost, New Advent, New Springtime, New Canon Law, New Catechism, New Sacraments, and New Evangelisation. Does anyone seriously believe the New Mass is a coincidence?

    And New Mass is certainly what we are talking about. Don’t take my word for it. At the risk of boring people with lengthy quotes, that some may have read before, the following selection of words should make the point. I would say that reading one or two at random is sufficient to understand that talk of continuity and organic development is unsustainable.

    On November 26 1969, Pope Paul VI uttered some of the strangest words ever spoken by a reigning Pope, arguably on a par at least with the same Pontiff’s “smoke of satan” remarks:

    “We ask you to turn your minds once more to the liturgical innovation of the new Rite of Mass…a change in a venerable tradition that has gone on for centuries. This is something that affects our hereditary religious patrimony, which seemed to enjoy the privilege of being untouchable and settled…It is the kind of upset caused by every novelty that breaks in on our habits…This novelty is no small thing…We have reason indeed for regret, reason almost for bewilderment.”

    Here’s the evidence of some of the fabricators themselves:

    “We must strip four 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.” – Annibale Bugnini, L’Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1965

    “The liturgical reform is a major conquest of the Catholic Church and has its ecumenical dimension, since the other churches and Christian denominations see in it not only something to be admired, but equally a sign of further progress to come.” Bugnini, Notitiaem no 92, April 1974, p. 126

    “It is not simply a question of restoring a valuable masterpiece, in some cases it will be necessary to provide new structures for entire rites…it will truly be a new creation.” – Annibale Bugnini, May 7 1967, La Documentation Catholique, no. 1493

    “Let them compare it with the Mass we now have. Not only the words, the melodies and some of the gestures are different. To tell the truth, it is a different liturgy of the Mass. This needs to be said without ambiguity: the Roman Rite as we know it no longer exists. It has been destroyed. Some walls of the former edifice have changed their appearance, to the extent that it appears today either as a ruin or the partial substructure of a different building.” – Joseph Gelineau SJ, Demain La Liturgie, Paris, 1976, pp 9-10

    “An ecumenically-oriented sacramental theology for the celebration of the Mass emerged…it leads us…out of the dead end of the post-Tridentine theories of sacrifice, and corresponds to the agreements signalled by many of last’s year’s interfaith documents.” Fr. Lengeling, Consilium member

    Evidence of the intended doctrinal changes comes from an irrefutable witness- Bugnini’s assistant, Father Carlo Braga:

    “Revising the pre-existing text becomes more delicate when faced with a need to update content or language, and when all this affects not only form, but also doctrinal reality. This (revision) is called for in light of the new view of human values, considered in relation to and as a way to supernatural goods…In other cases, ecumenical requirements dictated appropriate revisions in language. Expressions recalling positions or struggles of the past are no longer in harmony with the Church’s new positions. An entirely new foundation of Eucharistic theology has superseded devotional points of view or a particular way of venerating and invoking the Saints. Retouching the text, moreover, was deemed necessary to bring to light new values and new perspectives.”

    I counted the word “new” five times in that paragraph.

    Consilium actually considered abolishing Ash Wednesday but reluctantly retained it because “it would be difficult to take it away without encountering other inconveniences.”- Fr. Braga, Ephemerides Liturgicae 83 (1969).

    Fr. Braga admitted that the Novus Ordo had been given “an entirely new foundation of eucharistic theology” resulting from a revision affecting “not only form, but also doctrinal reality”, dictated by “ecumenical requirements…in harmony with the Church’s new positions.” – Fr. Carlo Braga, Il ‘Proprium de Sanctis’, Ephemerides Liturgicae 84 (1970), 419

    If anyone is inclined to dismiss the importance of the changes to the orations in the Mass and their effect, they need to read the words of Monsignor A.G. Martimort, another of Consilium’s experts:

    “The content of these prayers is the most important of the liturgical loci theologici ( theological sources). The reason is that they interpret the shared faith of the assembly.” (- The Church at Prayer, vol. 1)

    Compare the words of Father Braga when he said that the New Missal will indeed “have a transforming effect on catechesis” (Il Nuovo Messale Romano, Ephemerides Liturgicae 84 (1970) with those of Pope Pius XII who wrote in his encyclical, Mediator Dei, that the entire liturgy “bears public witness to the faith of the Church.”

