Scottish Catholic Observer: No Future For Traditional Mass – Good Riddance!

Scottish Catholic Observer: No Future For Traditional Mass – Good Riddance!

In a disgraceful attack on the traditional Latin Mass in a recent edition of the Scottish Catholic Observer (SCO), Hugh Dougherty reveals himself to be about as Catholic as John Knox.   Martin Blackshaw, aka Catholic Truth blogger Athanasius, wasted no time in submitting a rebuttal, which has been rejected by the editor on spurious grounds.  

Interestingly, the Dougherty masterpiece has not been published on the SCO website. However, you can read it by clicking on the title Ghost dancing won’t do us any favours and then read Martin’s response below. Thanks to the internet, the editors of the so-called Catholic papers can’t get away any longer with their blatant censorship and skewing of the truth.  We’re on to them. Big time!

The Traditional Latin Mass is the Catholic “Mass of all time.”

By Martin Blackshaw

TLMwithsaintsIt has been my experience that when a Catholic writer goes out of his way to denigrate the ancient liturgy of the Church, the Latin Mass of the saints and martyrs, it is because he is either ignorant of the subject he ridicules or he is a nominal Catholic of these morally relativist times; for whom the traditional holy Mass and discipline of the Church have become anathema.

In Hugh Dougherty’s case, I would venture to suggest that there is a little of both impacting on his objectivity (November 7).

Given that his article against the ancient Mass was clearly personal and superficial rather than scholastic, it merits only a statement of the facts in response. Fact number one is that the new vernacular Mass he values as progress is, in reality, copied from the Protestant Reformers of the 16th century.

Mgr. Annibale Bugnini, its author, admitted as much in a March 19, 1965 interview with L’Osservatore Romano. He was even more candid in 1974, describing his new vernacular liturgy as “a major conquest of the Catholic Church,” a statement not so far removed from Martin Luther’s “destroy the Mass and you will have destroyed the Catholic Church”.

Professor Peter L. Berger, a Lutheran sociologist, acknowledged the truth of Bugnini’s declaration in these words: “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, called by Pius XII “a twentieth century Doctor of the Church”, expressed himself a little more forthrightly, saying: “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.”

In 1967, the Synod of Bishops in Rome, having been privy to a first-hand celebration by Bugnini of his experimental liturgy (called ‘the Missa Normativa’), overwhelmingly rejected it.

This rejection was followed up by two senior Roman Cardinals (Ottaviani and Bacci), who wrote to Pope Paul VI on behalf of many prelates and theologians describing the new liturgy as representing “in whole and in part, a grave departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass.”

Cardinal Ratzinger more or less echoed this observation when he famously described the Bugnini product as “a banal on-the-spot fabrication.”

So now let us consider fact number two, ‘the fruits’ as the method given us by Our Lord for discerning good from evil. The New Mass has resulted in more liturgical abuses in its short 45-year life than all Latin Masses together from the early centuries of the Church right up to Vatican II.

To recount but a few of the more documented scandals of recent decades, I cite those infamous clown masses; balloon masses; coffee table masses; milk and cookie masses, rock masses and ‘liturgical dance’ masses, including one performance of a Salsa in the Sanctuary.

I feel certain that if Mr. Dougherty digs a little deeper into this unprecedented catalogue of sacrileges he may even stumble across some of those “Indian ghost dancers” he referenced so contemptuously as analogous to Traditional Catholics who remain faithful to the Mass of the ages.

At any rate, more telling even than the sacrileges committed in the name of the New Mass is the effect this liturgy has had on vocations to the priesthood and religious life, and the devastation it has wrought on the souls of the faithful.

It is no exaggeration to state that in the 45 years or so since Bugnini’s experiment was imposed on the Church millions of Catholics worldwide have formally apostatised from the Faith. This has resulted everywhere in the closure of parish churches, seminaries and religious houses at a rate unparalleled in history.

In Scotland alone we have seen the closure of all five seminaries, many religious houses and countless churches as vocations and Mass attendance continue to decline apace, and these same depressing statistics apply to each and every country in the Western world.

Indeed, I read just last week that in the U.S. another 100 parish churches are to be closed or merged in New York, and that in France priestly numbers have deteriorated to the extent that each priest now has a dozen parishes on average to care for.

In contrast with this inevitable decline around the New Mass, the last 10 years have witnessed enormous growth within the Church of seminaries, religious houses and parishes flourishing around the ancient Mass, which brings me to fact number three.

Contrary to the prevailing myth, it is the young rather than the old who are migrating in increasing numbers back to the pre-Council Latin liturgy of the Church.

This verifiable phenomenon brings to nought Mr. Dougherty’s depiction of Latin Mass enthusiasts as a small clique of coffin dodgers re-living happy memories of their youth like an exclusive group of ageing steam train hobbyists.

In truth, it is the younger generation which is emerging today as a sign of contradiction to those old liberal Catholic hippies who robbed them of their sacred patrimony in the name of conciliar reform.

