Pope Francis on the Fruits of New Mass…Walter Mitty Stuff – Brace Yourself…editor
Pope Francis gave an address on the liturgical reform of Pope Paul VI today, speaking to participants of the 68th Italian National Liturgical Week. In it, Francis declares: “After this magisterium, after this long journey, we can affirm with certainty and with magisterial authority that the liturgical reform is irreversible.”
Francis’ remarks ironically read like a Quo Primum for the Novus Ordo. Pope St. Pius V’s Quo Primum (1570), which has never been revoked or abolished by any pope, decreed that the Traditional Latin Mass, which the saintly pontiff promulgated in accord with the directives of the Council of Trent, would be “valid henceforth, now, and forever” and “cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force.” Furthermore, St. Pius V warned that if anyone, including any future pope (by implication), would alter his missal, they would “incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul”.
Pope Benedict XVI, in Summorum Pontificum, reiterated that the Traditional Latin Mass “was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted.” Benedict continued: “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.”
For Francis, however, not the Traditional Latin Mass, but the reforms that deformed it are what are truly “irreversible.”
Below are relevant translated excerpts of Pope Francis’ address:
There are two directly linked events, the Council and the Reform, which did not flourish suddenly but after long preparation. What was called the liturgical movement testifies to it, and the answers given by the Supreme Pontiffs to the hardships perceived in ecclesial prayer; when a need is sensed, even if the solution is not immediate, there is a need for it to be put in motion.
The Second Vatican Council made later to mature, as good fruit from the tree of the Church, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy Sacrosanctum Concilium (SC), whose lines of general reform respond to real needs and to the concrete hope of a renewal; it desired a living liturgy for a Church completely vivified by the mysteries celebrated.
The direction traced by the Council took form according to the principle of respect for sound tradition and legitimate progress (cf. SC 23)  in the liturgical books promulgated by Blessed Paul VI , well received by the same bishops who were present at the Council, and for almost 50 years universally used in the Roman Rite. The practical application, led by the Episcopal Conferences of their respective countries, is still ongoing, since it is not enough to reform the liturgical books in order to renew the mentality. The books reformed according to the decrees of Vatican II have introduced a process that demands time, faithful reception, practical obedience, wise celebratory implementation, first of all, on the part of ordained ministers, but also of other ministers, cantors, and of all those who participate in the liturgy. In truth, we know, the liturgical education of pastors and the faithful is a challenge to face ever anew. The same Paul VI , a year before his death, told the cardinals gathered in Consistory: “The time has now come definitely to leave aside divisive ferments, which are equally pernicious on both sides, and to apply fully, in accordance with the correct criteria that inspired it, the reform approved by Us in application of the wishes of the Council.” 
And today, there is still work to do in this direction, in particular by rediscovering the reasons for the decisions made with the liturgical reform, by overcoming unfounded and superficial readings, partial receptions, and practices that disfigure it. It is not a matter of rethinking the reform by reviewing its choices, but of knowing better the underlying reasons, even through historical documentation, of internalizing its inspirational principles and of observing the discipline that governs it. After this magisterium, after this long journey, we can affirm with certainty and with magisterial authority that the liturgical reform is irreversible.
The task of promoting and guarding the liturgy is entrusted by right to the Apostolic See and to the diocesan bishops whose responsibility and authority I rely on very much at the present moment; National and diocesan liturgical pastoral bodies, training institutes and seminaries are also involved.
Among the visible signs of the invisible Mystery there is the altar, a sign of Christ, the living stone, rejected by men but it has become a cornerstone of the spiritual building where worship is offered to the living God in spirit and truth (cf. 1 Pt 2.4; Eph 2:20). Therefore, the altar, at the center toward which our churches converge,  is dedicated, with chrysm, incensed, kissed, venerated: towards the altar, the eyes of those praying, the priests and the faithful, are called together by the holy assembly around it [the altar];  Upon the altar is placed the Church’s offering, which the Spirit consecrates to be a sacrament of the sacrifice of Christ; from the altar the bread of life and the cup of salvation are bestowed upon us “for we become one body and one spirit in Christ” (Eucharistic Prayer III).
 The reform of the rites and the liturgical books was undertaken immediately after the promulgation of the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium and was brought to an effective conclusion in a few years thanks to the considerable and selfless work of a large number of experts and bishops from all parts of the world (Cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium, 25). This work was undertaken in accordance with the conciliar principles of fidelity to tradition and openness to legitimate development (cf. ibid . , 23); and so it is possible to say that the reform of the Liturgy is strictly traditional and in accordance with “the ancient usage of the holy Fathers” (cf. ibid. , 50; Institutio generalis Missalis Romani, Prooemium, 6). ( John Paul II , Lett. Ap. Vicesimus quintus annus, 4).
 “The pope’s attention is drawn today once more to a particular point of the Church’s life: the indisputably beneficial fruits of the liturgical reform. Since the promulgation of the conciliar Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium great progress has taken place, progress that responds to the premises laid down by the liturgical movement of the last part of the nineteenth century. It has fulfilled that movement’s deep aspirations for which so many churchmen and scholars have worked and prayed. The new Rite of the Mass, promulgated by Us after long and painstaking preparation by the competent bodies, and into which there have been introduced-side by side with the Roman Canon, which remains substantially unchanged, other Eucharistic Prayers, has borne blessed fruits. These include a greater participation in the liturgical action, a more lively awareness of the sacred action, a greater and wider knowledge of the inexhaustible treasures of Sacred Scripture and an increase of a sense of community in the Church. The course of these recent years shows that we are on the right path. But unfortunately, in spite of vast preponderance of the healthy and good forces of the clergy and the faithful, abuses have been committed and liberties have been taken in applying the liturgical reform. The time has now come definitely to leave aside divisive ferments, which are equally pernicious on both sides, and to apply fully, in accordance with the correct criteria that inspired it, the reform approved by Us in application of the wishes of the Council.” (Alloc . Gratias ex animo, June 27, 1977: Teachings of Paul VI, XV , 655-656, in Italian 662-663).
 Cfr. General Instruction of the Roman Missal, n. 299; Rite of the Dedication of an Altar, Preface, nn. 155, 159
 “Around this altar, we are nourished by the body and blood of your Son to form your one and holy Church” (Rite of the Dedication of an Altar, n. 213, Preface).
Pope St. Pius V, “Quo Primum” July 14, 1570
by this present Constitution, which will be valid henceforth, now, and forever, We order and enjoin that nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it under the penalty of Our displeasure.
Furthermore, by these presents [this law], in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used. Nor are superiors, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of whatever title designated, obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than as enjoined by Us. We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and that this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force notwithstanding the previous constitutions and decrees of the Holy See, as well as any general or special constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal councils, and notwithstanding the practice and custom of the aforesaid churches, established by long and immemorial prescription – except, however, if more than two hundred years’ standing.
Therefore, no one whosoever is permitted to alter this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Would anyone, however, presume to commit such an act, he should know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul. Source – Rorate Caeli
Mass before the “reform”…
I think it goes without saying that, contrary to what Pope Francis believes about his “magisterial authority”, the “liturgical reform” – the new Mass – is absolutely NOT irreversible. It is eminently reversible; one cardinal has even hinted that it would be gone in a generation.
Share your thoughts on the subject …
Everything he does is reversible because he is intent on reversing everything that was formally thought to be irreversible.
This man lives in a bubble. Or is it “clerical derangement syndrome?” Or that compounded with geriatric dementia.
Never underestimate the attachment of men of Francis’s generation to the liturgical reform. Pope Benedict did and it cost him his pontificate.
This baloney sounds to me like a preparation for the unveiling of that “New New Mass: that is rumored to be in development somewhere in the bowels of the apostate clergy. You know, the “Mass” that can be attended by Protestants and Catholics alike (translation: that can be attended by Protestants of varying stripes: Catholics who attend it will no longer be Catholic.)
A definite softening up of the target – you know, like calling in the artillery bombardment and air strikes before the troops land.
And what is the target? The Catholic Church and the Catholic Faith.
James and RCA Victor,
What any intelligent Catholic should find difficult to reconcile, is Francis’s enthusiastic embrace of the new Mass, as evidenced above – recalling that this is the same new Mass which Pope Benedict described as a “banal, on the spot fabrication” (some translations “production”).
Irreversible? Cardinal Ranjith thought it would be reversed in a generation – I’d say right after the Consecration and let’s hope we don’t need to wait a generation for the Pope (Pope X) to obey Our Lady and enact that Consecration of Russia, with all due speed, albeit belatedly (if you get my drift!)
And if you’re thinking that that sentence is far too long, you should have heard me talking to “the world” when I first read the Rorate Caeli report above. THAT sentence was longer than War & Peace 😀
I was reading the recent LMS magazine – and although I don’t necessarily concur with all its contents, I was struck by an article on page 42 of the Autumn 2017 edition, titled ‘The Prayerful State’ by Mackenzie Robinson. It can be seen here:- https://issuu.com/latinmasssociety/docs/gads1056-_moa-_issue_193_-_autumn_2 It is about a Novus Ordo Mass attender describing his first experience of a traditional Latin Mass. What he writes says it all. The more people who are given the opportunity to experience the TLM, the better.
I tried to read that article, but it’s difficult. I can’t get the full page when I zoom and when I don’t zoom I’d need a magnifying glass, LOL!
Me, too. I couldn’t get the pages readable on screen, which is a pity. I would have liked to read that article, but can’t be helped, unless someone can post it here directly, hint, hint !
Thank you for this. I had no difficulty in reading the article. Truth, we should never forget, speaks to heart and mind. Error speaks only to ear.
I’m not surprised at anything this pope says any more, not even something as ridiculous as this. Every novus ordo Mass has the priest’s “personal stamp” on it, so is different from the one in the next parish, therefore, how can he say it is “irreversible”?
In response to this ongoing laughable fantasy about the “fruits” of the liturgical reform, here’s a dose of reality from, once again, Phoenix from the Ashes:
From a section called “The Destruction of the Mass”:
“The central fact is that in the two years that followed the closure of the Council Msgr. Bugnini and his entourage discarded the purpose of valid liturgical reform and set about remaking the Mass according to the heretical doctrines that were then becoming rampant in the Church.” (p. 276)
From a section called “The Legal Status of the Old and New Rites”:
“We need to be clear that in attempting to stamp out the traditional liturgy of the Church, Pope Paul VI and the hierarchies of the world after him were following a policy of complete illegality. …the entire liturgical reform is steeped in illegitimacy and illegality from beginning to end: the assumption by Bugnini and his associates of a mission beyond what the Council had authorised, the disregard they showed for the Congregation of Rites, the ignoring of due process in the introduction of reforms, the overriding of the Synod of Bishops when it opposed the new Mass, the forcing of the new rite on the Consilium by Bugnini on the plea that it was the Pope’s personal will, his disobedience of the Pope’s direction to submit the General Instruction to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. […] As a matter of law, there is no obligation on any priest to use the Missal of Paul VI for any celebration, and the only liturgy that has universal right in the Latin Church is the one decreed by Pope St. Pius V in the bull Quo Primum. (p. 286)
Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Pope Francis….
Thank you for those fantastic quotes. Is this the book?
Click here for details
That’s the one!
That book looks good. Thanks for letting us know about it.
Editor, Laura & Lily,
A caveat about this book: although it is mostly excellent, I’ve come across a few weak spots here and there (and I’m not quite finished with it either).
First, his explanation of the alleged confusion in the early Church between bishops/priests/presbyters is not at all helpful, and seems to add to the confusion. He addressed this during his discussion of the false scholarship which claimed, during Vat. II, that a return to antiquity was “purer.”
Second, he inexplicably states that the first changes to the traditional Missal – 1965 I believe – were actually in accordance with the wishes of the Constitution on the Liturgy, and an improvement, when in fact they were merely a warm-up for the disaster to come.
A few head-scratchers like that are sprinkled throughout, but overall, an excellent source for understanding the revolution.
That sound like a book worth buying. Thank you for the quotes.
I watched as this Pope handed out the Blessed Sacrament during Holy Communion at one of his Papal Masses. People were taking the Sacred Host and passing it by hand through the crowd. That’s the evil fruit of the New Mass. Pope Francis is fooling no one; he’s a Modernist revolutionary through and through and it will all come to an end with his dreadful Pontificate.
The true fruits of the New Mass are to be seen in thousands of wiped out seminaries and religious houses, tens of thousands of closed churches, an almost complete drought in vocations and millions of apostate Catholics. These are the fruits of the New Mass regardless of what Pope Francis says. He must think our heads button up the back!
Two interesting points, though: 1. His comment about the New Mass being in line with Tradition and the Mass of the Holy Fathers of the early Church is false. Pius XII specifically wrote that it would be a great error to return to the early table form of Mass, and the Holy Fathers never celebrated or heard Mass facing the people. 2. Claiming that the New Mass responds to a desire of the liturgical movement of the 19th century is telling. It was during this period, into the early 20th century, that the Popes had to address the errors of Modernists and liturgical nutcases. Pope Francis truly nailed his colours to the mast with that nugget.
Yes, the New Mass will one day be abolished and all the scandalous, often sacrilegious, abuses that came in its wake will be extinguished. There is absolutely no question of a doubt about this. The sacred will return to the Church and this Protestant revolt will be wiped out.
It’s difficult to express how much damage Pope Francis is doing to the Church and to souls. He is just unbelievable. You have expressed the horror of this pontificate brilliantly, and all that remains for me to say in response is I sincerely hope that your concluding paragraph comes true sooner rather than later.
I couldn’t agree more with you that Pope Francis is a modernist revolutionary. Too true he is.
“The true fruits of the New Mass are to be seen in thousands of wiped out seminaries and religious houses, tens of thousands of closed churches, an almost complete drought in vocations and millions of apostate Catholics. These are the fruits of the New Mass regardless of what Pope Francis says. He must think our heads button up the back! “
Here’s one thing that is definitely irreversible. Death, Judgement, Heaven and Hell !
or rather 4 things. The 4 Last things.
Yes, that is terrifyingly correct.
I know we’re not supposed to visit sedevacantist sites but almost by accident I found myself on the akaCatholic, Louie Verrecchio blog and he has written about this same topic only now he has said that Pope Francis is “obviously” a “formal heretic https://akacatholic.com/word-for-the-week-irreversible/
My question is, doesn’t someone have to be formally warned and stick obstinately to their heresy quite deliberately, even publicly, before they can be declared a formal heretic?
I copied the following about heresy, distinctions of heresy, from the Catholic Encyclopaedia:-
“Both matter and form of heresy admit of degrees which find expression in the following technical formula of theology and canon law.
Pertinacious adhesion to a doctrine contradictory to a point of faith clearly defined by the Church is heresy pure and simple, heresy in the first degree.
But if the doctrine in question has not been expressly “defined” or is not clearly proposed as an article of faith in the ordinary, authorized teaching of the Church, an opinion opposed to it is styled sententia haeresi proxima, that is, an opinion approaching heresy.
Next, a doctrinal proposition, without directly contradicting a received dogma, may yet involve logical consequences at variance with revealed truth. Such a proposition is not heretical, it is a propositio theologice erronea, that is, erroneous in theology.
Further, the opposition to an article of faith may not be strictly demonstrable, but only reach a certain degree of probability. In that case the doctrine is termed sententia de haeresi suspecta, haeresim sapiens; that is, an opinion suspected, or savouring, of heresy.”
I think it is clear from these distinctions that it is not easy to just say someone is a “formal heretic”. There’s a way to go first!
Yes, the suspected heretic must first be confronted with his error and given the opportunity to recant. If he fails to do so then he may be classified as a formal heretic. In the case of Pope Francis, as Richie says, we are some way off that conclusion. At any rate, neither Louis V nor any other lay subordinate has the knowledge or authority to declare a Pope a formal heretic. These people overstep themselves. This is a decision for the legitimate authorities in the Church. In the case of Popes, the declaration is usually posthumous, that is, after the death of Pontiff in question following a thorough examination of his beliefs and declarations.
Probably the most ridiculous thing about Francis’ comments are that he is claiming the liturgical changes are irreversible, on the back of them being introduced in defiance of Papal statements regarding the permanence of the tridentine liturgy.
It is so obviously a nonsense, that I wonder if he really believes it himself and/or who is kidding who here?!
Of course, making such a public statement is an obvious sign of modernist discomfort regarding the growing popularity of the traditional mass and the obvious failure of the new (along with the ‘change in direction’ it symbolises).
All the good news in the Church is linked to tradition, so it’s no wonder Francis and co are worried. In comparison, it often seems that news of the conciliar Church revolves around on confusion, heresy, abuse and homosexual scandals.
Recently we heard how, having achieved a number of 600 priests recently, the SSPX is now making strides towards 700. And the recent SSPX pilgrimage to Fatima was the largest pilgrimage there for 100 years.
And in France,a review of the seminary statistics over the last 7 years shows a marked change towards higher numbers of traditional (or traditional-orientated) seminarians, at the expense of Diocesan seminarians. Meanwhile, we are tripping over news about ordinations occurring in the traditional rite for the first time since the changes: England and Nigeria being the latest places I heard of to “break their duck” in this way.
Regarding Francis’ latest and shameless boast about the “irreversible” reform of the liturgy, I think it is helpful to keep in mind that the Vat. II revolution has succeeded largely through the art of the bluff, and the lack of concerted response to challenge, correct, suppress and even punish the bluff.
This frequently originated with false or shoddy scholarship, esp. regarding the practices of the Church in her early ages and even her heroic age – the nature of the priesthood, the nature of the liturgy, the role of deacons (including women deacons), etc. This devious practice has been condemned as “antiquarianism.”
For another example, how many times were the procedural rules of a Council broken at Vat. II, and how many times were those violations challenged? The name of the game is: run something subversive up the flagpole and see who challenges it; meanwhile, build credentialed consensus around the fraud as quickly as possible to stifle challenges.
The problem is further exacerbated nowadays because the degeneration of the hierarchy has reached such an advanced state that only five Cardinals challenged the heretical bluff in AL, which was produced via a carefully manipulated “Synod” – i.e. a false and quickly manufactured consensus.
Apparently the embedded enemies of the Church were well aware of this Achilles heel, and have exploited it to the fullest.
‘Francis declares: “After this magisterium, after this long journey, we can affirm with certainty and with magisterial authority that the liturgical reform is irreversible”.’
Hmm … I spy magisterial overreach and not a little intellectual confusion.
Both Francis and traditionalists should remember that Sacrosanctum Concilium and Quo Primum concern the Roman Rite. The Roman Rite, it must never be forgotten, is only one among the Latin Rites, alongside which there exist the Eastern Rites. Therefore, I would be careful about erecting to the level of quasi-infallibility documents which, while certainly of the Magisterium, regard particular rites and not the worship of the Church in general.
Francis, of course, is being mischievous here. My interpretation of this speech is that there are people out there who are very afraid for the future of the liturgical reform which, as one Irish scholar put it to me more than twenty years ago, has gone about as far as it is going to go. But it will not be Francis who will save it. Its historical origins, its structural problems and its very ethos are such that it is flying in the face of history. I will never forget hearing an Eastern Rite bishop from India saying that he thanked God for belonging to this distinctive rite. Why? Because his Roman Rite brethren were at a disadvantage in India because their liturgy was, outwardly speaking, no different from that of Anglicans and Protestants.
What does the future hold for the Roman Rite? IMHO, the Extraordinary Form (not a term that I like) will continue and may well see a growth in its adherents. It will also serve as both a corrective to the wreckless development of the Ordinary Form and a resource for its future reform. The Ordinary Form will limp along until, once the liturgical idealogues like Francis have gone to their divine reward, a future Pope will reform it and re-introduce more Catholic elements. But, again IMHO, Extraordinary and Ordinary will not converge.
It must never be forgotten that so much in Catholic teaching and practice is a reaction against the Protestant Reformation. Had the Reformation not taken place, the Roman Rite would have known a very different evolution.
I’m afraid I would have to take issue with your understanding of the status of Quo Primum, as well as of your assessment that the so-called Tridentine rite “is only one among other Latin rites”.
I am not aware of any other Latin rite of the Church that is universal in its usage, or that can be traced back in its essence to the time of the Apostles. Quo Primum addressed this particular liturgical rite, not any other, by which I assume you mean later local variations that were permitted by the Magisterium for whatever reason but are nevertheless offshoots of the same singular essential Western rite. I think it is dangerous to speak of other Latin rites as though more than one came to us from the Apostles.
Quo Primum specifically addressed this singular Western (Latin) Rite of the universal Church, the same rite that the Reformation Protestants rejected and that the Modernists have sought to destroy from within the Church since the turn of the 20th century.
The document in question is certainly Magisterial in authority, as you rightly say. But it is also infallible in that it was the confirmation of the Fathers of Trent, codified by the Supreme Pontiff, that the Mass is the perpetual Sacrifice of Christ on Calvary, whose body and blood are made real and present during the Consecration. To forbid with the severest penalties, then, those who would attempt to deny these divinely revealed truths or undermine them by removing essential prayers from the rite seems to me to be pretty binding on all.
It has been argued that one Pope cannot bind his papal successors by such a document, only the entire Church under the Pope. But I would suggest that this is only half true.
Popes Pius XII and John XXIII made certain alterations to the Latin Rite. But these were additions to the rite, not subtractions. One such example is the inclusion of St. Joseph in the Canon, a perfectly wholesome and valid development of the liturgical rite.
What Paul VI did, however, and what his successors have since embraced, is entirely another story. Paul VI permitted the ancient rite to be butchered and remodelled into something akin to the Portestant meal service. In order to achieve this many of the ancient prayers of importance were removed, as were a number of priestly functions that emphasised the Sacrificial nature of the Mass. But the greatest and most damaging of all the changes was the alteration of Christ’s own words, used by the priest to confect Transubstantiation. The change of “for many” to “for all” was just a single word, but the shift that word change made in terms of Catholic doctrine was enormous. No Pope, however venerable, had the authority to alter the Mass in this way in order to make it fit with the condemned heresy of ecumenism. So yes, the condemnation of Quo Primum does encompass the post-conciliar Popes, if only for an abuse of authority that endangered the integrity of the Holy Sacrifice and polluted the pure and previously explicit doctrines of the Faith.
It is way too simplistic to argue that Popes can just do what they like with the liturgy of the Church regardless of the consequences. They are just as bound as the rest of us, more so in fact, to preserve is from any and all attack.
The conciliar Popes, though, have destroyed the Roman Rite codified in perpetuity by Quo Primum and they will answer to God for it. Going so far as to now refer to it as the “extraordinary” rite just adds insult to outrage. I will never call the ancient Mass of the Church, our sacred heritage and the only rite permitted for the Western Church in perpetuity, “extraordinary.” To refer to it in so misleading a way only serves to compound the lie that the Novus Ordo is the same Traditional Latin rite. It’s not the same, it’s a concoction that has more in common with Luther than with Trent.
I agree with you entirely. The Roman Rite is pre-eminent. It can stretch back, at the very least, to St Gregory the Great and has its origins in the liturgy used by the Apostles. It is the most ancient, noble, venerable and Catholic of all the rites of the Church.
All the other Latin rites are actually based on the Roman Rite – Dominican Rite, Carmelite Rite, Ambrosian Rite etc.
And what about the Eastern Catholic Rites?
What about them ? The Roman Rite is the oldest Rite in the universal church, even older than the Eastern Rites. It’s probable that the Eastern Rites are also modelled on the Roman Rite.
I have discussed this extensively with a friend who is an Orthodox monk. Even he agrees that the Roman Rite is the most ancient. In fact, some Russian Orthodox communities use the “Western Rite” (as they call it) which is, in fact, a slightly modified version of the Roman Rite.
The Catholic doctrine is that the charism of infallibility can only apply to that which is binding on the universal Church.
While the Roman Rite may be the most diffuse of the Catholic rites, it is not, theologically speaking, universal.
We forget the existence of Eastern Catholic Rites at our peril.
The Eastern Rites are permitted, but the Roman Rite is pre-eminent in the universal Church.
I can assure you that Paul VI’s Missal, which I have open on my desk as I write, has “pro multis” — not “pro omnibus” — in the consecration narrative.
I know you won’t find that abusive change in the original missal of Paul VI. The problem is it was permitted when the change was made and it should not have been.
The Eastern Rite is as ancient and venerable as the Latin (Western) Rite, so no one is writing it off. We are speaking here of changes made to the Latin Rite and its universal celebration which, before the Council, was essentially handed down undiluted in one universal language but which is now a mish mash of different languages and formats that often smack of Protestantism or worse. In this regard the infallible doctrine regarding the Mass has been endangered, and even trampled upon, by careless and/or heretical Churchmen.
It is in this regard that I speak of the infallibility of Quo Primum, which document reiterated the infallible truth taught by the Church concerning the Mass. Besides this, Quo Primum is such an authoritative document, having coming from the Fathers of Trent and been codified by a Pope/saint, that to contradict it or undermine its authoritative permanence in any way is tantamount to a sin against the Faith. Pius XII and John XXIII made changes to the Mass in line with Quo Primum, but Paul VI went much further. He allowed the enemies within the Church to butcher the Rite that was codified for all time in Quo Primum.
I agree with most of what you say. I would only add that the The Eastern Rites may be just as venerable, but they are not as ancient, as the Roman Rite. I have a good source for that somewhere and will find it soon. Having done lots of research on the Eastern Rites, I know that most serious liturgical historians regard the Roman Rite as the mother of all Rites.
I know the Eastern Rites have their origin in St. John Crysostom and St. Gregory the Great, so you’re correct in stating that they are not as old the the Latin Rite and do, in fact, spring from it, though with peculiarities such as the use of the iconostasis behind which the consecration takes place hidden from the eyes of the faithful. I also understand they have Coomunion under both kinds, administered from a small spoon. And they don’t call the Holy Sacrifice Mass, they call it the liturgy of St. John Crysostom or St. Gregory, etc. So yes, you make a valid point. However, these are ancient Rites similarly handed down unaltered through many centuries, though not as long as the Latin Rite.
I meant to say earlier, I agree with you that this is really a side issue as we were discussing the Latin Rite. It’s just a distraction from the real issue – the grave problem of the New Mass!
Here is Chris Ferrara’s latest take on the “irreversible” bluff:
Excellent stuff as usual from Chris Ferrara.
I concur with editor. That’s an excellent article from Chris Ferarra, thanks for posting it.
I think is an interesting article about attitudes to the Tridentine Mass:
That is a Google page – not an article.
Apologies! Herewith, I hope…..
Paix Liturgique Newsletter
Letter 85 – 28 August 2017
EXCLUSIVE: THE EXTRAORDINARY RESULTS OF OUR POLISH SURVEY!
Ten years after the motu proprio, we have decided to complete our 2009-2011 European survey campaign regarding the reception of Pope Benedict XVI’s Motu Proprio. This campaign covered the continent’s principal Catholic countries, whether in the wake of papal visits (Portugal, United Kingdom, Spain) or at the request of our local partners. However, it had overlooked the highest-ranking country in terms of Church vitality: Poland. We therefore decided that the time had come to survey the country of Pope John Paul II.
Rather than commissioning a survey from a commercial institute, we followed the advice of Una Voce Poland and turned to the Institute for Catholic Church Statistics (ISKK). It was founded in 1972 by the Society of the Catholic Apostolate (the Pallottines) and works for the Polish Bishops’ Conference. The institute’s Catholic character means that the surv ey was taken directly on a group made up of committed Catholics (1) which gives this poll an original importance since it deals only with practicing Catholics. After gathering over 800 responses, they selected 635 that matched the distribution of committed Catholics in the Polish population.
I – THE RESULTS
Survey conducted by the ISKK (Institute for Catholic Church Statistics) from May 13 to June 4, 2017. Online panel method on a cross section of 635 committed Catholics. (1)
> 1: Do you go to Mass? (1)
Every Sunday and holy day: 93.6%
Nearly every Sunday: 5.8%
Once a month: 0.6%
> 2: In July 2007 Pope Benedict XVI said that the Mass could be celebrated both in its modern form, termed “ordina ry” or “of Paul VI”—with the priest facing the people—and also in its traditional form, termed “extraordinary” or “Tridentine”—in Latin, the priest facing the tabernacle. Were you aware of this?
No answer: 3.6%
> 3: What is your opinion of the Mass in the Extraordinary Form (in Latin and facing the tabernacle)? (Note: the total is above 100% because the pollster allowed multiple answers)
It is an expression of fidelity to the Church’s tradition: 49.9%
It is something normal: 37.3%
It does not correspond to contemporary culture: 17.6%
It is a strange practice: 4.2%
Hard to say: 12.1%
> 4: If the older Mass were celebrated (in Latin and facing the tabernacle) in YOUR parish, would you attend?
Once in a while: 51.6%
Hard to say: 4.4%
II – JUST LIKE EVERYWHERE ELSE . . .
Thanks to Pope John Paul II’s prestige, Polish Catholicism, a leaven of victorious resistance to Communist dictatorship, went through a triumphant era in the late 20th century. From a doctrinal and liturgical point of view, it was less exposed to the “Springtime of the Council” and its abuses. Even today, Gregorian chant and Communion on the tongue remain the norm in most of the country’s parishes.
In this rather conservative and isolated context, it is interesting to note that the extraordinary form—so often presented as a reaction to abuse—would draw one worshipper in four every Sunday if it were part and parcel of ordinary parish life. A result that corresponds to the average found in the other countries (19% in France in 2008; 25% i n Germany in 2010; 27.4% in Spain in 2011; etc.).
III – PAIX LITURGIQUE’S DETAILED COMMENTARY
1) The Poles are aware of the extraordinary form’s legitimacy
In Poland, nine committed Catholics (1) in ten know that the extraordinary form has full citizenship in the Church. This is a very high result. Besides the fact that it seems normal for committed Catholics to be informed on the different aspects of the life of the Church, one may also think that after ten years knowledge of Benedict XVI’s motu proprio has made some headway: in the first place through local word-of-mouth, then through the place that the extraordinary form has on social networks, and also thanks to the work of associations such as Una Voce Poland that organize lectures, ceremonies, and pilgrimages to promote the Latin and Gregorian liturgy.
2) A Catholicism preserved from the liturgical wars
The answer to question #3, which was slightly modified by the ISKK pollsters as compared to our usual item (2), brings out the fact that only one in 25 committed Catholics sees the older liturgy as a “strange practice.” Furthermore, less than one in five (17.6) considers that it does not conform to contemporary culture. In any event one may imagine that for some this answer is not a negative, since it only notes the incapacity of the contemporary world to make room for tradition.
On the other hand, the fact that one committed Catholic in two sees the extraordinary form as “an expression of fidelity to the Church’s tradition” is unambiguous. This survey therefore shows us the face of a church which, while it certainly has suffered along with the whole Church from the break imposed by the liturgical reform, nevertheless has by and large remained immune to a “progressive” opposition against the older liturgy as well as to the rupture that has harmed, and continues to harm, our Western European churches.
3) 8 Polish Catholics in 10 . . .
. . . would gladly attend the extraordinary form if it were celebrated in their parish: 28.9% would prefer to do so and 51.6% would do so once in a while. The close to 30% of Massgoers who would attend the traditional Mass every Sunday if it were celebrated conveniently in their parish (19% in France in 2008, 40% in Italy, 25% in Germany, etc.) shows the true weight of the extraordinary form. This again confirms the existence of a vast silent people (at least one in four Catholics) that aspires to more sacrality and solemnity in its liturgical and spiritual life. Only 15% of practicing Polish Catholics express no attraction to the ext raordinary form, which leaves a great field for the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum to make its way, patiently, among that country’s parishes.
4) The scientific confirmation of all our earlier surveys
The fact that, thanks to the ISKK’s specific competency, this Polish survey bears only on practicing Catholics makes it a reliable benchmark for analyzing the results of our earlier national surveys. All of our other surveys targeted Catholics generally, i.e. both Massgoers and non; at our request the polling institutes highlighted the answers specific to practicing Catholics. Because of the dramatic drop in even monthly Mass attendance among West European Catholics, however, the samples of Massgoers might be considered too small to be fully representative.
In reality, scientists are well aware that the more samples are numerous, the more the statistics are reliable. The con sistency of the results obtained in the seven countries of our earlier surveys—France, Italy, Germany, Portugal, Great Britain, Switzerland, and Spain—was already a significant statistical element. Their agreement with the results of the Polish survey, obtained from a cross section exclusively made up of practicing Catholics, strongly confirms their validity.
(1) The 635 persons whom the ISKK polled were aggregated from a selection of committed Catholics. By “committed Catholics” the ISKK means: regular Massgoers (who in Poland are still those who attend Mass nearly every Sunday—whereas elsewhere in Europe it means only Catholics who attend Mass at least one Sunday per month); those involved in the life of the parish; and members of recognized Catholic movements or associations. Since they all attend Mass at least once a month, they are all practicing in the modern sociological meaning of the term.
(2) The usual question runs as follows: “Would you consider it normal or abnormal if the two forms of the Roman rite were regularly celebrated in YOUR parish?”
It would be interesting, bot no doubt extremely depressing, to see the results if the same questions were asked in U.K. Parishes!
In honor of the “fruits” of the new Mass, I offer this image from some years ago, from San Francisco. This is two “Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence” in line for Holy Communion (“fruits” being open to a double meaning, of course….)
I remember that shocker. If they could only see themselves, as the poet Burns said, as ithers see them…
Is this for real? Seriously? This is a Catholic Church? What on earth are the “Sisters” (Transgender, I presume) indulging in – or shouldn’t we ask? Makes clown masses and a few balloons seem almost innocuous. I’d look them up on Google but not sure I can stomach any more of this at present.
They call themselves the “sisters of perpetual indulgence” and are based in California, I believe. Some years back the Archbishop (of San Francisco, I think) gave them Holy Communion dressed like that. Scandalous!
Unfortunately there are also 2 groupings of this hideous organisation in Scotland.
I remember seeing media photos of them giving out condoms in George Square 🙁
It is difficult to speak of unity when a Pope calls into question the previous teachings, not to mention the deliberately badly translated and oriented texts!
At the highest level, they severed the bond that connected them to Christ, which is why they speak of “irreversible reform”, because their continuous innovations and improvisations do not get along with Tradition twice millennium.
In the end, they separated from the Church and created a new sect that can indeed be in perfect harmony with other Protestant sects.
The form of ecumenism they have adopted shows this.
C’est difficile de parler d’unité quand un Pape remet en cause les enseignements antérieurs, sans parler des textes délibérément mal traduits et orientés!…
Au plus haut niveau, ils ont sectionné le lien qui les raccordait au Christ, c’est pourquoi ils nous parlent de « réforme irréversible », car leurs innovations et improvisations continues ne s’accordent pas avec la Tradition deux fois millénaire.
En définitive, ils se sont séparés de l’Église et ont créé une nouvelle secte qui peut en effet s’accorder parfaitement avec les autres sectes protestantes.
La forme d’œcuménisme qu’ils ont adoptée en témoigne.
Comments are closed.