    I think anyone who claims that those “dissident” Catholics who want the Mass of All Time, the Mass which sanctified and sustained so many Saints and Martyrs, are motivated by aesthetics (“bells and smells”) or nostalgia, really, with respect, needs to get a whole lot better informed.

    Then they might understand why the “banal fabrication” of Bugnini must be returned to the workshop for permanent mothballing.

    June 13, 2014 at 11:26 pm
    • fidelityalways

      Bugnini, may have had his views on The Liturgy, as does Cardinal Kasper on Marriage, but each had to work with The Universal Church, and the checks and balances that would come from working within a body overseen by The Magisterium. Cardinal Ratzinger proposed liturgical changes in “The Spirit of The Liturgy” which never became a reality. However, he has a right, as did Bungnini and Kasper to express opinions. Instead of looking at opinions lets reflect on actual teaching from a Pope:
      Pope Benedict, Summorum Pontificum
      He says The Vatican Council Mandated Change:
      “In more recent times, Vatican Council II expressed a desire that the respectful reverence due to divine worship should be renewed and adapted to the needs of our time. Moved by this desire our predecessor, the Supreme Pontiff Paul VI, approved, in 1970, reformed and partly renewed liturgical books for the Latin Church. These, translated into the various languages of the world, were willingly accepted by bishops, priests and faithful. John Paul II amended the third typical edition of the Roman Missal. Thus Roman pontiffs have operated to ensure that ‘this kind of liturgical edifice … should again appear resplendent for its dignity and harmony.’ “


      “Art 1. The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the ‘Lex orandi’ (Law of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. Nonetheless, the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Bl. John XXIII is to be considered as an extraordinary expression of that same ‘Lex orandi,’ and must be given due honour for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church’s Lex orandi will in no any way lead to a division in the Church’s ‘Lex credendi’ (Law of belief). They are, in fact two usages of the one Roman rite”

      Pope Benedict in the accompanying letter:

      “….it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy. The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration. It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites”. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.”
      “There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place. Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness.”

      Pope Benedict is surely an authoritative source in saying the recent Council mandated liturgical change. He was at it after all.
      He rewrote history, but not the theology, when he said The New Rite is part of the one unbroken Tradition, but wrong when he said The Old write wasn’t abrogated. He even lists Papal Indults sidestepping the abrogation! He, as Francis, Bishop of Rome says, was trying to reconcile discontents to the Church. Sadly he failed, as they daily deny his teaching, and authority, and slap him in the face. No wonder he found the pressure too much, and retired. The Trad’s weighed him down.

      June 14, 2014 at 9:09 am
    • lionelandrades

      We’ve had the New Theology, New Pentecost, New Advent, New Springtime, New Canon Law, New Catechism, New Sacraments, and New Evangelisation. Does anyone seriously believe the New Mass is a coincidence?

      And what about the new dogma on salvation.
      And the new interpretation of Vatican Council II.
      Amd the new interpretation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church resulting in a new theology and a new ecclesiology.
      And the new understanding in the Church on we Catholics allegedly being able to see explicit exceptions( even though deceased) to the Syllabus of Errors on salvation.
      And the new perspective on how ‘ a ray of the Truth’ (NA 2) is explicit for us and so there is salvation outside the visible limits of the Church.
      Those priests who are alowed to offer the Traditional Latin Mass with the permission of the Vatican,have to accept all this ‘newness’, this New Revelation. And most of this newness is based on an irrationality which has not been identified.

      Without the irrationality, resulting in the newness, they would not get permission to offer the Extraordinary Form of the Holy Mass.

      June 14, 2014 at 11:22 am
  • fidelityalways

    Bishop Schneider warns of schism and actively promotes Ecumenism to assist The Church in proclaiming The Gospel. (h/t The Editor of this blog) he says:

    ‘Ecumenism is necessary in order to be in contact with our separated brethren, to love them. In the midst of the challenge of the new paganism, we can and have to collaborate with serious non-Catholics to defend the revealed Divine truth and the natural law, created by God.’

    June 14, 2014 at 3:24 pm
  • fidelityalways

    Bishop Schneider:

    ‘Thanks be to God, Pope Francis has not expressed himself in these ways that the mass media expect from him. He has spoken until now, in his official homilies, very beautiful Catholic doctrine. I hope he will continue to teach in very clear manner the Catholic doctrine.’

    June 14, 2014 at 4:14 pm
  • Lionel Andrades

    Comment removed

    June 15, 2014 at 4:48 pm
  • lionelandrades

    Comment removed

    June 15, 2014 at 4:56 pm
  • lionelandrades

    Comment deleted

    June 15, 2014 at 5:12 pm
  • Leo

    “If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, accustomed to be used in the administration of the sacraments, may be despised or omitted by the ministers without sin and at their pleasure, or may be changed by any pastor of the churches to other new ones, let him be anathema.”
    – Council of Trent, Canons on the Sacraments in General, Session 7, Canon 13 (March 3, 1547).

    Fidelity Always

    The following could just as easily have been posted on the latest thread, but I am posting them here in reply to you latest comments above.

    If you still honestly believe that the Mass that was canonised by Pope Saint Pius V was ever “abrogated”, I can only say that you are treating us to a prime example of the devastating effects of the ignorance which have followed the Conciliar Revolution.

    Not that it is needed, but Cardinal Stickler’s testimony should have settled that question, in the case of anyone still be trying to make believe that there is some papal decree that attempted such an unlawful abrogation. In saying that, I am fully that there was a de facto attempted suppression of the Mass by means of an unprecedented abuse of authority. I will add, in passing, that the very fact that the decision of the group of Cardinals who looked at the issue was not made public until nine years later at a Conference in New Jersey brings the human element of the Church into disrepute, to say the least.

    And the sneaky little remark about Pope Benedict “trying to reconcile discontents to the Church” does not so much as confirm the impression of ignorance. “To the Church”, really? The facts of the matter have been explained numerous times on this blog.

    I can understand you quoting from Summorum Pontificum, Fidelity Always. It must said, with all due respect for the papal Office, that there are some remarkable statements in there; statements either alarming, or resembling extraordinary wishful thinking, or completely at odds with reality as demonstrated by the bitter fruit of the protestantised liturgy.

    To talk of undermining belief in the Real Presence, in the sacrificial nature of the Mass, and in the clear, unique, irreplaceable role of the ordained priest as an alter Christus is a great deal more accurate than Pope Benedict’s words referring to “the reformed and partly renewed liturgical books for the Latin Church.”

    I have to say that the observation that, “there is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal; in the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture”, comes across as a barely believable breech of the law of non-contradiction.

    A priest who said the Mass in 1570 could have been transported in time to 1962 and have no problem saying the Mass of that time. For many priests and laity, the Mass was unrecognisable eight years later. How can anyone now talk of continuity or organic development? The man-centred, desacralized, Novus Ordo Missae, fabricated by a shadowy committee with undeniable revolutionary intentions, is defined by its being at variance, on a line by line basis, with the unambiguous presentation of Catholic dogma in the Mass of All Time. No one can creditably say that the alarming replication of the liturgical changes wrought by heretics in the sixteenth century which has engulfed unsuspecting Catholics since 1970 was due to some strange coincidence. The fabricators knew exactly what they were doing.

    The new way that the overwhelming majority of Catholics now worship is of course the most obvious manifestation of the Invasion of the Modernists. Many loyal, faithful Catholics appear to be utterly and determinedly unaware of the part the liturgical revolution has played in the “silent apostasy” amidst the Conciliar devastation.

    The familiar “don’t judge by the more extreme, sacrilegious abuses” defence of the Novus Ordo Missae fails to take account of the fact that the 1969 General Instruction that accompanied it represented a sort of liturgical “Big Bang” whereby regulation was thrown out the window. Pre Vatican II, a uniform set of laws minutely regulated the Catholic liturgy. Priests were obliged to stick to the rubrics and had no opportunity for personal creativity. Very importantly, liturgy was inextricably linked with doctrine and discipline. And everyone knew it. Pope Pius XII addressed this subject in detail in Mediator Dei.

    The very character of the 1969 General Instruction, in stark contrast to what was previously in place, leads to liturgical indiscipline, creativity and abuse. The fact is that following the General instruction, wild-man liturgists were unleashed on the unsuspecting and obedient flock throughout the Catholic world.

    In 1973, a Vatican directory created by the master of disaster himself, Annibale Bugnini and approved by Pope Paul VI allowed celebrants near-total creative freedom in the celebration of Mass for children with predictable and lamentable results.

    Pagan ritual and cultural practices were introduced into the New Mass in many non-western countries. In his memoirs, Bugnini was happy to list the litany of adaptations in Zambia, The Congo, and Zaire, including the liturgical dance in Africa and the celebration of Chinese New Year, which, as he noted, was condemned as superstitious by Pope Benedict XIV.

    You quoted Summorum Pontificum, as stating the following, Fidelity Always:

    “Vatican Council II expressed a desire that the respectful reverence due to divine worship should be renewed and adapted to the needs of our time.”

    Compare this with the warning given by Pope Saint Pius X’s in his 1907 condemnation of Modernism in his encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis.

    “The chief stimulus of the evolution of worship consists in the need of accommodation to the manners and customs of peoples, as well as the need of availing itself of the value which certain acts have acquired by usage. Finally, evolution in the Church itself is fed by the need of adapting itself to historical conditions and of harmonizing itself with existing forms of society. – paragraph 26

    June 15, 2014 at 10:03 pm
  • Leo

    Between the presentation of the Novus Ordo Missae and the General Instruction on 3 April 1969 and September of that year, the text of the famous Ottaviani Intervention was prepared before being presented to Pope Paul, along with a the Cardinal’s covering letter, on 29 September 1969.

    I’ve posted the following comments on a previous thread, but they may bear repetition here.

    The undeniable truth is that, from the time Bugnini’s Mass was brought out from behind the curtain, the objections were doctrinal. The expression lex orandi, lex credendi (the law of prayer is the law of believing) was at the heart of the many critiques that followed. It wasn’t a novelty either. The doctrinal importance of the liturgy has been keenly felt by the Church and Her enemies since the time of Cranmer and Luther.

    If anyone wants to understand the theology behind the new Mass, the best place to start is the General Instruction (GI) which accompanied Pope Paul’s New Missal in 1969. The Instruction was meant to be the theological blueprint of the New Mass. On 30 August 1968, Bugnini had stated that “the General Instruction is a full theological, pastoral, catechetical, and rubrical exposition, that it is an introduction to the understanding and celebration of the (New) Mass.”

    Such was the uproar caused by doctrinal objections to the New Missal and General Instruction, notably those objections included in the Ottaviani Intervention, that publication of the Missal was delayed for five months. And we’re not talking about clown masses and tambourines here.

    To save the project, a bit of nifty needlework was required with the wording of the General Instruction. To allay fears and keep the quell disturbance in the ranks, an altered Instruction was produced with the intention of putting a “Tridentine” gloss on things.

    Hardly surprisingly, the language used in the revised General Instruction’s definition of the Mass glows with the ambiguity and double speak, the familiar stamp of the modernists. The Catholic terms Mass and Eucharistic Sacrifice are presented alongside the Protestant terms Lord’s Supper and memorial of the Lord respectively. Christ’s substantial, corporeal presence is equated with His presence in the congregation and in the Scripture readings. And just for good measure, it’s the “people of God” who celebrate, having been called together.

    The revised Instruction does not clearly state that the Mass is a sacrifice of propitiation, offered to God for the sins of the living and the dead. We know why, of course. Also, wherever the word sacrifice appears in the Instruction, the word meal is never far away. So Catholics are now left to choose to believe that the Mass is either:

    A propitiatory sacrifice, the re-presentation of the sacrifice of Calvary, offered by an ordained priest, in which Our Lord is made present, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity through the miracle of Transubstantiation.


    An assembly of the people, with a priest presider, celebrating the memorial of the Lord’s Supper, during which Our Lord is present in the congregation, and the readings, as well as in the bread and wine.

    Realistically, no amount of reform of the reform of the reform is going to protect Catholics from random spectacles of sacrilege. I know there are good priests with the very best of intentions, but does anyone believe that reverence at Mass and in Church will once more become the universal norm, anytime soon? Or indeed ever, as long as the Bugnini programme is in place? The novus ordo reforms are programmed to facilitate a laissez faire policy, precisely because of a lack of rubrics. I dare say the vast majority of liturgical lunatics at large today are pretty much operating with impunity.

    Before children masses, clown masses, circus masses, balloon masses, puppet masses, beer tent masses, beech masses, world cup masses, country and western masses, jazz masses, rock masses, hindu masses, voodoo masses, masonic masses and sodomite masses were ever suspected by Catholics, the doctrinal threat to their faith was highlighted by those who refused to go along with the revolution. The evidence was available, written down for all to see, or least for those who cared to look. Problems with the novus ordo don’t begin with incense maidens and balloons. They begin with the General Instruction presented in 1969. If anyone disagrees, they can take it up with one of Bugnini’s band of helpers, quoted in my previous post.

    In a 1975 statement, Father Emil Joseph Lengeling, a member of the Consilium’s Study Group, gave the following rather revealing commentary on the 1970 Instruction:

    “In the 1969 General Instruction for the (new) Missal, an ecumenically oriented sacramental theology of the celebration of Mass emerged – a theology already self-evident in the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy and in Pope Paul VI’s instruction on the Eucharist. Despite the new 1970 edition forced by reactionary attacks – but which voided the worst, thanks to the cleverness of the revisers – it takes us out of the dead end of the post-Tridentine theories of sacrifice and corresponds to the agreement marked out in many of last year’s interconfessional documents.” – (Tradition und Fortschritt in der Liturgie (1975), 218-219.

    The following words of Pope Leo XIII could have been written with the twentieth century liturgical destroyers in mind:

    “They knew only too well the intimate bond which unites faith with worship, ‘the law of belief with the law of prayer,’ and so, under the pretext of restoring it to its primitive form, they corrupted the order of the liturgy in many respects to adapt it to the errors of the Innovators.” – Apostolicae Curae, 13 September 1896

    June 15, 2014 at 10:06 pm
    • Confitebor Domino

      “beech masses”?

      Haven’t seen one of them – perhaps you could post one one Yew Tube 😀

      (Sorry, couldn’t resist!)

      June 16, 2014 at 12:09 am
      • editor

        Confitebor Domino

        Naughty! 😀

        Normally, I’d go in and correct a typo but since your reply is so comical, I’ll leave it. Poor Leo may never recover from the shame of it, but at least we’ll all have had a laugh! Not at you, Leo – never! 😀

        June 16, 2014 at 12:11 am
      • Leo

        Fair play, Confitebor.

        At least someone was reading.

        I’d like to say it was a plant, but my proof reader doesn’t work on Sundays.

        Yew tube! Excellent. I think you’ll fit in rather well around here.

        June 16, 2014 at 1:00 am
  • Miles Immaculatae

    1.The Pope invited an imam to the Vatican to say prayers at an interfaith event.

    2.Departing from a pre-released script, the imam prayed in Arabic for Allah to grant victory over the unbelievers.

    3.The Vatican denied that the imam said anything of that nature.

    4.The Vatican altered a video of the event to remove any evidence of the damning clause.


    June 16, 2014 at 9:54 am
  • Leo

    Fidelity Always

    Are you saying that the public, cited testimony of Cardinal Stickler is false, mistaken, or dishonest? (June 14, 1.38pm). It’s not particularly intellectually challenging to figure out why a shroud of silence might have enveloped the whole issue.

    Whatever, if the Cardinal never said anything publicly on this matter, nothing whatsoever changes. His words are just one more piece of evidence, and nothing absolutely depends on them alone. If, as you claim, the Mass canonised by Pope Saint Pius V was abrogated you must be able to cite the binding, papal decree to that effect. Name and date please. And a Wednesday morning allocution doesn’t qualify. And an instruction from Bugnini’s Congregation for Divine Worship certainly doesn’t either.

    You are the one, Fidelity Always, making the false claim about “abrogation”. As in the case of other arguments that you have presented on ecumenism and religious liberty, you have, by any reasonable reading, evaded or dismissed papal teaching.

    June 16, 2014 at 3:34 pm
    • Athanasius


      Additionally, Pope Benedict XVI declared in Summorum Pontificum that the Mass of St. Pius V was never abrogated, or even forbidden to any priest who chose to celebrate it. Those who claim it was abrogated are simply liars because the make statements they must know to be untrue.

      June 16, 2014 at 3:41 pm

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: