| Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
| Online Users |
There are currently 384 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 381 Guest(s)
Applebot, Bing, Google
|
| Latest Threads |
Pope Francis says Synod’s...
Forum: Pope Francis
Last Post: Stone
Today, 05:59 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 49
|
If We Want to Promote the...
Forum: Articles by Catholic authors
Last Post: Stone
Today, 05:54 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 54
|
Fr. Ruiz: Renewal of the ...
Forum: Rev. Father Hugo Ruiz Vallejo
Last Post: Stone
Today, 05:44 AM
» Replies: 16
» Views: 1,331
|
Fr. Ruiz's Sermons: Last ...
Forum: Fr. Ruiz's Sermons November 2024
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 06:38 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 46
|
The Simulacrum: The False...
Forum: Sedevacantism
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 06:36 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 68
|
Interview with the Editor...
Forum: The Recusant
Last Post: Stone
11-24-2024, 07:15 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 146
|
Purgatory Explained by th...
Forum: Resources Online
Last Post: Stone
11-24-2024, 09:03 AM
» Replies: 37
» Views: 3,994
|
Last Sunday after Penteco...
Forum: Pentecost
Last Post: Stone
11-24-2024, 08:57 AM
» Replies: 5
» Views: 11,665
|
Fr. Hewko's Sermons: Twen...
Forum: November 2024
Last Post: Stone
11-23-2024, 10:30 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 109
|
Fr. Hewko's Sermons: Feas...
Forum: November 2024
Last Post: Stone
11-23-2024, 10:27 PM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 140
|
|
|
| The Anti-Liturgical Heresy |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-24-2022, 06:27 AM - Forum: In Defense of Tradition
- No Replies
|
 |
Dom Prosper-Louis-Pascal Gueranger, founder of the Benedictine Congregation of France and first abbot of Solesmes after the French revolution, wrote in 1840 his Liturgical Institutions in order to restore among the clergy the knowledge and the love for the Roman Liturgy.
Here we present to our readers a fragment of the Liturgical Institutions, where Dom Gueranger summarizes what he calls the anti-liturgical heresy, a summary of the doctrine and liturgical practice of the Protestant sect, from the XIVth to the XVIIIth century. As it can easily be seen, many of these principles have a striking similitude with the post-Conciliar liturgical reform . . .
-1-
The first characteristic of the anti-liturgical heresy is HATRED OF TRADITION AS FOUND IN THE FORMULAS USED IN DIVINE WORSHIP. One cannot fail to note this special characteristic in all heretics, from Vigilantus to Calvin, and the reason for it is easy to explain.
Every sectarian who wishes to introduce a new doctrine finds himself, unfailingly, face to face with the Liturgy, which is Tradition at its strongest and best, and he cannot rest until he has silenced this voice, until he has torn up these pages which recall the faith of past centuries.
As a matter of fact, how could Lutheranism, Calvinism, Anglicanism establish themselves and maintain their influence over the masses? All they had to do was substitute new books and new formulas in place of the ancient books and formulas, and their work was done. There was nothing that still bothered the new teachers; they could just go on preaching as they wished: the faith of the people was henceforth without defense.
Luther understood this doctrine with a shrewdness worthy of the Jansenists, since he, at the beginning of his innovations, at the time he still felt he should maintain a part of the external form of the Latin cult, gave the following rule for the reformed Mass:
Quote:“We approve and preserve the Introits of Sundays and of the feasts of Our Lord, that is to say Easter, Pentecost and Christmas. We should much prefer that the entire Psalms from the Introits should be taken, as was done in former times; but we will gladly conform to the present usage. We do not blame even those who would wish to keep even the Introits of the Apostles, of the Blessed Virgin and other Saints, since these three Introits are taken from the psalms and other places in Scripture.”
He hated too much the sacred songs composed by the Church herself as the public expression for her faith. He felt too much in them the vigor of Tradition, which he wanted to ban. If he granted to the Church the right to mix her voice with the oracles of the Scripture in the holy assemblies, he would expose himself thereby to have to listen to millions of mouth anathematizing his new dogmas. Therefore, his hatred for everything in Liturgy which does not exclusively derive from Holy Scripture.
-2-
This, as matter of fact, is the second principle of the anti-liturgical sect: TO SUBSTITUTE FOR THE FORMULAS OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL TEACHINGS READINGS FROM THE HOLY SCRIPTURE.
This involves two advantages: first, to silence the voice of Tradition of which sectarians are always afraid. Then, there is the advantage of propagating and supporting their dogmas by means of affirmation and negation. By way of negation, in passing over in silence, through cunning, the texts which express doctrine opposed to errors they wish to propagate; by way of affirmation, by emphasizing truncated passages which show only one side of the truth, hide the other the eyes of the unlearned.
Since many centuries we know that the preferences given by all heretics to holy Scripture, over Church definitions, has no other reason than to facilitate making the word of God say all they want it to say, and manipulating it at will.
( . . . ) Protestants . . . have nearly reduced the whole Liturgy to the reading of Scripture, accompanied by speeches in which one interprets by means of reason. As to the choice and determination of the canonical books, these have ended by falling under the caprice of the reformer, who, in final analysis, decides the meaning of the word itself.
Thus Luther finds that in his system of pantheism, the ideas of the uselessness of good works and faith alone sufficing should be established as dogmas, and so, from now on, he will declare that the Epistle of St. James is a “straw epistle” and not canonical, for the simple reason that it teaches the necessity of good works for salvation.
In every age, and under all forms of sectarianism, it will be the same: No ecclesiastical formulas, only Holy Scripture, but interpreted, selected, presented by the person or persons who are seeking to profit from innovation.
The trap is dangerous for the simple, and only a long time afterwards one becomes aware of having been deceived and that the word of God, “a two-edged sword”, as the Apostles calls it, has caused great wounds, because it has been manipulated by the sons of perdition.
-3-
The third principle of the heretics concerning the reform of the Liturgy is, having eliminated the ecclesiastical formulas and proclaimed the absolute necessity of making use only of the words of Scripture in divine worship and having seen that Holy Scripture does not always yield itself to all their purposes as they would like, their third principle, we say, is to fabricate and introduce various formulas, filled with perfidy, by which the people are more surely ensnared in error, and thus the whole structure of the impious reform will become consolidated for the coming centuries.
-4-
One will not be astonished at the contradictions which heresy shows in its works, when one knows that the fourth principle, or, if you will, the fourth necessity imposed on the sectarians by the very nature of their rebellious state is an habitual contradiction of their own principles.
It must be this way for their confusion on that great day, which will come sooner or later, when God will reveal their nakedness to the view of the people whom they have seduced; moreover, it is not in the nature of man to be consistent. Truth alone can be consistent.
Thus, all the sectarians without exceptions begin with THE VINDICATION OF THE RIGHTS OF ANTIQUITY. They want to cut Christianity off from all that the errors and passions of man have mixed in; from whatever is “false” and “unworthy of God”. ALL THEY WANT IS THE PRIMITIVE, AND THEY PRETEND TO GO BACK TO THE CRADLE OF CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS.
To this end, they prune, they efface, they cut away; everything falls under their blows, and while one is waiting to see the original purity of the divine cult reappear, one finds himself encumbered with new formulas dating only from the night before, and which are incontestably human, since the one who created them is still alive.
Every sect undergoes this necessity. We saw this with the Monophysites and the Nestorians; we find the same in every branch of Protestantism. Their preference for preaching antiquity led only to cutting them off from the entire past. Then they placed themselves before their seduced people and they swore to them that now all was fine, that the papist accretions had disappeared, that the divine cult was restored to its primitive form . . .
-5-
Since the liturgical reform is being undertaken by the sectarians with the same goal as the reform of dogma, of which it is the consequence, it follows that as Protestants separated from unity in order to believe less, they found themselves led to cut away in the Liturgy ALL THE CEREMONIES, ALL THE FORMULAS WHICH EXPRESS MYSTERIES.
They called it superstition, idolatry, everything that did not seem to be merely rational, thus, limiting the expression of faith, obscuring by doubt and even negation all the views, which open on the supernatural world.
Thus, no more Sacraments, except Baptism, preparing the way for Socialism, which freed its followers even from Baptism. No more sacramentals, blessings, images, relics of Saints, processions, pilgrimages, etc. No more altar, only a table, no more sacrifice as in every religion, but only a meal. No more church but only a temple, as with the Greeks and Romans. No more religious architecture, since there is no more mystery. No more Christian paintings and sculpture, since there is no more sensible religion. Finally no more poetry in a cult which is no longer impregnated by love or faith.
-6-
The suppression of the mystical element in the Protestant liturgy was bound to produce, infallibly, the total extinction of that spirit of prayer, which in Catholicism, we call unction.
A heart in revolt can no longer love, a heart without love will be all the more able to produce passable expression of respect or fear, with the cold pride of the Pharisee. Such is Protestant liturgy.
-7-
Pretending to treat nobly with God, Protestant liturgy has no need of intermediaries. To invoke the help of the Blessed Virgin, or the protection of Saints, would be, for them, a lack of respect due to the Supreme Being.
Their liturgy excludes that entire “papist idolatry” which asks from a creature what only should be asked from God. It purges the calendar of all those names of men, which the Roman Church so boldly inscribes next to the name of God. It has a special horror for those names of monks and other persons of later times who one can find figuring next to the names of the Apostles, whom Jesus Christ had chosen, and by whom was founded this primitive Church which alone was pure in faith and free from all superstition in cult and from every relaxation in morals.
-8-
Since the liturgical reform had for one of its principal aims the abolition of actions and formulas of mystical signification, it is a logical consequence that its authors had to vindicate the use of the vernacular in divine worship.
This is in the eyes of sectarians a most important item. Cult is no secret matter. The people, they say, must understand what they sing. Hatred for the Latin language is inborn in the hearts of all the enemies of Rome. They recognize it as the bond among Catholics throughout the universe, as the arsenal of orthodoxy against all the subtleties of the sectarian spirit. ( . . .)
The spirit of rebellion which drives them to confide the universal prayer to the idiom of each people, of each province, of each century, has for the rest produced its fruits, and the reformed themselves constantly perceive that the Catholic people, in spite of their Latin prayers, relish better and accomplish with more zeal the duties of the cult than most do the Protestant people. At every hour of the day, divine worship takes place in Catholic churches. The faithful Catholic, who assists, leaves his mother tongue at the door. Apart form the sermons, he hears nothing but mysterious words which, even so, are not heard in the most solemn moment of the Canon of the Mass. Nevertheless, this mystery charms him in such a way that he is not jealous of the lot of the Protestant, even though the ear of the latter doesn’t hear a single sound without perceiving its meaning.(...)
. . . We must admit it is a master blow of Protestantism to have declared war on the sacred language. If it should ever succeed in ever destroying it, it would be well on the way to victory. Exposed to profane gaze, like a virgin who has been violated, from that moment on the Liturgy has lost much of its sacred character, and very soon people find that it is not worthwhile putting aside one’s work or pleasure in order to go and listen to what is being said in the way one speaks on the marketplace. ( . . .)
-9-
In taking away from the Liturgy the mystery which humbles reason, Protestantism took care not to forget the practical consequence, that is to say, liberation from the fatigue and the burden of the body imposed by the rules of the papist Liturgy.
First of all, no more fasting, no more abstinence, no more genuflections in prayer. For the ministers of the temple, no more daily functions to carry out, no more canonical prayers to recite in the name of the Church.
Such is one of the principal forms of the great Protestant emancipation: to diminish the sum of public and private prayers.
The course of events has quickly shown that faith and charity, which are nourished by prayers, were extinguished in the reform, whereas among Catholics both still nourish all the acts of devotion to God and men, since they are impregnated by the ineffable resources of liturgical prayer as accomplished by the secular and regular clergy, and in which the community of the faithful participate.
-10-
Since Protestantism had to establish a rule in order to distinguish among the papist institutions those which could be the most hostile to its principle, it had to rummage around in the foundations of the Catholic structure to find the corner stone on which everything rests. Its instinct caused it to discover first of all that dogma which is irreconcilable with every innovation: Papal authority. When Luther wrote on his flag: “Hatred for Rome and its laws”, he only promulgated once more the underlying principle of every branch of the anti-liturgical sect. From then on he had to abrogate, ‘en masse’ both cult and ceremonies as the idolatries of Rome. The Latin language, the Divine Office, the calendar, the breviary: all were abominations of the great Harlot of Babylon. The Roman Pontiff weighs down reason by his dogmas and the sense by his ritual practices. Therefore, it must be proclaimed that his dogmas are only blasphemy and error, and his liturgical observances nothing but a means of establishing more firmly a usurped and tyrannical domination. (. . .)
One should here bring to mind the marvelous reflections of Joseph de Maistre in his book The Pope, where he demonstrates with so much wisdom and depth that, in spite of the disagreement which should isolate the diay aent sects, there is one thing in which they are all alike, namely, they are non-Roman.
-11-
The anti-liturgical heresy needed, in order to establish its reign for good, the destruction in fact and in principle of all priesthood in Christianity. For it felt that where there is a Pontiff, there is an Altar, and where there is an Altar there is a sacrifice and the carrying on of a mysterious ceremonial.
Having abolished the office of Supreme Pontiff, they had to annihilate the character of the bishopric, from which emanates the mystical imposition of hands, which perpetuates the sacred hierarchy. From this derives a great presbyterianism, which is nothing other than the immediate consequence of the suppression of the Supreme Pontiff. From now on there is no longer a priest, properly speaking. How could simple election without consecration make a man sacred? Luther’s and Calvin’s reforms only know of ministers of God, or of men, as you prefer. But this is not enough. Chosen and established by laymen, bringing into the temple the robe of a certain bastard ministry, the minister is nothing but a layman clothed with accidental functions. In Protestantism there exit only laymen, and this necessarily so, since there is no longer a Liturgy. (. . .)
Such are the principal maxims of the anti-liturgical sect. We certainly did not exaggerate in any way. All we did was to reveal the hundred times professed doctrines of the writings of Luther, Calvin, the One Hundred Signers of Magdeburg, of Hospinien, Kemnitz, etc. These books are easy to consult. That is to say that what comes out of them is under the eyes of all the world. We thought it useful to throw light on the principal features of sectarianism. It is always profitable to know error.
It is now up to the Catholic logician to draw the conclusions.
|
|
|
| St. Alphonsus Liguori: Daily Meditations for Christmas Eve to December 31st |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-24-2022, 06:01 AM - Forum: Christmas
- Replies (8)
|
|
December the Twenty-Fourth
Morning Meditation
JESUS COMES TO CAST FIRE UPON THE EARTH
![[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F_M4...ipo=images]](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F_M4ZQzc8McRI%2FSBaGA6IGtvI%2FAAAAAAAAAAc%2F09uRF03QznQ%2Fs400%2F436px-Michelangelo_Caravaggio_035.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=0e788b0419f3a21f4705056bd6fbee8bdbdf20938424b3c264ebc23502fbcddf&ipo=images)
I am come to cast fire on the earth, and what will I but that it be kindled? (Luke xii. 49).
Before the coming of the Messias, who loved God upon the earth? He was known, indeed, in one corner of the world; that is, in Judea; and even there how very few loved Him when He came! Even today few there are who think of preparing their hearts for Jesus to be born in them! What sayest thou? Dost thou wish to be ranked amongst the ungrateful ones?
I. The Jews solemnised a day called by them Dies ignis — the day of fire, in memory of the fire with which Nehemias consumed the sacrifice upon his return from the Captivity of Babylon. Even so, and indeed with more reason, should Christmas Day be called the Day of Fire on which a God comes as a little Child to cast the fire of love into the hearts of men.
I am come to cast fire upon the earth; so spoke Jesus Christ. Before the coming of the Messias, who loved God upon the earth? Some worshipped the sun, some the brutes, some the very stones, and others again even viler creatures still. A few years after the Redeemer was born God was more loved by men than He had been before from the creation of man. Ah, truly every man at the sight of a God clothed in flesh, and choosing to lead a life of such hardship, and to suffer a death of such ignominy, ought to be enkindled with love towards a God so loving! Oh, that thou wouldst rend the heaven and wouldst come down; the mountains would melt away at thy presence … the waters would burn with fire (Is. lxiv. 1). Oh, surely Thou wouldst enkindle such a furnace in the human heart that even the most frozen souls would catch the flame of Thy blessed love! And, in fact, after the Incarnation of the Son of God, how brilliantly has the fire of divine love burnt in loving souls! How many youths, how many of those nobly born, and how many monarchs even, have left wealth, honours, and even kingdoms, to seek the desert or the cloister, that there, in poverty and obscure seclusion, they might the more unreservedly give themselves up to the love of their Saviour! How many Martyrs have gone rejoicing, making merry on their way to torments and death! How many tender young virgins have refused the proferred hands of the great ones of the world in order to go and die for Jesus Christ and so repay in some measure the affection of a God Who stooped down to take human flesh and to die for the love of them!
O Jesus, Thou hast spared nothing to induce men to love Thee! O Word Incarnate, Thou wert even made Man to enkindle divine love in our hearts. I love Thee, O Incarnate Word! I love Thee, O sovereign Good! Suffer me not to be separated from Thee! Suffer me not to be separated from Thee!
II. It may, indeed, be asserted without fear of contradiction that God was more loved in one century after the coming of Jesus Christ than in the entire forty centuries preceding His appearance on earth. Yes; all this is most true; but now comes a tale for tears. Has this been the case with all men? Have all men sought to correspond with the immense love of Jesus Christ? Alas! my God, the greater number have combined to repay Him with nothing but ingratitude! And you also, my brother, tell me what sort of return have you made up to this time for the love your God has borne you? Have you always shown yourself thankful? Have you ever seriously reflected what these words mean — a God to be made Man, a God to die for Thee?
A certain man while hearing Mass one day without devotion, as too many do, at these concluding words of the last Gospel: And the Word was made flesh (Jo. i. 14), made no external act of reverence. At the same moment a devil struck him a blow, saying: “Thankless wretch, thou hearest that a God was made Man for thee, and dost thou not even deign to bend the knee? Oh, if God had done the like for me I should be eternally engaged in thanking Him!”
Tell me, O Christian, what more could Jesus Christ have done to win thy love? If the Son of God had engaged to rescue His own Father from death, to what lower depth of humiliation could He have stooped than to assume human flesh and lay down His life in sacrifice for His salvation? Men appreciate the good graces of a prince, of a prelate, of a nobleman, of a man of letters, and even of a vile animal; and yet these same people set no store by the grace of God, but renounce it for mere smoke, for a brutal gratification, for a handful of earth, for a nothing!
What sayest thou, dear brother? Dost thou wish to be ranked among such ungrateful ones? Go, find thyself a prince more courteous, a master, a brother, a friend more amiable, and one who has shown thee a deeper love.
Ah, how comes it that we are so ungrateful towards God, the same God Who has bestowed His whole self upon us, Who has descended from Heaven to earth, has become an Infant to save us and to be loved by us? Come, let us love the Babe of Bethlehem! Let us love Jesus Christ Who, in the midst of such sufferings, has sought to attach our hearts to Him.
O my sweet, amiable and holy Child, Thou art at a loss what more to do in order to make Thyself loved by men! And how is it that Thou shouldst have encountered such ingratitude from the majority of men! I see that few, indeed, know Thee, and fewer still love Thee! Ah, my Jesus, I too desire to be reckoned among this small number. But Thou knowest my weakness. Thou knowest my past treasons. For pity’s sake do not abandon me, or I shall fall away even worse than before. O Mary, my Mother, thou art the Mother of fair love (Ecclus. xxiv. 24), do thou obtain for me the grace to love my God. I hope it of thee.
Spiritual Reading
JESUS COMES TO CALL SINNERS.
I am not come to call the just but sinners (Matt. ix. 13).
St. Thomas of Villanova gives us excellent encouragement, saying: “What art thou afraid of, O sinner? … How shall He reject thee if thou desirest to retain Him Who came down from Heaven to seek thee?” Let not the sinner, then, be afraid, provided he will be no more a sinner, but will love Jesus Christ; let him not be dismayed, but have full trust; if he abhor and hate sin, and seek God, let him not be sad, but full of joy: Let the heart of them rejoice that seek the Lord (Ps. civ. 3). The Lord has sworn to forget all injuries done to Him, if the sinner is sorry for them: If the wicked do penance … I will not remember all his iniquities (Ezech. xviii. 21). And that we might have every motive for confidence, our Saviour became an Infant: “Who is afraid to approach a Child?” asks the same St. Thomas of Villanova.
“Children do not inspire terror or aversion, but attachment and love,” says St. Peter Chrysologus. It seems that children know not how to be angry; and if perchance at odd times they should be irritated, they are easily soothed; one has only to give them a fruit, a flower, or bestow on them a caress, or utter a kind word to them, and they have already forgiven and forgotten every offence.
A tear of repentance, one act of heart-felt contrition, is enough to appease the Infant Jesus. “You know the tempers of children,” St. Thomas of Villanova goes on to say, “a single tear pacifies them, the offence is forgotten. Approach, then, to Him while He is a little One, while He would seem to have forgotten His majesty.” He has put off His divine majesty, and appears as a Child to inspire us with more courage to approach His feet.
“He is born as an Infant,” says St. Bonaventure, “that neither His justice nor His power might intimidate you.” In order to relieve us from every feeling of distrust, which the idea of His power and of His justice might cause in us, He comes before us as a little Babe, full of sweetness and mercy. “O God!” says Gerson, “Thou hast hidden Thy wisdom under a Child’s years, that it might not accuse us.” O God of mercy, lest Thy divine wisdom might reproach us with our offences against Thee, Thou hast hidden it under an Infant’s form. “Thy justice under humility, lest it should condemn.” Thou hast concealed Thy justice under the most profound abasement, that it might not condemn us. “Thy power under weakness lest it should punish.” Thou hast disguised Thy power in feebleness, that it might not visit us with chastisement.
St. Bernard makes this reflection: “Adam, after his sin, on hearing the voice of God: Adam, where art thou? (Gen. iii. 9), was filled with dismay. — I heard thy voice, and was afraid (Gen. iii. 10).” But, continues the Saint, the Incarnate Word now made Man upon earth, has laid aside all semblance of terror: “Do not fear; He seeks thee, not to punish, but to save thee. Behold, He is a Child; the voice of a child will excite compassion rather than fear. The Virgin Mother wraps His delicate limbs in swaddling-clothes: and art thou still alarmed?” That God Who should punish thee is born an Infant, and has lost all accents to affright thee, since the accents of a child, being cries of weeping, move us rather to pity than to fear; thou canst not fear that Jesus Christ will stretch out His hands to chastise thee, since His Mother is occupied in swathing them in linen bands.
“Be of good cheer, then, O sinners,” says St. Leo, “the Birthday of the Lord is the Birthday of peace and joy.” The Prince of peace (Is. ix. 6), was He called by Isaias. Jesus Christ is a Prince, not of vengeance on sinners, but of mercy and of peace, constituting Himself the Mediator betwixt God and sinners. If our sins, says St. Augustine, are too much for us, God does not despise His own Blood. If we cannot ourselves make due atonement to the justice of God, at least the Eternal Father knows not how to disregard the Blood of Jesus Christ, Who makes payment for us.
A certain knight, called Don Alphonsus Albuquerque, being on one occasion at sea, and the vessel driven among the rocks by a violent tempest, at once gave himself up for lost; but at that moment seeing near him a little child, crying bitterly, what did he do? He seized him in his arms, and lifting him up towards Heaven, “O Lord,” said he, “though I myself am unworthy to be heard, give ear at least to the cries of this innocent child, and save us.” At that same instant the storm abated, and all were saved. Let us miserable sinners do in like manner. We have offended God; already has sentence of everlasting death been passed upon us; divine justice requires satisfaction, and rightly. What have we to do? Should we despair? God forbid! Let us offer up to God this Infant, Who is His own Son, and let us address Him with confidence: O Lord, if we cannot of ourselves render Thee satisfaction for our offences against Thee, behold this Child, Who weeps and moans, Who is benumbed with cold on His bed of straw in this cavern; He is here to make atonement for us, and He pleads for Thy mercy on us. Though we ourselves are undeserving of pardon, the tears and sufferings of this Thy guiltless Son merit it for us, and He entreats Thee to pardon us.
This is what St. Anselm advises us to do : he says that Jesus Christ Himself, from His earnest desire not to have us perish, animates each one of us who finds himself guilty before God with these words: O sinner, do not lose heart; if by thy sins thou hast unhappily become the slave of hell, and hast not the means to free thyself, act thus: take Me, offer Me for thyself to the Eternal Father, and so thou shalt escape death, thou shalt be in safety. What can be conceived more full of mercy than what the Son says to us: Take Me, and redeem thyself. This was, moreover, exactly what the divine Mother taught Sister Frances Farnese. She gave the Infant Jesus into her arms, and said to her: “Here is my Son for you; be careful to make His merits your gain by frequently offering Him to His heavenly Father.”
And if we would have still another means to secure our forgiveness, let us obtain the intercession of this same divine Mother in our behalf; she is all-powerful with her blessed Son to promote the interests of repentant sinners, as St. John Damascene assures us. Yes, for the prayers of Mary, adds St. Antoninus, have the force of commands with her Son, in consideration of the love He bears her: “The prayer of the Mother of God has the force of a command.” Hence St. Peter Damien wrote that when Mary entreats Jesus Christ in favour of one who is dearest to her, “she appears in a certain sense to command as a mistress, not to ask as a handmaid, for the Son honours her by denying her nothing.” For this reason St. Germanus says Mary can obtain the pardon of the most abandoned sinners. “Thou, by the power of thy maternal authority, gainest for the most enormous sinners the most excellent grace of pardon.”
Evening Meditation
JOSEPH GOES TO BETHLEHEM WITH HIS HOLY SPOUSE
I. And Joseph also went up … to be enrolled with Mary his espoused wife, who was with child (St. Luke ii. 4).
God had decreed that His Son should be born, not in the house of Joseph, but in a cave and stable for animals, in the poorest and most painful way that a child can be born; and therefore He so disposed events that Caesar should publish an Edict that every one should go and enrol himself in the city whence he drew his origin. When Joseph heard this order he was much agitated as to whether he should leave or take with him the Virgin Mother, as she was now near childbirth. My spouse and my lady, said he to her, on the one hand I should not wish to leave you alone; on the other, if I take you, I am afflicted at the thought that you will have to suffer much during this long journey, and in such severe weather. My poverty will not permit me to conduct you with that comfort which you require. But Mary answers him, and encourages him with these words: My Joseph, do not fear; I shall go with you; the Lord will assist us. She knew, by divine inspiration, and also because she was well versed in the prophecy of Micheas, that the Divine Infant was to be born in Bethlehem. She therefore takes the swathing bands, and the other poor garments already prepared, and departs with Joseph. And Joseph also went up … to be enrolled with Mary.
My dear Redeemer, I know that in this journey Thou wert accompanied by hosts of Angels from Heaven; but here on earth, who was there to bear Thee company? Thou hast only Joseph, and Mary who carries Thee within herself. Disdain not, O my Jesus, to let me also accompany Thee, miserable and ungrateful as I have been. I now see the wrong I have done Thee; Thou didst come down from Heaven to make Thyself my companion on earth, and I by my frequent offences have ungratefully left Thee! When I remember, O my Saviour, that for the sake of my own wicked pleasures, I have so often separated myself from Thee and renounced Thy friendship, I could wish to die of sorrow. But Thou didst come into the world to pardon me; pardon me then quickly, for I repent with all my soul of having so often turned my back upon Thee and forsaken Thee. I purpose and I hope, through Thy grace, never more to leave Thee, or separate myself from Thee, O my only Love!
II. Let us consider the devout and holy discourses which these two saintly spouses must have held together during the journey, concerning the mercy, goodness, and love of the Divine Word, Who was shortly to be born, and to appear on earth for the salvation of men. Let us also consider the praises, the blessings, the thanksgivings, the acts of humility and love, which these two illustrious pilgrims uttered on their way. This holy Virgin, so soon to become a Mother, certainly suffered much in so long a journey, made in the midst of Winter, and over rough roads; but she suffered in peace and with love. She offered to God all these her sufferings, uniting them to those of Jesus, Whom she carried in her womb. Oh, let us also unite ourselves with Mary and Joseph, and accompany them in the journey of our life; and, with them, let us accompany the King of Heaven, Who is about to be born in a cave, and make His first appearance in the world as an Infant, but an Infant the poorest and most forsaken that was ever born amongst men. And let us beseech Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, that, through the merits of the sufferings which they endured in this journey, they would accompany us in the journey that we are making to eternity. Oh, happy shall we be, if in life and in death, we are always accompanied by these Three Great Personages!
My soul has become enamoured of Thee, O my amiable Infant-God. I love Thee, my sweet Saviour; and since Thou hast come upon earth to save me and to dispense to me Thy graces, this one grace only do I ask of Thee: never permit me to separate myself from Thee again. Unite me, bind me to Thyself, enchain me with the sweet cords of Thy holy love. O my Redeemer and my God, who will, then, have the heart to leave Thee, and to live without Thee, deprived of Thy grace? Most holy Mary, I come to accompany thee on this journey; and thou; O my Mother, cease not to accompany me in the journey I am making to eternity. Assist me always, but especially when I shall find myself at the end of my life, and near that moment on which will depend either my remaining always with thee to love Jesus in Paradise, or my being for ever separated from thee and hating Jesus in hell. My Queen, save me by thy intercession; and let my salvation be in loving thee and Jesus for ever, in time and in eternity. Thou art my hope; I hope for all from thee.
|
|
|
|
| Little Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary [online] - 1915 |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-23-2022, 10:49 AM - Forum: Resources Online
- No Replies
|
|
This introduction to the 1915 Benziger Brothers edition of the Little Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary has been reproduced here in full for your education and edification.
The Little Office of the Blessed Virgin is one of the liturgical prayers of the Church, and she imposes it on many of her children. Although the Little Office of Our Lady is considerably shorter than the ever-varying Office which the Clergy and Religious in solemn vows have to say, yet, coming as it does from the same authority, it is as much a liturgical prayer as the Divine Office, and has the same claims to be considered a part of the official worship which the mystical Spouse of Christ, the Church, daily offers to her Divine Head.
Prayer is the great duty of man here below: Oportet semper or are et non deficere — “We ought always to pray and not to faint” (Luke xviii. i).
We appear before God under three different aspects: as individuals, as members of congregations or societies, and as members of a Divine Society. Hence there are three kinds of prayer: (1) private prayer, (2) prayer in common, and (3) the prayer of the Church, or liturgical prayer.
Of the first kind, private prayer, Our Lord spoke when He said: “But thou when thou shalt pray, enter into thy chamber, and having shut the door, pray to thy Father in secret, and thy Father who seeth in secret will repay thee,” (Matt. vi. 6).
The second kind, prayer in common, is that which we offer as members of congregations or societies. The prayers said by the members of a family, such as morning and night prayers, the prayers said together by the members of a congregation or a community, are better than individual prayers. Our Lord praised this kind of prayer when He said: “If two of you shall consent upon earth, concerning anything whatsoever they shall ask, it shall be done to them by My Father who is in heaven. For where there are two or three gathered together in My Name, there am I in the midst of them,” (Matt, xviii. 19, 20).
The third kind, liturgical prayer, is much more pleasing to God; it excels both private prayer and prayer in common. It is the prayer we offer as members of a Divine Society, the Holy Church.
The public prayer of the Church may be looked upon as the public act of the whole body of the Church. Those who by their Rule, approved by the Church, are charged with saying the Office, whether it be the Divine Office or the Little Office of the Blessed Virgin, say it as public officers of the Church, who officially stand before the throne of God and make intercession for the whole body of Christ’s Church. When performing this duty, even when alone, they cease to be private individuals; they are invested with the public character of ambassadors to the heavenly Court. But an ambassador’s personal merit is of very secondary concern. What does matter is the dignity and power of him who sent the ambassador, and whom he represents. Those who take part in this public Office do not stand before God in their own name, nor yet in the name of the faithful assembled, but in the name of the Holy Church appointed by God. Her service and prayer do not partake of the worth and devotion of the angels, but of the worth of the mystical body of Christ.
This prayer of the Church is the most excellent of prayers. Private prayer and prayer in common are doubtless very good, and highly pleasing to God; but they are human prayers, necessarily defective, made and said by men who are sinners, and not always altogether pleasing to God. Not so the prayers of the Church. These are always graciously heard and pleasing :
1. Because they are offered by the Spouse of Christ, and always exceedingly pleasing to Him because she is exceedingly loved by Him. During all eternity God rejoices in this prayer, in these canticles of praise, and in these hymns of love of the Spouse of Christ.
2. This prayer is most excellent, if we consider the sentiment and the words used. When we pray privately or in common, we express human feelings modified and colored by their natural source. But the prayers of the Church are almost wholly from Sacred Scripture; they express feelings inspired by the Holy Ghost Himself. When we use the inspired language of the Holy Spirit these words of the prayer of the Church are worthy of God, because they are His own words. This prayer is divine, therefore, both in the feelings it expresses and even in the words used.
This, then, is our position when, in the name of the Church, we take up our Office book and say our Hours — as the Apostle says: we “put on the Lord Jesus Christ” We are taking part in the heavenly worship which goes on forever before the great Throne, and are lending our voices to all creation to praise Him Who sits thereon. With such thoughts as these we shall enter upon our Office with a heart attuned to the work we have to do and we shall get from it the profit that Our Lord intends.
Liturgical prayer, such as we have it in the Office and as is laid upon us by the Church, is no private devotion; it is the prayer which the Word Incarnate is ever pouring forth in behalf of the mystical body of which He is the head. Those who say it are the willing instruments placed at His disposal by His Spouse, the Church. We abide in Him and He in us. The words we speak, we speak not of ourselves, but in His person. In liturgical prayer we have the most perfect means of adoring and thanking God, and of making supplication and atonement, that the Eternal Wisdom could provide. By Jesus Christ, therefore, let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to His Name. From this point of view there is nothing to be added to make us esteem and love our Office. No one who knows what it is can hesitate in putting it far above any private devotion; for nothing can compare with it, save and except the Mass, with which it is so closely connected. The Office and the Mass form but one whole, and one can understand the Office only when it is studied in the light of the Altar; for it is the setting of rich gold which surrounds and sets forth the priceless jewel of the Mass.
Under all circumstances, when saying the Office of Our Lady, we must place our hand in hers, and together with her approach the Throne of Grace.
St. Augustine says:
Quote:Let it not be objected that the words of the Office are not our own, that the Psalms were not composed for us, that they suppose thoughts, circumstances, and dispositions that are not ours. For the Office has been compiled for us. The Psalms (we repeat it again) have Jesus, the Incarnate God, not David, as their first and principal object. What they express is not the mind of any one man in particular, but the mind of all Christians considered in Him Who is their divine head. The feelings contained in the Psalms are those which were wrought first in the soul of Our Lord by the Holy Ghost, and then through Him in all those who are members of His mystical body. Therefore they are ours as well as David’s, or any of the saints. So it was for us the Psalms were written. The Holy Ghost had us in view when He inspired them. He speaks of our perils, of our warfare; He mourns over our sins; and in true and touching words He speaks of our repentance, our hope, our zeal, our gratitude, and our love. For, according to St. Paul: ‘All things are yours; but ye are Christ’s; and Christ is God’s.’
Sources
This page was based on the following original source: 1915 Benziger Brothers Edition of the LOBVM
|
|
|
|
| A Meditation on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-23-2022, 10:16 AM - Forum: Resources Online
- No Replies
|
|
A Meditation on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass
A Catholic Life | September 1, 2020
The Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the self-same Sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ on the Cross. It is one and the same Sacrifice. It is not the Sacrifice of Jesus recreated. It is not reenacted. It is not repeated. It is the same Sacrifice that takes place out of time.
This video is a powerful and beautiful illustration of this reality. This symbolism is shown below from "The Catholic Church Alone: The One True Church of Christ" by the Catholic Education Company, New York, page 551:
- "When the priest kisses the altar, he is kissing Christ, *faithfully,* in contradiction to the kiss of betrayal by Judas." In a sense, the priest is making atonement for the betrayal of Judas.
- "The priest reading the Introit represents Christ being falsely accused by Annas and blasphemed."
- "The priest going to the middle of the altar and saying the Kyrie Eleison represents Christ being brought to Caiphas and these three times denied by Peter."
- "The priest saying the 'Dominus vobiscum' represents Christ looking at Peter and converting him."
- "The priest saying the 'Orate Fratres' represents Christ being shown by Pilate to the people with the words 'Ecce Homo.'"
- "The priest praying in a low voice represents Christ being mocked and spit upon."
- "The priest blessing the bread and wine represents Christ being nailed to the cross."
- "The priest elevating the host represents Christ being raised on the cross."
- "The priest goes to the Epistle side and prays signifying how Jesus was led before Pilate and falsely accused."
- "The priest goes to the Gospel-side, where he reads the Gospel, signifying how Christ was sent from Pilate to Herod, and was mocked and derided by the latter."
- "The priest goes from the Gospel side again to the middle of the altar - this signifies how Jesus was sent back from Herod to Pilate."
- "The priest uncovers the chalice, recalling how Christ was stripped for the scourging."
- "The priest offers bread and wine, signifying how Jesus was bound to the pillar and scourged."
- "The priest washes his hands, signifying how Pilate declared Jesus innocent by washing his hands."
- "The priest covers the chalice after the Offertory recalling how Jesus was crowned with thorns."
- "The priest breaking and separating the host represents Christ giving up His spirit."
Click here for a PDF put together by the Fatima Center and share!
|
|
|
|
| The Immemorial Practice of Wednesday Penance |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-23-2022, 09:45 AM - Forum: Resources Online
- Replies (1)
|
|
The Immemorial Practice of Wednesday Penance
![[Image: judas-betrayal.png]](https://fatima.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/judas-betrayal.png)
Fatima.org | MAY 17, 2022
While Friday abstinence is the law of the Church and whereas Saturday abstinence used to be required until the mid 1800s (and is still highly recommended), Wednesday is often added as the next most appropriate day for fasting and abstinence.
Wednesday Penance in Memory of Judas’ Betrayal
In his entry for Spy Wednesday (i.e., the Wednesday of Holy Week), Dom Prosper Guéranger writes of the intricate connection between Our Lord’s betrayal and the Church’s practice of Wednesday penance:
Quote:“Such is the impious scheme devised on this day, within the precincts of the temple of Jerusalem. To testify her detestation at it, and to make atonement to the Son of God for the outrage thus offered Him, the holy Church, from the earliest ages, has consecrated the Wednesday of every week to penance. In our own times, the fast of Lent begins on a Wednesday; and when the Church ordained that we should commence each of the four seasons of the year with fasting, Wednesday was chosen to be one of the three days thus consecrated to bodily mortification.”
Wednesday Fasting Is of Apostolic Origin
The Didache, also known as ‘The Lord’s Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations,’ written by the end of the first century, states in chapter 8:
Quote: “But let not your fasts be with the hypocrites; for they fast on the second and fifth day of the week; but [you] fast on the fourth day and the Preparation.”
Since Sunday is the first day of the week, the fourth day referred to Wednesday and the day of Preparation referred to Friday. The phrase “day of preparation” (or, “parasceve”), which refers to the day preceding the Sabbath on Saturday, is found in the Scriptures in Matthew 27:62; Mark 15:42; Luke 23:54; and John 19:14,31,42. All such instances unequivocally confirm that it refers to Friday.
On the rationale for fasting on these days, St. Peter of Alexandria, Patriarch of Alexandria until his martyrdom in 311 AD, explains:
Quote: “On Wednesday because on this day the council of the Jews was gathered to betray our Lord; on Friday because on this day He suffered death for our salvation.”
Likewise, the 1875 Catechism of Father Michael Müller adds:
Quote:“This practice began with Christianity itself, as we learn from St. Epiphanius, who said: ‘It is ordained, by the law of the Apostles, to fast two days of the week.’” Some places also added Saturday fasting, as noted by St. Francis de Sales who wrote, “The early Christians selected Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday as days of abstinence.”
Wednesday and Friday fasting continued for centuries with Wednesday fasting continuing for nearly 10 centuries, as Father Slater notes in A Short History of Moral Theology published in 1909:
Quote:“The obligation of fasting on all Wednesdays and Fridays ceased almost entirely about the tenth century, but the fixing of those days by ecclesiastical authority for fasting, and the desire to substitute a Christian observance at Rome for certain pagan rites celebrated in connection with the seasons of the year, seem to have given rise to our Ember Days. …
“About the tenth century the obligation of the Friday fast was reduced to one of abstinence from flesh meat, and the Wednesday fast after being similarly mitigated gradually disappeared altogether.”
As a result, Ember Days are always Wednesdays, Fridays, and Saturdays. And while fasting laws did vary from place to place, some places kept Wednesdays with more rigor than others for centuries even after the 10th century. For instance, in Ireland per the Irish Ecclesiastical Record: “…down to the middle of the seventeenth century…the use of meat was prohibited on all Wednesdays throughout the year.”
The Example of Tertiaries of Religious Orders
The traditional Rule for Third Order Carmelites before Vatican II called for tertiaries to voluntarily take up year-round Wednesday abstinence. And likewise, the Rule of Life for Dominican Tertiaries from 1285 until 1923 asked for tertiaries to keep Wednesdays as days of perpetual abstinence: Quote:“the brethren and sisters of this fraternity may eat meat on Sundays, Tuesdays, and Thursdays. On other days of the week let them keep abstinence…”
While we may not be tertiaries, we can certainly be inspired by such men and women who, while remaining lay people, chose to observe these rules – among others – for the pursuit of Christian perfection.
Conclusion
In addition to the periods of required fasting (e.g., Lent, Ember Days, and certain Vigils) and in addition to the former days of fasting which we can observe (e.g., the Apostles Fast, the Assumption Fast, the Advent Fast, and the Vigils of the Apostles and other great Feast Days), we may wish to answer Heaven’s call for penance by incorporating Wednesday penance into our routines, which hopefully already include both Friday and Saturday penance.
For instance, it would be meritorious to observe abstinence year-round on Wednesdays (beyond the periods already characterized as times of fasting and abstinence). Such a practice would be commendable on all additional Wednesdays of the year with exemptions when either a Holy Day of Obligation, Former Holy Day of Obligation, or First-Class Feast falls.
|
|
|
|
| Can A Valid Novus Ordo Mass Offend God? Are We Obligated to Attend It? |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-23-2022, 09:38 AM - Forum: New Rite Sacraments
- No Replies
|
|
Can A Valid Novus Ordo Mass Offend God? Are We Obligated to Attend It?
A Catholic Life [slightly adapted] | January 18, 2022
The Angelic Doctor goes on to summarize two ways in which worship directed to the True God is nevertheless evil. As to the first reason, St. Thomas Aquinas illustrates by way of example: “…in this way, at the time of the New Law, the mysteries of Christ being already accomplished, it is pernicious to make use of the ceremonies of the Old Law whereby the mysteries of Christ were foreshadowed as things to come: just as it would be pernicious for anyone to declare that Christ has yet to suffer.” Thus, observing seder meals, religious circumcision, abstaining from pork for religious reasons, etc. would now offend the True God.
As to the second example, the saint continues: “…falsehood in outward worship occurs on the part of the worshiper, and especially in common worship which is offered by ministers impersonating the whole Church. For even as he would be guilty of falsehood who would, in the name of another person, proffer things that are not committed to him, so too does a man incur the guilt of falsehood who, on the part of the Church, gives worship to God contrary to the manner established by the Church or divine authority, and according to ecclesiastical custom.”
Consequently, we can say that even valid worship offered by those who do so in a manner contrary to that established by the Church would offend God.
This may be the case of a valid Catholic priest who ad libs the Missal and, while validly confecting the Holy Eucharist, mortally sins by intentionally neglecting the rubrics. This would also be the case of a valid Divine Liturgy offered by schismatic groups like the Orthodox Church. And this would certainly apply to rituals performed by heretical protestant denominations who do not follow the Church’s prescriptions, do not offer any valid Sacraments (exceptions aside), and who teach a doctrine contrary to that taught by Christ our Lord.
Can A Valid Novus Ordo Mass Offend God?
Taken to the next logical question, we consider if it is possible for a valid Novus Ordo Mass to offend God.
Even though it is possible for God to work good out of evil and lead to the Truth those in false religions, this does not make the Novus Ordo as praiseworthy or fitting for God. Rather, the defects in the Novus Ordo are not merely external but intrinsic in the prayers created for the New Rite of Mass.
The Holy Mass is the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. The purpose of Mass is to be present at the Sacrifice of Christ that is made present again through the priesthood of Jesus Christ. We worship God at Mass in the manner which He has established for His worship. We are present at Calvary. Rather than merely remembering the life and death of Christ, we are present at it and partake of its eternal fruits which flow to us from the altar and during the Canon when the priest stands in the place of Christ and offers the Eternal Victim on the Altar to God. We can further receive grace by partaking of the Holy Eucharist if we are Catholics in the state of grace. This view of the Mass as a propitiatory Sacrifice has been lost in the Novus Ordo and replaced by notions of community, where the priest is a presider, and many Catholics falsely view receiving Holy Communion as the purpose of going to Mass, rather than being present at the august sacrifice of the Eternal Victim.
As Archbishop Lefebvre noted in Chapter 4 of the Open Letter to Confused Catholics, the changes to the Mass in the offertory, the sermon, the canon, and elsewhere mimic the changes sought by Martin Luther! They are in their very core protestant, especially for instance in the newly created prayers of the Offertory which bear no similarity to the Offertory in the Tridentine Mass.
Of course, while any validly ordained priest may consecrate bread and wine using the words of consecration, even while omitting the rest of the Mass (which is done at times in cases of necessity for instance by priests who are imprisoned and can only smuggle in a small piece of bread and a small amount of wine), this is not the same as promoting and saying protestantized prayers.
Jean Guitton, an intimate friend of Paul VI wrote: “The intention of Pope Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the [New] Mass, was to reform the Catholic liturgy in such a way that it should almost coincide with the Protestant liturgy. There was with Pope Paul VI an ecumenical intention to remove, or, at least to correct, or, at least to relax, what was too Catholic in the traditional sense in the Mass and, I repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist Mass.” And we know that the Calvinists - and any protestants for that matter - do not have a valid rite of Mass and do not confect the Holy Eucharist.
The Faith is not defined by merely external actions. Archbishop Lefebvre rightfully criticized the Novus Ordo – even when accompanied by Latin, ad orientem postures, and the external appearance of piety. Our Lord Jesus Christ instituted a set of doctrines and established His one True Church as the means of bringing about the conversion of souls and their salvation. He did not institute merely external gestures while telling His disciples to ad lib the rest. And on the opposite extreme, the Lord also did not teach His disciples the precise words for Sacramental validity and tell them that their external postures, garments, and actions were useless since only the internal mattered. Our Faith not only includes heart-felt prayers, works of charity, and pious devotions, but also includes rich liturgical music, elaborate cathedrals, and ornate vestments. Even the presence of Eucharistic miracles in Novus do not mean that the Novus Ordo is pleasing to God.
Are We Obligated to Ever Attend Offensive Worship?
More than mere validity is necessary in the worship of God. If validity was the only basis for whether worship was pleasing to God, Catholics would be able to have their children baptized by an Anglican minister or attend receive the valid Eucharist from schismatic Greek orthodox priests. Yet, we know that attending the worship of any other denomination is a sin against the First Commandment.
Consequently, we have an obligation to seek out not only valid Masses but those which are offered according to the Church’s immemorial rubrics and customs. We should not feel obligated to attend a Novus Ordo Mass – even on Sundays or Holy Days – since attending them is often a grave danger to our spiritual lives.
|
|
|
|
| Why You Should NOT Attend the Novus Ordo |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-23-2022, 09:33 AM - Forum: New Rite Sacraments
- No Replies
|
|
Why You Should NOT Attend the Novus Ordo
Adapted from here.
![[Image: Mass%2B%2528140%2529.jpg]](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-kqMdbQwEiVU/Xw4ZcKVvWjI/AAAAAAAAQiY/xZGgWk-3La0SxgOe1diiDKwe-QLGoBcLACLcBGAsYHQ/s400/Mass%2B%2528140%2529.jpg)
A Catholic Life | July 26, 2020
Sometimes I hear people ask the question of whether they can or should attend the Novus Ordo if the Tridentine Mass is not accessible locally. The closest Mass may be more than an hour's drive away. Or someone may be on vacation and there is no Tridentine Mass in the local area - or even in the country. What should someone do? Should they attend the Novus Ordo instead, even though they often attend the Tridentine Mass? Alternatively, I have heard some people ask whether it would be better to attend Eucharistic Adoration instead of the Novus Ordo Mass during the week.
After having attended the Tridentine Mass exclusively now for 10 years, and after having left the Novus Ordo seminary after two years in it, I do not hesitate to say that no one is bound to attend (or should attend) the Novus Ordo.
Why such a dramatic view that the Novus Ordo should never be attended? The Novus Ordo is unfortunately impregnated with the very spirit of Protestantism. It is harmful to the Faith, even when exterior acts of reverence are inserted into it.
I'd like to briefly outline why I would encourage every Catholic to leave the Novus Ordo behind and cease attending it, promoting it, or donating to it.
1. The Novus Ordo Prayers are Protestant at the Core
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre famously remarked, "The Novus Ordo Missae, even when said with piety and respect for the liturgical rules, ...is impregnated with the spirit of Protestantism. It bears within it a poison harmful to the faith." Simply put, every Novus Ordo is harmful to one's faith. Even though it is possible for God to work good out of evil and lead to the Truth even those in false religions or heretical denominations, this does not make the Novus Ordo as praiseworthy, as honoring, or as fitting for God. Rather, the defects in the Novus Ordo are not merely external but intrinsic in the very prayers created for the New Rite of Mass.
The Holy Mass is the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. The purpose of Mass is to be present at the Sacrifice of Christ that is made present again through the priesthood of Jesus Christ. We worship God at Mass in the manner which He has established for His worship. We are present at Calvary. Rather than merely remembering the life and death of Christ, we are present at it and partake of its eternal fruits which flow to us from the altar and during the Canon when the priest stands in the place of Christ and offers the Eternal Victim on the Altar to God. We can further receive grace by partaking of the Holy Eucharist if we are Catholics in the state of grace. This view of the Mass as a propitiatory Sacrifice has been lost in the Novus Ordo and replaced by notions of community, where the priest is a presider, and many Catholics falsely view receiving Holy Communion as the purpose of going to Mass, rather than being present at the august sacrifice of the Eternal Victim.
As Archbishop Lefebvre noted in Chapter 4 of the Open Letter to Confused Catholics, the changes to the Mass in the offertory, the sermon, the canon, and elsewhere mimic the changes sought by Martin Luther! They are in their very core protestant, especially for instance in the newly created prayers of the Offertory which bear no similarity to the Offertory in the Tridentine Mass.
Of course, while any validly ordained priest may consecrate bread and wine using the words of consecration, even while omitting the rest of the Mass (which is done at times in cases of necessity for instance by priests who are imprisoned and can only smuggle in a small piece of bread and a small amount of wine), this is not the same as promoting and saying protestantized prayers. I do not hold the Novus Ordo lacking merely because it does not have as many beautiful prayers. I hold it as protestantized because the prayers which are a part of it were written with the intention of appealing to protestants.
Jean Guitton, an intimate friend of Paul VI wrote: “The intention of Pope Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the [New] Mass, was to reform the Catholic liturgy in such a way that it should almost coincide with the Protestant liturgy. There was with Pope Paul VI an ecumenical intention to remove, or, at least to correct, or, at least to relax, what was too Catholic in the traditional sense in the Mass and, I repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist Mass.” And we know that the Calvinists - and any protestants for that matter - do not have a valid rite of Mass and do not confect the Holy Eucharist.
2. The Novus Ordo was Formed Under the Error of Archeologism
Those who encourage or at least tolerate the Novus Ordo often do so by saying that Paul VI sought for the Church to merely return to a more ancient manner of saying the Mass. This view is actually the error of Archeologism as Fr. Peter Scott explains:
"Pius XII inveighs against the error of those who would want to use the pretence of antiquity to bring about changes in the Church’s prayers and ceremonies: “It is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device” (§ 62), for “ancient usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations, on the simple ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity” (§61). This is the error of Archeologism, namely that because something is older it is necessarily better, and it denies that the development of liturgical rites over the centuries owes its “inspiration to the Holy Spirit, Who assists the Church in every age”. (Ib.)
"This error of those who try to justify liturgical revolution by ancient practices is clearly condemned by the Pope: “The temerity and daring of those who introduce novel liturgical practices, or call for the revival of obsolete rites out of harmony with prevailing laws and rubrics, deserve severe reproof” (§ 59). Here are some of the examples of archeologism listed by the Pope:
- Replacement of Latin by the vernacular in the august Eucharistic Sacrifice
- Transferral of feast days to Sundays
- Deletion from the liturgy of some texts of the Old Testament
- Replacement of the altar by a table – “one would be straying from the straight path were he
- to wish the altar restored to its primitive table-form” (§ 62)
- Excluding black as a liturgical color
- Eliminating the use of sacred statues and images
- Crucifixes not showing Christ’s suffering (Risen Christ)
"It is interesting to note that twenty years later every single one of these examples of abuses condemned by Pope Pius XII had been incorporated into the New Mass, always under the pretence that it is returning to old things. Other examples Pius XII did not mention are the procession for the presentation of the gifts and the Kiss of peace for the laity, the abolition of the prayers at the foot of the altar, the elimination of “mystery of faith” from the words of consecration, the elimination of the Roman Canon (although it is the truly oldest part of the Mass), many feast of saints, the Last Gospel and the prayers after Mass."
Even if we claim that Paul VI imposed the Novus Ordo under good intentions, they are still nevertheless imbued with archeologism. And this is not just "bad." It is heretical as Fr. Scott further explains:
"Pius XII further explains that this “exaggerated and senseless antiquarianism”(§64) is not new, but derives from the illegal Council of Pistoia, condemned by Pope Pius VI in 1794. Due protestant influence this false council wanted to promote a return to the simplicity of the early Church, despising later developments. Its principle is found in the first proposition, which Pius VI condemned as heretical: “In these latter times there has been spread a general obscuring of the more important truths pertaining to religion, which are the basis of faith and of the moral teachings of Jesus Christ”(Db 1501). This is precisely the reasoning of the modernists, when they want to do away with devotions to the Sacred Heart, to the Blessed Virgin, to the Blessed Sacrament, to the saints. Yet it is condemned as heretical."
3. The Novus Ordo's Fruits are Manifestly Rotten
We do know from first-hand experience, the fruits that have followed Vatican II, the New Mass, Communion in the Hand, and the near elimination of fasting and abstinence. Christ, Himself said, "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. By their fruits you shall know them" (Matthew 7:15-16). What are these fruits? These are the fruits as shown by the Old Evangelization Website:
The results are grim beyond the statistics shown above. Only 30% of Americans who were raised Catholic are still practicing and 10% of all adults in America are ex-Catholics.
Turning again to the words of Archbishop Lefebvre, who saw first hand the effect of the Novus Ordo on the African continent and how it eroded the successful work that Catholic missionaries had done there, he writes:
"Furthermore it can be said without any exaggeration whatsoever, that the majority of Masses celebrated without altar stones, with common vessels, leavened bread, with the introduction of profane words into the very body of the Canon, etc., are sacrilegious, and they prevent faith by diminishing it. The desacralization is such that these Masses can come to lose their supernatural character, “the mystery of faith,” and become no more than acts of natural religion.
"Your perplexity takes perhaps the following form: may I assist at a sacrilegious Mass which is nevertheless valid, in the absence of any other, in order to satisfy my Sunday obligation? The answer is simple: these Masses cannot be the object of an obligation; we must moreover apply to them the rules of moral theology and canon law as regards the participation or the attendance at an action which endangers the faith or may be sacrilegious."
Conclusion
For those who are unable to attend a Tridentine Mass on Sundays and Holy Days, it is better to pray the Rosary, sanctify the day by abstaining from servile works, read the prayers of the Missal, listen to good sermons, perform works of charity, and even to watch a live stream of the Mass.
I do not hold any animosity toward those who do go to the Novus Ordo through mere ignorance. The truth is that the vast majority of Catholics do not know of the Tridentine Mass or at least do not view it as important. They do not see the errors in the New Church and have likely been told to avoid the Latin Mass or at least the SSPX or groups more traditional than them. These people may even view the FSSP for instance as traditional enough and posit them as an ideal, claiming falsely that the SSPX is schismatic (which it is not).
The changes to the Catholic Church in the past fifty years have been disastrous and that is in a significant part due to the imposition of the Novus Ordo.
|
|
|
|
| Abp. Viganò: Fr. Pavone’s laicization is ‘unjust and illegitimate,’ feeds ‘a climate of terror’ |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-23-2022, 07:12 AM - Forum: Archbishop Viganò
- No Replies
|
|
Abp. Viganò: Fr. Pavone’s laicization is ‘unjust and illegitimate,’ feeds ‘a climate of terror’ among clergy
Father Pavone ought to consider this shameful Vatican decision to be a source of pride.
Dec 22, 2022
(LifeSiteNews) – Agere sequitur esse. So we are taught by scholastic philosophy: the action of every being depends on the nature of that being. It follows that a person’s actions are consistent with who that person is. We find confirmation of this principle of ontology in the canonical sanctions recently imposed by the Holy See on Father Frank A. Pavone, a well-known and appreciated pro-life priest, who for decades has been committed to the battle against the horrible crime of abortion.
If a Roman Dicastery decides to electrocute a priest with reduction to the lay state, accusing him of blasphemy and preventing him from having the ability to defend himself legally in a canonical trial; and if, at the same time, analogous decisions are not taken with regard to notorious heretical, corrupt, and fornicating clergy, it is not out of place to ask if such a persecutory action reveals a persecutory mind, and if an action against a good priest who has worked strenuously to oppose abortion reveals the hatred of the persecutor with regard to the Good and those who fight for it.
This unjust and illegitimate punishment becomes all the more hateful the closer we come to Holy Christmas, if we consider that by the killing of innocent children the Enemy of the human race wants to kill the Infant King.
The Bergoglian sect eclipses the Catholic Church with its arrogant occupation of leadership posts and scandalously abuses its authority for a purpose opposed to that for which Our Lord, the Head of the Church, has intended it. There is no area of doctrine, morals, discipline, or liturgy that has not been the object of its vandalizing action.
Nothing is being saved of the little that remained after sixty years of systematic demolition through the work of Second Vatican Council, and that which survives as a crumbling reminder of the glories of days gone by is under the constant threat of new and worse devastation.
It is therefore evident that the Roman Sanhedrin – whose work baffles even the most cautious interpreters of Vatican affairs – has a purpose of persecuting the good and promoting evildoers. The case of the “cancellation” of Father Pavone is the umpteenth demonstration that this purpose is being carried out with ferocious obstinacy, both in order to feed a climate of terror among the clergy so as to constrain them into servile and fearful obedience and also to create disorientation and scandal among the faithful and others who still look to the Church as a moral point of reference.
All of this is happening at the same time that the Jesuit priest Marko Ivan Rupnik, on whom a sentence is pending for very serious canonical crimes that carry with them the punishment of excommunication latæ sententiæ, has his canonical penalty remitted by his Jesuit confrere and companion who lives in Santa Marta; and while the Roman Curia is infested with unpresentable characters who are notoriously corrupt and heretical sodomites and fornicators. Bergoglian acolytes are distinguished in this manner: the graver their crimes, the more prestigious the positions they hold.
In the face of this violation of the most elementary principles of justice and governmental prudence, as well as the blatant determination of the highest levels of the Hierarchy to act contra mentem legis, it is necessary that the Cardinals and Bishops understand the very serious consequences of their complicit silence, and that they courageously raise their voices in defense of the healthy part of the ecclesial body.
This duty is imposed by respect for the Catholic Truth which has been violated, the honor of Holy Mother Church who has been humiliated by her own Prelates, and the eternal salvation of souls which has been endangered by the words and action of evil shepherds who are usurping an authority that does not belong to them but rather to Christ the King and High Priest, the Head of the Mystical Body.
If serving the Church and defending the life of innocent creatures in this time of apostasy constitutes a crime worthy of dismissal from the clerical state, while promoting abortion and gender ideology and violating consecrated virgins is not deemed liable to excommunication, then Father Pavone ought to consider this shameful Vatican decision to be a source of pride, recalling Our Savior’s words: Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you and utter every manner of evil against you falsely because of Me (Mt 5:11).
And whoever has inculpated themselves as an accomplice of this persecution against the good ought to tremble at the thought of the judgement which awaits them. Deus non irridetur – God is not mocked (Gal 6:7).
+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop
December 22, 2022
|
|
|
|
| Pope Francis claims it’s ‘heresy’ not to ‘translate’ Gospel into modern ‘ways of thinking’ |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-23-2022, 06:45 AM - Forum: Pope Francis
- Replies (1)
|
|
Pope Francis claims it’s ‘heresy’ not to ‘translate’ Gospel into modern ‘ways of thinking’
The Pontiff echoed some of his regular talking points during his Christmas address, including his praise for Vatican II and the process of synodality.
![[Image: francis-christmas-2-810x500.jpg]](https://www.lifesitenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/francis-christmas-2-810x500.jpg)
Pope Francis delivers his 2022 Christmas address to the Roman Curia
Screenshot/YouTube
Dec 22, 2022
VATICAN CITY (LifeSiteNews) — In his annual Christmas address to the Roman Curia, Pope Francis claimed that “true heresy” involved not only “preaching another Gospel” but in neglecting to “translate it into today’s languages and ways of thinking.”
The 86-year-old Pontiff made his comments to the assembled members of the Roman Curia – both clerical and lay – on Thursday morning in the Vatican. Some of his regular themes were referenced in the speech, including Synodality and praise for Vatican II, along with veiled comments appearing to criticize devotees of the traditional liturgy of the Church.
READ: Rigid Catholics who won’t change are imbalanced, says Pope Francis in Christmas address
Linked to this, Francis warned the Curia against “immobility,” which he said was the “secret belief that we have nothing else to learn from the Gospel.”
Such “immobility,” stated Francis, equated to the “error of trying to crystallize the message of Jesus in a single, perennially valid form.”
Rather than having the teachings of Christ as a “perennially valid form,” Francis argued that they should adopt a form that is “constantly changing” rather than remaining constant for all ages.
“Instead, its form must be capable of constantly changing, so that its substance can remain constantly the same,” he stated.
Reiterating his argument for some kind of development of doctrine in “form,” Francis employed the words of Scripture and placed his own interpretation on them, stating:
Quote:True heresy consists not only in preaching another gospel (cf. Gal 1:9), as Saint Paul told us, but also in ceasing to translate its message into today’s languages and ways of thinking, which is precisely what the Apostle of the Gentiles did. To preserve means to keep alive and not to imprison the message of Christ.
The Pontiff did not expand on what imprisoning the message of Christ might look like, or how the Roman Curia was to change the “form” of the Gospel while somehow keeping the “substance” the same.
However, he did use the address as a means to promote both the Second Vatican Council and his current Synod on Synodality, both of which marked a key moment of change for the Church, according to Francis.
“What was the Council if not a great moment of conversion for the entire Church?” he asked. “As Saint John XXIII observed, ‘The Gospel does not change; it is we who begin to understand it more fully.’ The conversion that the Council sparked was an effort to understand the Gospel more fully and to make it relevant, living and effective in our time.”
This process is evidenced through “synodality,” the Pope continued, saying that “our current reflection on the Church’s synodality is the fruit of our conviction that the process of understanding Christ’s message never ends, but constantly challenges us.”
Pope Francis has used such language – describing the Church as needing to accompany changing times in its approach to doctrinal issues – with increasing regularity over the past years.
READ: Pope tells theologians to consult ‘non-Catholics,’ avoid ‘going backward’ in Tradition
In his recent address to the International Theological Commission, Francis urged them to avoid “going backward” in “Tradition” instead asking them to promote the Gospel by consulting non-Catholic “experts.”
Such a call he has issued on many occasions, along with his now regular attacks on “indietrists” or “rigid” Catholics who attachment to the traditional liturgy seems to anger Francis.
READ: Pope calls for an end to ‘intransigent defense of tradition’
The Pope has often relied on a regularly misrepresented quotation of St. John Henry Cardinal Newman, canonized by Francis himself, in order to substantiate his argument that the Church must reform in accordance with “epochal changes.” In his Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, Newman wrote, “Here below to live is to change, and to be perfect is to have changed often.”
Dr. Peter Kwasniewski, editor of “Newman on Worship, Reverence, and Ritual: A Selection of Texts,” told LifeSiteNews in 2019 that, while a “favorite line with modern Jesuits because for them it means progressivism: continual change, evolution, doctrinal creativity,” Newman himself meant something altogether different.
Kwasniewski explained that Newman was not advocating for justifying actions contrary to traditional morality or any other such reversal of ancient teachings. Instead, “[h]e is talking about how the ‘idea’ (as he calls it) of Christianity expands, develops, diversifies, and enriches itself as it engages and is engaged with the world around it. It becomes more perfect in its self-understanding and self-expression through this interchange.”
“One need only think about how the challenge of heresies brought forth the great Church Fathers to defend the deposit of faith,” Kwasniewski added.
READ: Pope Francis is encouraging dissident bishops to spread error and sinful teaching
Meanwhile, Pope Francis’ promotion of such themes is being evidenced through the agenda of his Synod on Synodality – which is pushing for female deacons and wider “inclusion” – along with his firm support for dissident bishops’ conferences across Europe.
|
|
|
|
| Pope Francis Interview: Benedict is a saint |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-22-2022, 07:51 AM - Forum: Pope Francis
- No Replies
|
|
Pope Francis : "I have already signed my resignation in case of medical impediment"
From the "sin" of clericalism to the most burning political issues, without forgetting the problems of the Church, the Supreme Pontiff reviews all current issues for ABC
ABC.es [computer translated from the Spanish] | 17/12/2022 Updated 12/20/2022
— Holy Father, you often speak to those who are far from the Church. Aren't you worried that those closest to you might feel neglected?
"If they're good, they don't feel neglected." If they have something half hidden, that even they don't know, they are like that eldest son in the parable of the prodigal son: "I have served you for so many years, and now you take care of that one, and you don't give me any trouble." It is an ugly sin, of hidden ambition, of wanting to appear, to be taken into account (that is how it could be interpreted)… It is a bit of living belonging to the Church as a place of promotion.
— This dualism between those who are distant and those who are close can also be classified as progressive and essentialist views. His pontificate is now ten years old and one criticism that is made of him is that he has placed a lot of emphasis on the disadvantaged, so to speak, while the more traditional sectors feel a certain lack of understanding. Does it affect you in any way that certain currents historically closest to the Church believe that the same attention is not given to questions of doctrine?
— Attention remains the same. Sometimes there are positions of an immature faith, which do not feel secure and are tied to one thing, they cling to what was done before. The problem is not tradition. Tradition is the source of inspiration. Tradition is our roots that make you grow and keep going and growing and make you grow vertically. The problem is going backwards.
- In what way?
— In Italian I call it 'indietrismo': «No, it's better to be as it was done before», «it's safer», «don't take risks». That going backwards. And the Letter to the Hebrews says: "We are not people who go backwards, but forwards." The sin of going backwards for safety. And I think that happens in the Church.
- To the future. A musician said that tradition is the guarantee of the future. And another, that tradition is the living faith of the dead; but traditionalism is the dead faith of the living. Tradition should pull you up , it makes you grow.
— Ortega y Gasset wrote that he liked the past precisely because it is past and the problem lies with those who want to turn the past into the present.
— The past inspires you in the present. What I mean is that trying to package everything doesn't work. Faith develops, grows, and morality grows, but naturally not in any sense. Vincent de Lerins said that this development has to be 'ut annis consolidetur, dilatetur tempore, sublimetur aetate'. In other words, in such a way that it consolidates as it grows, becomes broader over time and much finer over the years.
— When you were a cardinal, you said: "I try to be faithful to the Church, but always open to dialogue."
— Without horizon you cannot live. You must have the roots of faith well established, but with a horizon to grow . If not, there would be no freedom, there would be no Christian freedom .
— February also marks the tenth anniversary of the resignation of Benedict XVI.
— I visit him frequently and I come out edified from his transparent look. He lives in contemplation... he has a good mood, he is lucid, very alive, he speaks softly but he follows your conversation. He admires his intelligence. He is a great.
— What do you appreciate most about Benedicto?
—He is a saint. He is a man of high spiritual life.
— When we see recent photos of Benedict, at 95 years of age, the inevitable reflection arises that it would have been extremely difficult for him to govern the Church if he had not resigned.
—The futures always deceive, so I don't get involved...
— Will the statute of the emeritus pope be left tied and well defined?
— No. I didn't touch it at all, nor did the idea of doing it come to my mind . It will be that the Holy Spirit has no interest in me taking care of those things.
— You have included several women in high positions, but there is still none as the number one department...
- It is true. But there will be . I have one in view for a department that will be vacant in two years. Nothing prevents a woman from leading a department in which a lay person can be prefect.
- What does it depend on?
— If it is a dicastery of a sacramental nature, it must be presided over by a priest or a bishop. Although there it is discussed whether the authority comes from the mission, as Cardinal Ouellet maintains, or from the sacrament, as Rouco Varela maintains. It is a beautiful discussion between cardinals, a matter that theologians continue to discuss.
— Benedict XVI began to meet with victims of abuse and you have continued. I imagine that is the most difficult part of your task.
— It is very painful, very painful. They are people destroyed by someone who should have helped them mature and grow. That is very hard. Even if there was only one case, it is monstrous that the person who has to take you to God destroys you on the way. And on this there is no negotiation possible.
"There is no possible negotiation against abuse, they are destroyed people"
— After one of those meetings, he decided to reopen a case of abuse in Spain, at the Gaztelueta school.
— The victim told me his story and that he had not received a response from the trial in the Vatican. I got here and had it checked. There had been a trial, but since she had had a civil sentence, they were content with that and did not proceed. For this reason, I appointed a court, presided over by the Bishop of Teruel, and things are underway. I can't tell you what stage he is in, but I know he is in good hands. But he is not the only reopened . There is another case of a Spanish priest. The process was started, but it had gotten lost. I passed it to the Spanish Rota. And the president of the Rota is taking it forward. We have reopened them without any scruples.
— Do you think that society will perceive that the Church is finally acting with total decision to stop and prosecute cases of abuse? Do you think the Church will be 'forgiven'?
— The fact of walking on this is a good path. Now, it does not depend only on us whether or not forgiveness is achieved. But there is one thing I want to say. You have to interpret the problems with the hermeneutics of his time. As we do with slavery. At that time they argued about whether slaves had souls or did not have souls. It is unfair to judge an ancient situation with today's hermeneutics. The hermeneutic of before was to hide everything, as unfortunately is now done in some sectors of society, such as families and neighborhoods.
— Do you have any explanation for the cover-ups of other times?
— It is a progress of humanity that is taking charge more and more of moral questions that do not have to subsist like this. Become more and more aware. And that was the courage of Benedict. According to statistics, between 42 and 46% of abuses occur in the family or neighborhood, and are covered up. We did the same thing until the scandals broke out in Boston around 2002. Why? My explanation is this: there is not enough strength to face them. Be careful, I understand that they do not know how to face them, but I do not justify them . First the Church covered them up, then it had the grace to widen its gaze and say "no", up to the last consequences.
- Don't you feel frustrated when you see that this battle is progressing slowly?"
—I see that unfortunately it is a very great evil, and that we are facing it 'little bit'… We are taking these steps, thank God. But there is a point of abuse that remains a mystery to me.
— Which one?
— Video-pornography with minors, which is produced live. Where is it produced? In what country? It is not known. Who covers all that? There it would be necessary to call the attention of those responsible for society. With what coverage do the groups that film child pornography continue to operate? It's a cry for help.
— What do you say to those who see their faith shake when new cases come to light?
— It is positive that you are scandalized by this. That leads you to act to avoid it, to put your contribution. It doesn't scare me . If faith falters it is because it is alive. If not, you wouldn't feel anything.
— I imagine that all kinds of issues pass through the Pope's table, forcing him to make very varied decisions. What advice would you leave to his successors?
— I would tell them not to make the mistakes that I did, period and nothing more.
— Are there many errors?
— Yes there are, yes.
— It is striking that you have chosen new cardinals from very different origins, who know little of each other. Don't you think this will make the work of future conclaves more difficult?
-Clear! Yes, from a human point of view. But there the one who works is the Holy Spirit. There was someone, I don't know who, who proposed that the election of the new Pope be made only with the cardinals who live in Rome. Is that the universality of the Church?
— Pope Francis, a delicate matter. What happens if a pontiff is suddenly disabled due to health problems or an accident? Wouldn't a standard be convenient for these cases?
I have already signed my resignation. It was Tarcisio Bertone, the Secretary of State. I signed it and told him: «In case of impediment for medical reasons or what do I know, here is my resignation. They already have it." I don't know who Cardinal Bertone gave it to, but I gave it to him when he was Secretary of State.
— Paul VI also left his resignation in writing in case of permanent impediment.
— That's right, and Pius XII I think so too.
- You never said that.
- It's the first time I've said it.
- He wants it to be known.
- That's why I say it. Now someone will go to ask Bertone for it: "Give me the piece of paper!" (laughs). He surely handed it over to Cardinal Pietro Parolin, the new Secretary of State. I gave it to Bertone as Secretary of State.
|
|
|
|
| Poland: Celebrating Advent and Hanukkah at Catholic University of Lublin |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-22-2022, 07:31 AM - Forum: Vatican II and the Fruits of Modernism
- No Replies
|
|
Another error born out of Vatican II [taken from the SiSiNoNo article: The Errors of Vatican II]:
In Nostra Aetate §4, the propositions:
Quote:True, authorities of the Jews and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ (cf. Jn. 19:6); still, what happened in His passion cannot be blamed upon all the Jews then living, without distinction, nor upon the Jews of today. Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as repudiated or cursed by God, as if such views followed from the holy Scriptures.
Necessary to note here is the attempt to limit the responsibility for Deicide to a small group of quasi private individuals, whereas the Sanhedrin, the supreme religious authority, represented all of Judaism. Therefore, in the rejection of the Messiah and Son of God, it had collective responsibility for the Jewish religion and the Jewish people, and this irrefutably is stated in Holy Scripture: "And from then on, Pilate was looking for a way to release him. But the Jews cried out, saying, 'If thou release this man, thou are no friend of Caesar; for everyone who makes himself king sets himself against Caesar'" (Jn. 19:12); and "And all of the people answered and said, 'His blood be on us and our children'" (Mt. 27:25).
Also striking is the statement that "the Jews should not be presented as repudiated or cursed by God, as if such views followed from the holy Scriptures." This lacks the necessary distinction between individuals and the Jewish religion. If the subject is individual Jews, the statement is true, and is exemplified by the great number of converts from Judaism in all eras. But if the subject is Judaism as a religion, the assertion is both erroneous and illogical: erroneous, because it contradicts the evangelical texts and the Church's constant faith from her origins. (cf. Mt. 21:43: "Therefore I say to you, that the Kingdom of God will be taken away from you and will be given to a people yielding its fruits.") And it is illogical, because if God did not reject the Jewish religion or the Jewish people in the religious sense (which in Jesus' time was one and the same thing), then the Old Testament has to be viewed as being still valid, and contiguous and concurrent with the New Testament. This, then, would sanction the unjustified awaiting of the Messiah, a hope still entertained by today's Jews! All of this is a totally lying representation of Judaism and its relationship to Christianity.
† † †
Poland: Celebrating Advent and Hanukkah at Catholic University of Lublin
The Catholic University of Lublin hosts a joint Hanukkah and Advent celebration, with Bishop Mieczysław Cisło praising the initiative as an opportunity to join together as Catholics and Jews.
![[Image: cq5dam.thumbnail.cropped.750.422.jpeg]](https://www.vaticannews.va/content/dam/vaticannews/multimedia/2022/12/20/1671534859258-KUL_Advent_Hanukkah_3aem.jpg/_jcr_content/renditions/cq5dam.thumbnail.cropped.750.422.jpeg)
Bishop Mieczysław Cisło at the Advent-Hanukkah celebration
Vatican News | December 20, 2022
The Abraham J. Heschel Center for Catholic-Jewish Relations at the John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin organized a joint Hanukkah and Advent celebration on 19 December for the academic community and residents of Lublin, a multicultural and multireligious city.
The first-ever "Lights in the Darkness" event brought together representatives of the Jewish community and students to participate in this symbolic gathering with a focus on light as a way to people's hearts and unite people of different faiths.
United in light
According to Bishop Mieczysław Cisło, auxiliary bishop emeritus of the Archdiocese of Lublin, said: “We Catholics discover our Jewish roots, and Jews discover the fraternity of the Christian faith.”
Bishop Cisło, who served as chairman of the Committee for Dialogue with Judaism of the Polish Bishops' Conference from 2006-2016, also highlighted the importance of light.
"The light of the Hanukkah candelabra and Advent wreath is an organic unity,” he said. “It warms and unites.”
As Fr. Paweł Rytel-Andrianik, deputy director of Heschel Center, pointed out, the Hanukkah candelabra is a sign of the Old Testament—the liberation of the Temple in Jerusalem, while the Advent wreath symbolizes the coming of Jesus as Messiah.
"Lublin is a multicultural university city, where Jeszywas Chachmej Lublin, the largest Talmudic school in the world, operated before World War II,” he said. “Today the largest Catholic university in Poland refers to and recalls the historical character of the city.”
Hear, O Israel
The celebration began on Monday with the hymn “Shema Israel”, followed by two commentaries.
The Jewish reflection was delivered by cantor Symcha Keller, and the Catholic commentary by Prof. Wojciech Kaczmarek, Director of the Department of Drama and Theater.
The meeting concluded with joint singing by Neocatechumenal and Jewish dicantors.
As Mr. Keller summarized, “Light unites us, rituals divide us, but that does not mean that our differences are negative. Man carries within himself the light that radiates from Hanukkah and the Advent wreath.”
Jewish feast of Hanukkah
Hanukkah is an annual Jewish holiday that lasts eight days, beginning on the 25th of the month of Kislev (according to the Jewish calendar).
It commemorates the rededication of the Temple in Jerusalem in 165 BCE. Hanukkah is associated with the rite of lighting lights, candles or oil lamps placed on a special candelabra—the Hanukkah.
The origin of Hanukkah is linked to the events that took place in the Temple in Jerusalem on the 25th day of the month of Kislev 165 or 164 B.C., when the ruler of Syria and Palestine, Antiochus IV of the Hellenistic Seleucid dynasty, sought to force the Jews to abandon their Mosaic customs, traditions and faith and adopt Greek customs.
About the Heschel Center
The Abraham J. Heschel Center for Catholic-Jewish Relations at the Catholic University of Lublin is a scientific and educational unit that aims to deepen Catholic-Jewish relations.
Its patron is Abraham J. Heschel, a Jewish theologian, philosopher and poet. The center was inaugurated in October.
At the end of the General Audience on Wednesday, 19 October 2022, Pope Francis greeted Polish pilgrims and said, "I am pleased that on Monday the Center for Catholic-Jewish Relations was inaugurated in Lublin. I hope that it will foster the enhancement of the common heritage, not only of the two religions, but also of the two peoples.”
|
|
|
|
| Radio City Music Hall uses facial recognition to keep out blacklisted guests |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-22-2022, 07:21 AM - Forum: General Commentary
- No Replies
|
|
Radio City Music Hall uses facial recognition to keep out blacklisted guests
A mother was kicked out after being detected.
![[Image: rcmh.jpg]](https://reclaimthenet.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/rcmh.jpg)
Reclaimthenet.com | December 21, 2022
A lawyer from New Jersey was not allowed to watch a Christmas show with her daughter at a venue operated by Madison Square Garden Entertainment (MSG) because her employer is involved in litigation with the entertainment giant. The most interesting part of the story is that MSG used facial recognition software to detect her and ban her from the event.
Kelly Conlon had accompanied her daughter’s Girls Scout troop to see the Rockettes perform Christmas Spectacular at Radio City Music Hall in New York. However, she was not allowed to enter the venue because MSG has a policy against allowing any visitor affiliated with a law firm involved in litigation against it. Facial recognition monitors were able to detect her presence.
Conlon does not and has never practiced law in New York. Additionally, she has never been directly involved in litigation against MSG Entertainment. She was only guilty by association because her law firm, Davis, Saperstein, and Solomon, has spent years in litigation against a restaurant that is under MSG Entertainment, according to NBC New York.
Conlon said she was approached by a security guard at the Radio City Music Hall lobby as she was passing through the metal detector. Over the speakers, she heard a warning about a woman in a gray scarf. Then a security guard told her that the warning was about her.
“Our recognition picked you up,” she was told.
She was still escorted out even after telling security that she does not work cases involving MSG.
In a statement, MSG said that the same would have happened to any other lawyer working in her firm and that the firm had been “notified twice” about the policy.
“MSG instituted a straightforward policy that precludes attorneys pursuing active litigation against the Company from attending events at our venues until that litigation has been resolved,” the statement provided to NBC said. “While we understand this policy is disappointing to some, we cannot ignore the fact that litigation creates an inherently adverse environment.”
Only one firm involved in litigation against MSG has successfully sued the entertainment giant over the policy and won. MSG is appealing the decision.
MSG started using facial recognition at its venues in 2018.
Speaking to NBC, Conlon said, “I was just a mom taking my daughter to see a Christmas show,” adding that the experience was “embarrassing” and “mortifying.”
|
|
|
|
| Msgr. Domenico Celada (1969): To the Illustrious Assassins of Our Holy Liturgy |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-21-2022, 07:04 AM - Forum: Vatican II and the Fruits of Modernism
- Replies (1)
|
|
“To the Illustrious Assassins of Our Holy Liturgy”: Msgr. Domenico Celada, 1969
![[Image: photomania-7b9fd729b22fb3fd176e9bd6b17f50a3.jpg]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZFWN9Zn0dhbuizwcwUifn9dZ16SmMQwC4X0zXpgvo-DVZtgf1w4DrABBvOwA7M0_2K-Owo1GZLJnP-_VHgCabAd5wtW-2S48W8luCN8B9LcQUaV7y00W_xQ4m2N8SwTcpa6YYHJd42IoQ8w_2GDWCqRaw_zUhFxP4uMNqNQF2x3ds67SF2w/w500-h281/photomania-7b9fd729b22fb3fd176e9bd6b17f50a3.jpg)
NLM | October 24, 2022
The following clear-sighted and prophetic letter was penned by the composer, musicologist, organist, and essayist Msgr. Domenico Celada in 1969. It is a document that prophesied what would happen in the Church—all the more relevant today when Traditionis Custodes attempts to stifle fidelity to the Tridentine Rite, without caring about the liturgical degradation that, with the introduction of a new Mass, has been perpetrated and continues dramatically in these times of deep crisis in the Catholic Church. Msgr. Celada’s open letter unmasked (and unmasks) the spirit that animated (and animates) the saboteurs of tradition. Nor did Msgr. Celada, who taught music and history of Gregorian chant at the Lateran University, fail to suffer for his outspokenness: he was removed from all his positions. (Some of the foregoing has been adapted from here.)
To the Illustrious Assassins of Our Holy Liturgy
Msgr. Domenico Celada (1969)
For a long time I have wanted to write to you, illustrious assassins of our holy Liturgy. Not because I hope that my words will have any effect on you, who have too long fallen into the claws of Satan and become his most obedient servants, but so that all those who suffer from the countless crimes committed by you may find their voice again.
Do not deceive yourselves, gentlemen. The atrocious wounds that you have opened in the body of the Church cry out for vengeance before God, the just Avenger.
Your plan to subvert the Church, through the liturgy, is very ancient. Many of your predecessors, much more intelligent than you, tried to carry it out, and the Father of Darkness has already welcomed them into his kingdom. And I remember your anger, your mocking sneer, when, some fifteen years ago, you desired the death of that great Pontiff, the servant of God Eugenio Pacelli, because he had divined your designs and opposed them with the authority of the Triregnum. After that famous conference on “pastoral liturgy,” on which the very clear words of Pope Pius XII had fallen like a sword, you left mystical Assisi foaming with anger and venom.
Now you have succeeded—for now, at least. You have created your “masterpiece”: the New Liturgy.
That this is not the work of God is demonstrated first of all (leaving aside the dogmatic implications) by a very simple fact: it is frighteningly ugly. It is a cult of ambiguity and equivocation, not infrequently a cult of indecency. This is enough to understand that your “masterpiece” does not come from God, the source of all beauty, but from the ancient slasher of God’s works.
Yes, you have deprived the Catholic faithful of the purest emotions, derived from the sublime things that have substantiated the liturgy for millennia: the beauty of words, gestures, music. What have you given us in return? A hodgepodge of ugliness, of grotesque “translations” (as is well known, your father down there has no sense of humor), of gastric emotions aroused by the mewing of electric guitars, of gestures and attitudes that are equivocal to say the least.
But, as if that’s not enough, there is another sign that shows that your “masterpiece” does not come from God. And that is the instruments you have had to use in order to realize it: fraud and lies. You have succeeded in making people believe that a Council had decreed the disappearance of the Latin language, the archiving of the heritage of sacred music, the abolition of the tabernacle, the overturning of the altars, the prohibition of bending the knee before Our Lord present in the Eucharist, and all your other progressive steps, which are part (the lawyers would say) of a “single criminal design.”
You knew very well that the “lex orandi” is also the “lex credendi,” and that, therefore, by changing the one, you would change the other.
You knew that by pointing your poisoned spears at the living language of the Church, you would practically kill the unity of the faith.
You knew that, by decreeing the death of Gregorian chant and sacred polyphony, you could introduce at will all the pseudo-musical indecencies which desecrate divine worship and cast an equivocal shadow over liturgical celebrations.
You knew that by destroying tabernacles, by replacing altars with “tables for the Eucharistic meal,” by denying the faithful the opportunity to bend their knees before the Son of God, you would in short order extinguish faith in the Real Presence.
You have worked with your eyes open. You raged against a monument to which heaven and earth had set their hands, because you knew that with it you were destroying the Church. You went so far as to take away the traditional Holy Mass, even tearing out the heart of the Catholic liturgy—that same Holy Mass for which we were ordained priests, and which no one in the world will ever be able to forbid us, because no one can trample on a natural right.
I know: you may now laugh at what I am about to say. Go ahead, laugh at it. You have gone so far as to remove from the Litany of the Saints the invocation “a flagello terraemotus, libera nos, Domine” [from the scourge of earthquakes, deliver us, O Lord], and never before has the earth trembled at so many latitudes. You have removed the invocation “a spiritu fornicationis, libera nos Domine” [from the spirit of fornication, deliver us, O Lord], and never have we been so covered over as we are now by the mud of immorality and pornography in its most repellent and degrading forms. You have abolished the invocation “ut inimicos sanctae Ecclesiae humiliare digneris” [that you might deign to humiliate the enemies of Holy Church], and never before have the enemies of the Church prospered in all ecclesiastical institutions, at every level.
Laugh, laugh… Your laughter is boisterous and joyless. Certainly none of you know, as we do, the tears of joy and sorrow. You are not even capable of crying. Your bovine eyes, whether glass or metal balls, look at things without seeing them. You are similar to the cows watching the trains pass by. To you I prefer the thief who snatches the gold chain from the child, I prefer the mugger, I prefer the robber with weapons in his fist, I even prefer the brute and the violator of graves. They are people far less dirty than you, who have robbed God’s people of all their treasures.
While we wait for your father down there to welcome you into his kingdom, “where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth,” I want you to know of our unshakeable certainty that those treasures will be returned to us. And it will be a restitutio in integrum [a total restoration]. You have forgotten that Satan is the eternal loser.
|
|
|
|
|
![[Image: Capture.png]](https://i.postimg.cc/wvCg7xBg/Capture.png)
![[Image: vatican-ii-fruits.png]](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-MHuSydopOtE/Xw4XnhdWO4I/AAAAAAAAQiQ/fJA8iqWGcaEq7Ak7QyejihWGcoTfoFwewCLcBGAsYHQ/s640/vatican-ii-fruits.png)