These young faithful are being drawn in ever increasing numbers to the ancient Mass not by curiosity or nostalgia, but by that sensus fidei, that gift of the Holy Spirit which has the dual operation of attracting souls to the sacred and supernatural while making repugnant to them the irreverent and the profane.

In conclusion, then, the future lies not, as Mr. Dougherty suggests, in further radicalising our holy religion to appease the rebellious of this hedonistic age. Rather, the future lies in a return to the Latin “Mass of all time” and in fidelity to the Faith handed down unaltered for nineteen centuries up to Vatican II.

St. Paul puts it this way: “Jesus Christ, yesterday, today; and the same forever. Be not led away with various and strange doctrines, For it is best that the heart be established with grace, not with meats; which have not profited those that walk in them…” (Hebrews 13: 8-10).


No prizes for guessing why Ms Leydon, the editor of the SCO wanted to suppress the above response to the appalling Dougherty attack on the Mass which she unconscionably published. I’d love to see her trying to explain herself to the saints and martyrs who loved that same Mass and even died in defence of it – the same Mass which she most shockingly allowed to be described as of no more importance than the steam train, happily now consigned to history.  The fact is, it is her newspaper which will soon be consigned to history, along with the tired and ignorant views of the likes of Hugh Dougherty, who is (in all fairness) not alone in writing palpable nonsense in what passes for Scotland’s only national Catholic newspaper.  There can be no good fruits from this publication which, in almost equal measure, routinely denies and distorts the Catholic religion.  Indeed, there can be only one justifiable reason for reading it, and that is to expose the errors therein, preferably by addressing a letter or article for publication, to the editor. But that’s a hit and miss business, as we can see from Mr Blackshaw’s experience.  Anyway, your thoughts on the Dougherty article and Martin Blackshaw’s response  to it, should make for an interesting discussion.  Comments invited. 

Comments (126)

  • Domchas

    Long live the revolution lads and lasses!!!!!!

    November 14, 2014 at 7:17 pm
    • editor


      At least you’re now recognising and admitting that what is going on in the Church is revolution. That’s progress. Keep reading this blog – you’ll get there in the end.

      November 14, 2014 at 9:55 pm
    • Athanasius


      If there’s one thing about the conciliar revolution that is absolutely certain, it is that it will not be long lived. God is not mocked!

      November 14, 2014 at 10:24 pm
      • Domchas

        Athanasius, God has a greater sense of humour than you realise!

        November 15, 2014 at 4:34 pm
      • editor


        How do you know whether or not “God has greater sense of humour than [Athanasius] realises!”

        How do you know that?

        November 15, 2014 at 5:05 pm
      • Domchas

        Editor, even God has to laugh at the things we poor creatures get so upset about! Just read the CT blog, to realise that He has a great sense of humour. Need I say more!

        November 16, 2014 at 12:01 am
      • Athanasius


        Do not mistake God’s infinite mercy and patience for a sense of humour. There was nothing remotely funny about Our Lord’s Passion and death, during which He was also mocked. Rebellion against the Almighty and His Commandments is no laughing matter.

        November 15, 2014 at 6:03 pm
      • Domchas

        Athanasius, relax, smile, God did give even you a sense of humour. Find it again and learn to enjoy God in all HIS WONDER!!

        November 16, 2014 at 12:04 am
      • Athanasius


        If you read the recent joke thread on this blog you will know without doubt that we all have a lively sense of humour here. But there is a time for humour and a time sobriety in the things pertaining to God’s Majesty and justice.

        The secret of enjoying God in all HIS WONDER lies in the Imitation of Christ, not in Ken Dodd! The Church is in serious crisis right now; hardly a situation crying out for relaxation and levity.

        I don’t have to go in search of my sense of humour, because I have never lost sight of it, in context. Can you say the same for yourself as regards zeal for the truths of the Faith handed down, Domchas? I ask the question in all sincerity because you appear to be completely blind to what is happening in the Church before your very eyes.

        November 16, 2014 at 12:49 am
      • Domchas

        Athanasius, as much as your good self and many others on this blog assume that you and your confreres have the sole and only vision of the church as it should be,( cynics would say outdated, outmoded and irrevelant), very many others are quietly working for the Kingdom. It may not be the way you think it should be nor to your personal liking. However remember that many others work for and within the Church despite the small minded vitriol which frequents comments on this blog. Quietly prayerfully and totally within the ‘ Magesterium’ which you continually bang on about.. Rather than continuous criticism , put downs and the frequent personal insults which enamate from you and many others when faced with disagreements from others as and when they put forward a differing point of view; try seeing the huge amount of very Graced and God Blessed witness and work being done all around you. Remove the blinkers which you seem to wear at all times and see the Church in its fullness being witnessed taught and exemplified by those quiiet and normally very holy prayerful workers in the Lords vineyard, despite the difficulties, to which you add. Give praise and thanks to God that such people remain faithful to the truth of the Gospel despite the frequent attacks which you and your type aim at them .

        November 16, 2014 at 5:39 pm
      • editor


        You write: “very many others are quietly working for the Kingdom…” but you don’t explain what that means. In the context of the Church, what does “working for the Kingdom” actually mean?

        November 16, 2014 at 6:56 pm
      • Domchas

        Editor are you really so totally ignorant of your Catholic faith you don’t know what is being done to build up the Kingdom of God in the world, through the church. Be ashamed woman be very ashamed

        November 18, 2014 at 1:07 pm
      • editor


        Yet again, you fail to answer a question directly, but, by accident, have given yourself away when you repeat the error that building up God’s kingdom on earth means making a better world. That is NOT what it means.

        Have another bash. Go on. If you really don’t know, I’ll tell you. But, go on, have a bash. Hint: salvation, souls…

        PS for those of you who bewail the hostile comments from occasional bloggers like Domchas and Eileenanne, and tell me to blacklist them because they’re “trolls”. I disagree. They’re worse than trolls.

        So much so that I think we need a newly coined term to describe them and the only one I can come up with right now is “grolls” (not trolls)

        “Grolls” describes bloggers who come on here either to grumble about us (not about the crisis in the Church) and/or to gloat when they think (always mistakenly) that they’ve caught us out. Those are the only occasions I can think of, when the occasional hostile bloggers appear here.

        However, folks, if you can think of a better description to replace “trolls” let’s hear it. “Grolls” (which doubles as “Glolls” – for “gloat”) is the best I can think of right now 😀

        November 18, 2014 at 1:53 pm
      • Athanasius


        “Athanasius, as much as your good self and many others on this blog assume that you and your confreres have the sole and only vision of the church as it should be,( cynics would say outdated, outmoded and irrevelant), very many others are quietly working for the Kingdom…”

        Actually, we on this blog assume nothing. The vision of the Church we have is the only one the Popes from St. Peter to Pius XII presented as divinely established; infallible and immutable in her doctrine and Sacraments.

        Since it is impossible that this vision become outdated, outmoded and irrelevant, I would venture to suggest, as St. John the Evangelist did regarding those who preached a new and perverse Gospel in his day, that this Kingdom others are quietly working for is in fact the Kingdom of Satan.

        The bitter fruits of the past 50 years would seem to uphold this terrible truth. Paul VI was not mistaken when he lamented that “through some fissure in the walls, the smoke of Satan has entered the Church and set her on a path of auto destruction.”

        The reason why “these others,” these disciples of Modernism, cannot see the person they really serve is because, as St. Pius X said in Pascendi: “Pride sits in the Modernist mind as in its own house”. And we all know that pride blinds, Domchas. There is nothing Godly about religious innovators. They are destroyers of all that is sacred.

        “…It may not be the way you think it should be nor to your personal liking…”

        My personal liking has nothing to do with this. The conciliar reformation stands in so many ways opposed to the teaching of the Popes and Councils up to Vatican II, which council, incidentally, was a mere pastoral council “not treating of doctrine,” to quote Pope John XXIII. So how come we ended up with three new (previously condemned) doctrines, namely, Ecumenism, Religious Liberty and Collegiality?

        “…However remember that many others work for and within the Church despite the small minded vitriol which frequents comments on this blog. Quietly prayerfully and totally within the ‘ Magesterium’ which you continually bang on about..”

        Presuming you mean the conciliar liberals and innovators. Yes, they work within the Church, as St. Pius X says, “for her undoing…laying the axe to the root of the tree and proceeding to administer poison through all the branches…”

        As for totally within the magisterium. No, they in fact disobey the Magisterium whenever it suits them. Here are a few examples:

        Vatican II did not call for a New Mass fully in the vernacular. Quite the contrary, in fact. Nor did it command the re-ordering of churches so that high altar, altar rails, tabernacles (in many cases), etc., be removed.

        Neither Vatican II nor Pope Paul VI ordered Communion in the hand. This abuse was introduced by Cardinal Suenens in Belgium and soon spread throughout the Church by revolutionary bishops, despite Paul VI’ attempts to prevent it’s spread through Memoriale Domine.

        Likewise, extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion were introduced by revolutionary bishops without mandate from Vatican II and against the wishes of Pope John Paul II, whose authoritative ban except in the most extreme circumstances has been completely and universally ignored.

        In actual fact a deep study of documents and events since Vatican II clearly shows that it’s the Modernist innovators, not the Traditional Catholics, who are the real schismatics and enemies of the Papacy. You need to do some serious homework, Domchas, and turn to Our Lady for some light to open your mind to the truth.

        November 16, 2014 at 7:47 pm
      • Therese


        Were you at Woodstock, by any chance???

        November 16, 2014 at 11:22 am
      • Domchas

        America or Oxford??

        November 16, 2014 at 5:20 pm
      • editor

        Either, or both would tell us a lot…

        November 16, 2014 at 6:54 pm
      • Therese


        How about answering Editor’s question; how, exactly, are you working for the Kingdom?

        November 17, 2014 at 11:42 am
      • Domchas


        November 18, 2014 at 1:10 pm
      • editor

        Quietly? Hardly, when you’re here boasting about it. Even if it’s not the real thing (see my previous “Kingdom” comment)…

        November 18, 2014 at 2:08 pm
  • Leo


    You made the very significant remark (November 14, 12.29am) concerning Pope Francis’ Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium that “it doesn’t make a single reference to the pre-Council Magisterial teaching of the Church, not one single mention.”

    It’s the same glaring feature of so many Conciliar documents over the last five decades. Against fact there is no argument. Nobody has yet, for the obvious reasons, demonstrated the continuity of those Conciliar documents, the continuity which is one of the essential hallmarks of Tradition and the infallible ordinary magisterium.

    The grave responsibility of Popes concerning the presentation of sound doctrine has been recognised since the earliest days of the Church. Saint Paul left us in no doubt. Pope Clement XIII’s warned in his 1761 encyclical, Dominico Agro, that none of the faithful should have “extraordinary opinions proposed to them, not even from Catholic doctors; instead, they should listen to those opinions which have the most certain criteria of Catholic truth: universality, antiquity, and unanimity.”

    Concerning Popes who are tempted to enthusiastic overindulgence towards untrammelled thinking when it comes to carrying out their duty as Vicar of Christ, another Doctor of the Church sets forth the guiding principle, again totally in line with constant Church teaching:

    “What is found to have its origin in the opinion of some Holy Father or particular Council is not a Divine Tradition, even though it should be celebrated throughout the entire Church. For if we did not attend to this rule, we should have to admit without certain foundation, new revelations regarding faith or morals, which has been always abhorred and impugned in the Church by men the most attached to religion. Hence, the sovereign pontiffs, the Councils, and the Fathers, have been most careful to reject all novelties or new doctrines on matters of faith, which differed from those that had been already received.”
    – St. Alphonus Liguori, Exposition and defense of all the points of Faith discussed and defined by the Sacred Council of Trent, Dublin 1846, Pg. 51

    One additional remark concerning Evengelii Gaudium: I believe the word “new” appears approximately 200 times!

    It’s hardly necessary to say any more.

    November 14, 2014 at 9:36 pm
    • Athanasius


      Absolutely right! The Vatican II reformers cannot make reference to pre-Council Magisterial teaching to support such innovations as ecumenism, religious liberty and collegiality. That’s why the word “new” is in constant use with overtures to some imagined “hermeneutic of continuity” with the past. It’s kind of like the infallible dogma ‘extra ecclesiam nulla salus’. They don’t deny the dogma, they just never speak about it or reference it!

      I’ll send editor an email with attachment of a 6000-word dissertation on this subject, which I had published in the March/April Angelus magazine. She can then forward it to you if you wish to read it.

      November 14, 2014 at 10:21 pm
  • editor


    While the Catholic Herald did have the reputation, for a while, of being more orthodox than the rest, I’m afraid I no longer have your confidence that Mgr Loftus would not be published there. I mean, I sincerely hope you’re right, but given the editor’s (Luke Coppen’s) enthusiastic editorial commentaries on Pope Francis’ every utterance, I’m not so sure.

    Indeed, I was so astonished at some of his “Francis” editorials, one of which finished with “keep those interview coming Holy Father” (when gushing about the shocking betrayals of the Faith in the Pope’s various interviews, including the interview with the atheist journalist) that I emailed to ask him his age. He replied on 29th August to say he was (at that time!) 38 years of age. A baby, in other words.

    Unbelievable that he should be charged with editing a major Catholic newspaper, when there’s absolutely no way he has been educated in the Faith. Not the slightest chance, having been born into this devastating period in the history of the Church.

    Of course, I sincerely hope that you’re right about Mgr Loftus being denied a CH column but I can’t feel the same certainty as you appear to enjoy.

    In defence of the Catholic Herald I will point out that they rang to offer us a special deal in advertising for one of our early conferences, and said that their package included an advertisement in their sister paper, the SCO. The SCO point blank refused to take the advert, and even pressure from on high at the CH (I was told at the time) made no difference. So, there’s a real nastiness at the SCO (as if we didn’t know) that doesn’t appear, at least, to be the case at the CH. Luke Coppen, for example, always answers my emails. Liz Leydon doesn’t. Rude.

    I completely agree with you about the Catholic Times being the worst of all. The editor – Kevin Flaherty – publishes pro-contraception letters from a woman called Elizabeth Price, week after week and they are generally placed very prominently in the paper. Also, if any letter makes it onto the page in criticism of Mgr Loftus’ rubbish writings, as happened a couple of weeks ago when Lawyer, Neil Addison took him to task, Mgr Loftus is published alongside, replying. Most unprofessional and unethical, but above all shows Flaherty’s determination to push poison into his readers, and prohibit correction.

    What I’ve said about the bishops and clergy in this matter of attacking Catholic morality and/or failing to defend it when there is a clear duty so to do, applies also to men like Flaherty. I’m on record saying that there has to be something wrong in the personal lives of priests and bishops who promote immorality, something gravely wrong in their personal lives for them to be so far away from the truths of the Faith. The same applies to editors… I mean, why would any editor of a Catholic newspaper, publish letters week after week from a married woman writing on only one subject – contraception, and that to promote it and attack the natural moral law? Why, I can’t help wondering, would he do that?

    November 14, 2014 at 10:23 pm
    • Lily


      I am always shocked at the letters from Elizabeth Price in the Catholic Times. They appear week after week. I don’t buy any of these papers but I do check out the letters pages at the church stall and her name is well known by now. I think, personally, that it’s the editor’s way of pushing contraception. That’s the only reason I can think of why he would give her letters space on such a regular basis.

      November 15, 2014 at 11:54 pm
  • Leo

    Thank you very much, Athanasius.

    I would be delighted to read that dissertation. I’m sure everyone else will want to see it too.

    I need some good reading to distract me from talk of soccer. There was some match on somewhere tonight, wasn’t there?!

    On the “non-continuity” issue, I think the only mention Mortalium Animos got in Unitatis Redintegratio, the Council’s decree on Ecumenism, was a single mention in some footnote. I believe Quas Primas wasn’t mentioned anywhere.

    In Ecclesia Dei Adflicta in 1988, Pope John Paul II even admitted:

    “Indeed, the extent and depth of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council call for a renewed commitment to deeper study in order to reveal clearly the Council’s continuity with Tradition, especially in points of doctrine which, perhaps because they are new, have not yet been well understood by some sections of the Church.”

    I’m sure many here are aware of the Dubia which Archbishop Lefebvre submitted to Rome in October 1985, setting out thirty nine doubts concerning the continuity of the Council’s teaching on religious liberty with previous Church teaching. These doubts are published in the book, Religious Liberty Questioned.

    Rome’s fifty page reply, received about eighteen months later, addressed none of the doubts in particular, admitted that the doctrine on religious liberty was “incontestably a novelty”, but claimed that it was the outcome of “doctrinal development in continuity.”

    Support for the Archbishop’s criticism concerning lack of continuity comes from an unlikely source:

    “It cannot be denied that a text like this (the declaration on Religious Liberty) does materially say something different from the Syllabus of 1864, and even almost the opposite of propositions 15 and 77-79 of that document.” Yves Congar, Challenge to the Church, p.147

    How about the following from Jean Guitton, lay French philosopher, and close confidante of Pope Paul VI.

    “When I read the documents relative to the Modernism, as it was defined by Saint Pius X, and when I compare them to the documents of the II Vatican Council, I cannot help being bewildered. For what was condemned as heresy in 1906 was proclaimed as what is and should be from now on the doctrine and method of the Church. In other words, the modernists of 1906 were, somewhat, precursors to me. My masters were part of them. My parents taught me Modernism. How could Saint Pius X reject those that now seem to be my precursors?” (Jean Guitton, Portrait du Père Lagrange, Éditions Robert Laffont, Paris, 1992, pp. 55-56).

    On the subject of this thread, Guitton, on December 19, 1993, during a debate on Lumiere 101 (Radio Courtoisie), affirmed that:

    “Paul VI’s intention concerning the liturgy, concerning putting the liturgy into modern languages, was to reform the Catholic liturgy so that it would closely coincide with the Protestant liturgy… with the Protestant Supper.”

    Later on he said:
    “…I repeat that Paul VI did everything in his power to bring the Mass — beyond the Council of Trent — into agreement with the Protestant Supper.”

    At a priest’s protestation, Guitton replied:

    “The Mass of Paul VI is presented first of all as a meal, isn’t it? And a lot of emphasis is given to the aspect of participation in a meal, and much less to the notion of sacrifice, of ritual sacrifice…. In other words, there was in Paul VI the ecumenical intention to efface — or at least to correct — what was too ‘catholic,’ in the traditional sense, in the Mass, and to bring the Catholic Mass — I repeat — into agreement with the Calvinist Mass.”

    How can anyone reasonably make the case of Conciliar “continuity” with Tradition? Again, against facts there is no argument.

    November 14, 2014 at 11:18 pm
  • Leo

    I’ve just come across this Catholic website this evening. Hugh Dougherty and Liz Leydon might benefit from spending a bit of time perusing it. I’ve only looked at the first few minutes of the video on the Home page, but it appears very informative so far. The great New Springtime Myth gets the treatment.

    November 14, 2014 at 11:30 pm
    • Helen

      Thanks, Leo, great video.

      November 14, 2014 at 11:52 pm
  • Athanasius


    Thank you. I have already taken the liberty of attaching it to an email for editor to forward when she has time. I know she has her hands pretty full at the moment, so bear with her.

    What you will notice in the piece is that I make reference to Archbishop Lefebvre’s quotes on Religious Liberty, as well as his observations on Collegiality, though not as thoroughly as I would have liked (column inches and all that). What I have written ties in pretty much with what you have stated above amidst so many other gems of information in your post.

    I was particularly approving of your last sentence: “…How can anyone reasonably make the case of Conciliar “continuity” with Tradition? Again, against facts there is no argument.”

    Precisely so! And that’s why when Archbishop Lefebvre went to Rome for talks, and Bishop Fellay after him, presenting the Traditional teaching of the Church against these Modernist innovations, they only response that comes echoing back with tiring regularity is “but you must obey the Council”. They know they have no argument against the facts, so they resort to obedience. That’s why Archbishop Lefebvre could state so clearly that “Satan’s masterstroke has been to sow disobedience through obedience”.

    Blind obedience, if accepted, would make of the free children of the Church slaves to the individual whims of Popes. That’s not Catholic and Archbishop Lefebvre knew it.

    I hope you get something from that Angelus article to keep for future use, just as I have from your many well-researched Magisterial and other authoritative statements posted here.

    November 14, 2014 at 11:56 pm
    • editor


      I’ve now sent on the article to Leo.

      I’ve not had time to read it myself, but I have no doubt it will be up to your usual standard and the title – Fiddling while Rome burns: Vatican II in retrospect” screamed out BLOG THREAD at me so, with your permission, I’ll post that as the lead article in a fresh thread in due course. So, if Leo would hold fire and not comment on it in any detail until then, that would be helpful.

      November 15, 2014 at 10:23 am
      • Athanasius


        Thank you for sending that article on to Leo. I’ll just check with the editor of the Angelus magazine that he doesn’t mind a re-publication of the piece here. I’m sure he won’t, but it seems the courteous thing to do just to ask. I know he follows this blog and would want the information spread as far and wide as possible, so bear with me on that one.

        November 15, 2014 at 12:28 pm
  • Athanasius


    That site you linked seems ok at first glance. I don’t think it’s extremist in any way, although there is a video of Bishop Williamson there, but this statement caught my eye:

    “If you are not Catholic, know this! There is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church, if you are not joined to one of the 23 Rites that makes up the Catholic Church there is no salvation for you, the words of the Son Of God!”

    This is always a worrying statement when not accompanied by the Church’s teaching on invincible ignorance. I might message the author later to find out if it’s just an oversight on his part, or if he is a Feeneyite.

    November 15, 2014 at 12:13 am
    • editor

      I took a quick look at that site and there is no “About us” page so I am always a bit suspicious of sites where there is no information about those who are running it. I don’t mean biographical details and photos, that sort of thing, just a few sentences about their aims/objectives/purpose. Makes me think it is possibly run by sedevacantist or “resistance” (to nothing) people. I could be wrong, of course, but that’s my general feeling about “anonymous” websites.

      November 15, 2014 at 10:26 am
  • Athanasius


    I sent a message to the blog author respectfully pointing out his omission of the Church’s teaching on invincible ignorance. I haven’t had a response yet, so it remains a bit up in the air. I’ll let everyone know if and when I get the answer I’m hoping for. I don’t think he’s sedevacantist or “Resistance,” as his website carries video footage of FSSP Masses, but time will tell.

    November 15, 2014 at 12:32 pm
  • Leo

    Athanasius and Editor

    Thank you for those comments.

    I may have taken a bit of a chance last evening posting a link to a site which I had only just come across. That said, it was getting late and before peoples’ attention had moved elsewhere, I thought it might be of some help in counteracting the ignorant and ridiculous attacks on the true Mass that are being foisted on unsuspecting Catholics. I still think that.

    I actually came across a very well documented presentation by this man, Joao Machado, concerning the general apostasy in the US. His explanation, which should have widespread agreement here, is, as I read it, that there has been a massive withdrawal of graces and that that withdrawal is inextricably linked to the disobedience involved in the de facto rejection of Quo Primum, by which Pope Saint Pius V Catholics are bound to the true Mass.

    I didn’t link to that particular video as it was posted on another site which tends to include very strong tobacco and occasionally gives the impression of being on nodding terms with sedevacantism. Hence the link directly to Machado’s own site.

    Having seen links to Father Gregory Hesse, Father Gruner, and Sancta Missa on the site, I reckoned there was little chance of sedevacantist involvement. Ditto with the FSSP link, which was the one thing that made me a little reluctant to post the link( and I’m not trying to open another front here). Anyway, I thought that it might be a bit churlish not to link on that account, and the priority on this occasion was the defence of the true Mass against all adversaries.

    Now that I’ve seen links to Ecclesia Dei Mass timetables and references to Summorum Pontificum I think it is pretty to say that Joao Machado is not in the sedes camp.

    That is a fair remark, Athanasius, about invincible ignorance and the dogma of Outside the Church there is no salvation. It’s just my impression, but I would be very surprised if Mr Machado is a Feenyite. (I now expect a very occasional blogger to appear shortly, as if on queue. Hopefully Editor has her previous comprehensive rebuttal to hand, just in case.)

    Apologies to everyone if the above is all a bit long winded. The last thing I intended was to cause any distractions from the main issue here.

    Thanks, Athanasius and Editor for forwarding the Angelus article. I look forward to reading it.

    November 15, 2014 at 4:06 pm
    • Athanasius


      I think the link you posted is perfectly good. I checked it out right away and couldn’t see anything too amiss with the site except the invincible ignorance qualification I raised with its author. I definitely don’t think the guy is sedevacantist of Feeneyite either, so all seems well.

      November 15, 2014 at 5:43 pm
  • Leo

    Liz Leydon is hardly, at this stage, in a position to claim “invincible ignorance” regarding the true Mass. I think the same can reasonably be said of increasing numbers of Bishops, priests, lay Catholics who earn an income from holding forth on matters of the Faith, and finally those Catholics who read the blogs of Catholics faithful to Tradition.

    Without a doubt, the Modernist wildcats have a very good grasp of the principle, “lex orandi, lex credendi” and how important it is. They know exactly how high the theological stakes are, and that no counter revolutionaries can be allowed to stand in front of the novus ordo tanks and their intoxicated drivers.

    Monsignor Klaus Gamber, who was not a “traditionalist”, wrote a book twenty one years ago entitled The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, in which he described the new Mass as an unprecedented break with the Church’s entire liturgical tradition: “there has never actually been an actual break with Church tradition, as has happened now, and in such a frightening way, where almost everything the Church represents is being questioned.” (p. 109)

    He also wrote that “the real destruction of the traditional Mass, of the traditional Roman Rite with a history of more than one thousand years, is the wholesale destruction of the faith on which it was based, a faith that had been the source of our piety and our courage to bear witness to Christ and His Church, the inspiration of countless Catholics over many centuries. Will someone, some day, be able to say the same thing about the new Mass? Many Catholics agonize over the question: what can be done about the loss of our faith and of our liturgy?” (p. 102)

    So, what have Liz Leydon and Hugh Dougherty got to say to that?

    We’ve had the New Theology, New Pentecost, New Advent, New Springtime, New Movements, New Canon Law, New Catechism, New Sacraments, and New Evangelisation. Would Liz Leydon, or Hugh Dougherty seriously care to argue that the New Mass is a coincidence?

    And New Mass is certainly what we are talking about. Regulars here may well know a lot of the following off by heart by now. I’d be interested in reading Liz Leydon and Hugh Dougherty’s reaction to those words, or indeed the reaction of anyone who is still in denial as regards the previously unimaginable catastrophic damage inflicted on the Church, and the consequent danger to innumerable souls, by the novus ordo revolution. I’m not holding my breath. In almost three years reading this blog, I can’t recall even once reading a plausible pastoral or theological defence of all the novelties, contradictions, ambiguities, and omissions of the last five decades. Personal attacks against this blog we get alright. But when it comes to answering factual evidence the response is eloquent silence, every time, apart from the odd rather desperate sounding argument from authority.

    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.”

    As for the theological stakes involved, here’s the evidence of some of the fabricators themselves:

    “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.

    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 “Ghost Dancer” 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, or, God help us, feelings of superiority, 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.

    November 15, 2014 at 5:28 pm
    • Margaret Mary


      You are so right to point out that the people like Liz Leydon and clergy who are making a living out of the Church cannot claim invincible ignorance. They have a very serious duty to be informed and it is obvious that she is not informed when she allows ridiculous and offensive articles about the ancient Mass to be published.

      I looked at the letters page today in the SCO at the back of the church and there is nothing in there to challenge Dougherty’s article. So, her paper is doing the work of the devil, unimpeded. She should be really worried about that.

      November 15, 2014 at 6:46 pm
      • Athanasius

        Margaret Mary,

        I remember when I had my article against Communion in the hand published in the SCO, Professor Haldane had a contrary piece, which mentioned me and my article, published the following week. Of course, the Haldane article was one of those general observation articles that don’t contain a single fact from Tradition to back them up. Still, he was given the last word.

        November 15, 2014 at 8:49 pm
      • Michaela


        That’s just shocking. How can Liz Leydon sleep at night?

        November 16, 2014 at 12:10 am
      • Athanasius


        It’s a sad fact that too many Catholic editors have been asleep for years.

        November 16, 2014 at 12:25 am
    • Theresa Rose


      True that the Modernist wildcats have a very good grasp of the principle, “lex orandi, lex credendi” and how important it is.

      Especially now with the kind of liturgical chaos and abuses that abound nowadays.

      That was Part One, now for Part 2, no wonder Cardinal Ratzinger called the Novus Ordo Mass a banal on the spot fabrication.


      I wonder what Liz Leydon’s arguments are against the Traditional Latin Mass, sometimes known as the Tridentine Mass.

      November 16, 2014 at 3:59 pm
      • Theresa Rose

        Sorry, I didn’t key in part 2 properly, so here goes.

        November 16, 2014 at 4:03 pm
  • Athanasius

    Comment removed

    November 15, 2014 at 8:02 pm
  • Athanasius



    November 15, 2014 at 8:43 pm
  • Lily

    I’ve been really impressed with the information on this thread. It’s jam packed with facts that a lot of (most) Catholics wouldn’t have a clue about. I do hope Liz Leydon has read it and has a stab of conscience for publishing Hugh Dougherty’s attack on the Mass.

    November 15, 2014 at 11:58 pm
    • editor


      I’m not sure I’d ever write a sentence with “Liz Leydon” and “conscience” in the same sentence 😀

      November 16, 2014 at 2:57 pm
  • jacobi

    Recent graphs from France show that in 24 years the number of priests saying the EF will rise to meet the falling number saying the OF. A video from Voris indicates the numbers in the U S of A are plummeting, Mass attenders and priests, but EF priests rising. I suspect this is true everywhere in Europe.

    Certainly my diocese has started a “ reorganisation”, no doubt the first of many.

    It is tragic that the Mystical Body of Christ on Earth, the Catholic Church is going through such trauma, directly attributable to the disaster, I think we can now call it that, of Vat 11..

    24 years is not a long time. The current shambolic mess in the Church has been going on for about fifty years after all. So In 24 years, and I suspect sooner, the number of priest saying the EF will probably outnumber those saying the OF and the EF is likely to become once again the ordinary form of the Mass.

    Perhaps someone should tell the SCO, whoever they are?

    November 16, 2014 at 12:28 am
    • sixupman

      The nosedive in diocesan ordinations has been planned as a transition from Ordained Priesthood to the “priesthood of the laity”. Also part of the plan, is the rise in “permanent deacons”, with exceptions, self-important individuals. In Liverpool Archdiocese, they are even listed, in the ‘Directory’ as husband and wife.The consequence also being a reduction in mid-week Masses, replaced by lay-led Communion services.

      Permanent Deacons had their place in the mission fields, but such, obviously, within an entirely different context.

      Even so, some priests coming through the diocesan route are Traditional leaning.

      November 16, 2014 at 7:37 am
      • editor


        You are absolutely correct about the attempt to replace the priesthood with permanent married deacons. That was clearly the game plan of Bishop Conti of Aberdeen, later Archbishop Conti of Glasgow. At one time, the website of the Archdiocese of Glasgow featured a vocations page which mentioned the priesthood only once, in passing, the rest was an enthusiastic advertisement for permanent deacons. Disgraceful. I haven’t checked it recently but will do now that we’ve launched a new thread on the subject of Vocations.

        November 16, 2014 at 2:56 pm
    • editor


      We make a point of never using the term “EF” with regard to the ancient Mass. Language is important (ask any Sodomite!) so we think it is best, if we can remember, not to concede anything at all to those who have sought to displace the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM).

      I do agree with your conclusion that the new Mass(es) will disappear and by default the traditional Mass will be restored. Well said.

      November 16, 2014 at 2:53 pm
      • Domchas

        Editor, the word Sodomite is frequently used on this blog, usually I think as an insult? What is a Sodomite, what does the word mean, where does it originate from. If language is so important, your words, why do you allow dubious expressions or words to be frequently used on the blog. Whenever I see the word in use, I get the distinct impression that the the user(author) demeans both themselves and the point they are trying to clarify or make………… explanation in full please and thank you.

        Editor: I hope the Encyclopaedia Britannica definition and explanation is “full” enough for you… If not, take it up with them.

        PS a “fact” cannot, by definition, be an “insult”. If the Encyclopaedia has attributed behaviour to homosexuals that is not true, then you need to contact them to change the definition of sodomy and the Oxford English Dictionary where they define “Sodomite” as one who engages in sodomy (and I think link to the Encyclopaedia Britannica for their more detailed definition!)

        November 16, 2014 at 5:47 pm
      • Domchas

        As usual Editor you pass the buck. The question was directed to you, why are you evading the answer. I would like to hear YOUR explanation. Is it possible for you to be honest and just simply answer the question.?

        November 18, 2014 at 10:38 pm
      • editor


        What question?

        November 18, 2014 at 11:00 pm
      • jacobi


        I do apologise. Do remember i am only an occasional commentator on this blog. Not used to the terminology.

        I actually like the term used by the Holy Father, “Vetus Ordo”. I understand one translation of this is “the continuing Ordo”, or Mass. Well, it has been continuing for some eighten centuries and in essence for twenty one centuries, so it’s really not a bad term?.

        November 16, 2014 at 9:33 pm
      • editor


        My comment about terminology referred to the new (of course) name for the old Mass – “Extraordinary Form” – that’s one no traditional Catholic would think of using. Ever.

        And don’t BE an occasional blogger here. We like you. Stick with us!

        November 18, 2014 at 11:00 pm
  • Leo

    Theresa Rose

    Thank you for posting those videos on November 16, 3.59pm and 4.03pm, showing the unimaginable variation of novus ordo abominations of desolation.

    Reportedly, in the first video, the photograph of the “cheesehead idiot” Mass features a priest who is now a very high ranking Cardinal. I haven’t seen incontrovertible proof, but certainly there is a resemblance.

    November 21, 2014 at 5:24 pm
  • Helen

    I’ve Just watched those videos and they are beyond-belief-shocking. I just don’t get how any “orthodox” Catholic as in the LMS variety,can explain that away with a “it’s because of the abuse of the way Vatican 2 was interpreted etc”. Utter lunacy. The only consolation I can see is that these old hippies (soz Editor, age, I mean in your venerable case) are on their way out. There can’t be too many more of them about and then it’s our turn!

    November 22, 2014 at 12:02 am
    • editor


      Watch it!

      November 22, 2014 at 1:19 pm

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: