Is Benedict's "Summorum Pontificum (SP) a Failed 'Experiment'” ? Or, as Ratzinger appeared to say, is the Francis/Paul VI Mass a "Failed 'Experiment'" that even Betrayed the Vatican II Constitution?
The Council did not itself reform the liturgical books, but it ordered their revision, and to this end, it established certain fundamental rules. Before anything else, the Council gave a definition of what liturgy is, and this definition gives a valuable yardstick for every liturgical celebration. Were one to shun these essential rules and put to one side the normae generales which one finds in numbers 34 – 36 of the Constitution De Sacra Liturgia (SL), in that case one would indeed be guilty of disobedience to the Council! It is in the light of these criteria that liturgical celebrations must be evaluated, whether they be according to the old books or the new. It is good to recall here what Cardinal Newman observed, that the Church, throughout her history, has never abolished nor forbidden orthodox liturgical forms, which would be quite alien to the Spirit of the Church...
... The contradictions and oppositions which we have just enumerated originate neither from the spirit nor the letter of the conciliar texts. The actual Constitution on the Liturgy does not speak at all about celebration facing the altar or facing the people. On the subject of language, it says that Latin should be retained, while giving a greater place to the vernacular "above all in readings, instructions, and in a certain number of prayers and chants"(SL 36:2). - Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
"Over and over again, the mantra of “let us wait and see” has allowed the aggressors to seize the initiative and control the narrative. For example, since the release of TC, I have seen liberals defend it by calling Summorum Pontificum (SP) a failed “experiment.” I have yet to find where Pope Benedict said SP is an experiment, yet where is the conservative push back? Another example is when liberal writers (and bishops) refer to the Novus Ordo as the Mass of Vatican II. In actuality, the opening Mass of the Council (in 1962) and the closing Mass (in 1965) were the Traditional Latin Mass. Yet again, I have not seen (perhaps I missed it) any conservative commentator push back on this. We should not let them get away with such blatant untruth." - Founder of Coalition for Canceled Priests, Fr. John Lovell
The founder of Coalition for Canceled Priests is fighting back against the "failed 'experiment'" of Francis's attack on the Traditional Latin Mass.
Fr. John Lovell who was in "2012, while Father was studying at the Dominican House of Studies, he was removed/canceled by the new bishop of Rockford, David J. Malloy. For the last decade, Father Lovell has fought for his good name and has helped other priests in the same situation. In the spring of 2021, he co-founded the Coalition for Canceled Priests" reported LifeSiteNews.
Fr. Lovell said "faithful Catholic[s] [can] stand up and publicly protest a bishop in charity":
Over and over again, the mantra of “let us wait and see” has allowed the aggressors to seize the initiative and control the narrative. For example, since the release of TC, I have seen liberals defend it by calling Summorum Pontificum (SP) a failed “experiment.” I have yet to find where Pope Benedict said SP is an experiment, yet where is the conservative push back? Another example is when liberal writers (and bishops) refer to the Novus Ordo as the Mass of Vatican II. In actuality, the opening Mass of the Council (in 1962) and the closing Mass (in 1965) were the Traditional Latin Mass. Yet again, I have not seen (perhaps I missed it) any conservative commentator push back on this. We should not let them get away with such blatant untruths...
... “Can a faithful Catholic stand up and publicly protest a bishop in charity?” The answer is certainly yes and if one reads The Code of Canon Law, the faithful at times even have the duty to do so (see Canon 212). In light of this and anticipating that Cupich would soon crack down on the TLM, CFCP and its partners sent two billboard trucks to Holy Name Cathedral and four other parishes on Sunday, November 14, 2021. To fulfill their duty to stand up for their Faith, the laity need first to be made aware of what is happening and then assured of their right to make their needs known. It is part of the Coalition’s mission to assist them in both areas...
... While some believe submission is required due to obedience, and some think “feeding the crocodile will pacify the beast,” some attribute it to something else, and have compared the relationship between Pope Francis and traditional Catholics to that of an abusive parent to his children. The behavior of some traditional Catholics fit this analogy perfectly; their reaction to any kind of protest is precisely the response an abusive child gives to an abusive parent. The child, in the hope of stopping the abuse (in this case from Cupich), will try to placate the parent, avoid the parent, and cower to the parent. Yet history shows the abuser will just keep abusing until someone says enough and steps in...
... Yes, this can be done with respect and charity. What I am not for is the attitude of “Unite the Clans! Except you and you.” The Coalition has officially added defense of the TLM to its mission. [https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/why-the-coalition-for-canceled-priests-is-fighting-back-against-restrictions-on-the-latin-mass/]
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger before he became Pope Benedict XVI appeared to say that Pope Paul VI's Mass is a failed experiment that even betrayed the Vatican II Constitution. Moreover, he said against the current Francis attack on the Traditional Latin Mass that "the Church, throughout her history, has never abolished nor forbidden orthodox liturgical forms, which would be quite alien to the Spirit of the Church":
It is without doubt possible that, within this area, there exist reasons which go further back than any theology and which have their origin in the character of individuals or in the conflict between different personalities, or indeed a number of other circumstances which are wholly extrinsic. But it is certain that there are also other deeper reasons which explain these problems. The two reasons which are most often heard, are: lack of obedience to the Council which wanted the liturgical books reformed, and the break in unity which must necessarily follow if different liturgical forms are left in use. It is relatively simple to refute these two arguments on the theoretical level. The Council did not itself reform the liturgical books, but it ordered their revision, and to this end, it established certain fundamental rules. Before anything else, the Council gave a definition of what liturgy is, and this definition gives a valuable yardstick for every liturgical celebration. Were one to shun these essential rules and put to one side the normae generales which one finds in numbers 34 – 36 of the Constitution De Sacra Liturgia (SL), in that case one would indeed be guilty of disobedience to the Council! It is in the light of these criteria that liturgical celebrations must be evaluated, whether they be according to the old books or the new. It is good to recall here what Cardinal Newman observed, that the Church, throughout her history, has never abolished nor forbidden orthodox liturgical forms, which would be quite alien to the Spirit of the Church. An orthodox liturgy, that is to say, one which express the true faith, is never a compilation made according to the pragmatic criteria of different ceremonies, handled in a positivist and arbitrary way, one way today and another way tomorrow. The orthodox forms of a rite are living realities, born out of the dialogue of love between the Church and her Lord. They are expressions of the life of the Church, in which are distilled the faith, the prayer and the very life of whole generations, and which make incarnate in specific forms both the action of God and the response of man. Such rites can die, if those who have used them in a particular era should disappear, or if the life-situation of those same people should change...
... The contradictions and oppositions which we have just enumerated originate neither from the spirit nor the letter of the conciliar texts. The actual Constitution on the Liturgy does not speak at all about celebration facing the altar or facing the people. On the subject of language, it says that Latin should be retained, while giving a greater place to the vernacular "above all in readings, instructions, and in a certain number of prayers and chants"(SL 36:2). As regards the participation of the laity, the Council first of all insists on a general point, that the liturgy is essentially the concern of the whole Body of Christ, Head and members, and for this reason it pertains to the whole Body of the Church "and that consequently it [the liturgy] is destined to be celebrated in community with the active participation of the faithful". And the text specifies "In liturgical celebrations each person, minister or lay faithful, when fulfilling his role, should carry out only and wholly that which pertains to him by virtue of the nature of the rite and the liturgical norms" (SL 28). "To promote active participation, acclamations by the people are favoured, responses, the chanting of the psalms, antiphons, canticles, also actions or gestures and bodily postures. One should also observe a period of sacred silence at an appropriate time" (SL 30).
These are the directives of the Council; they can provide everybody with material for reflection. Amongst a number of modern liturgists there is unfortunately a tendency to develop the ideas of the Council in one direction only. In acting thus, they end up reversing the intentions of the Council. The role of the priest is reduced, by some, to that of a mere functionary. The fact that the Body of Christ as a whole is the subject of the liturgy is often deformed to the point where the local community becomes the self-sufficient subject of the liturgy and itself distributes the liturgy’s various roles. There also exists a dangerous tendency to minimalize the sacrificial character of the Mass, causing the mystery and the sacred to disappear, on the pretext, a pretext that claims to be absolute, that in this way they make things better understood. [https://adoremus.org/2007/12/ten-years-of-the-motu-proprio-quotecclesia-deiquot/]
Pray an Our Father now for reparation for the sins committed because of Francis's Amoris Laetitia.
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Stop for a moment of silence, ask Jesus Christ what He wants you to do now and next. In this silence remember God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost - Three Divine Persons yet One God, has an ordered universe where you can know truth and falsehood as well as never forget that He wants you to have eternal happiness with Him as his son or daughter by grace. Make this a practice. By doing this you are doing more good than reading anything here or anywhere else on the Internet.
Francis Notes:
- Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation:
"[T]he Pope... WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See."
(The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)
Saint Robert Bellarmine, also, said "the Pope heretic is not deposed ipso facto, but must be declared deposed by the Church."
[https://archive.org/stream/SilveiraImplicationsOfNewMissaeAndHereticPopes/Silveira%20Implications%20of%20New%20Missae%20and%20Heretic%20Popes_djvu.txt]
- "If Francis is a Heretic, What should Canonically happen to him?": http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2020/12/if-francis-is-heretic-what-should.html
- "Could Francis be a Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claim he is Pope?": http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2019/03/could-francis-be-antipope-even-though.html
- If Francis betrays Benedict XVI & the"Roman Rite Communities" like he betrayed the Chinese Catholics we must respond like St. Athanasius, the Saintly English Bishop Robert Grosseteste & "Eminent Canonists and Theologians" by "Resist[ing]" him: https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2021/12/if-francis-betrays-benedict-xvi.html
- LifeSiteNews, "Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers," December 4, 2017:
The AAS guidelines explicitly allows "sexually active adulterous couples facing 'complex circumstances' to 'access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'"
- On February 2018, in Rorate Caeli, Catholic theologian Dr. John Lamont:
"The AAS statement... establishes that Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia has affirmed propositions that are heretical in the strict sense."
- On December 2, 2017, Bishop Rene Gracida:
"Francis' heterodoxy is now official. He has published his letter to the Argentina bishops in Acta Apostlica Series making those letters magisterial documents."
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church by the bishops by the grace of God.
Election Notes:
- Intel Cryptanalyst-Mathematician on Biden Steal: "212Million Registered Voters & 66.2% Voting,140.344 M Voted...Trump got 74 M, that leaves only 66.344 M for Biden" [http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/12/intel-cryptanalyst-mathematician-on.html?m=1]
- Will US be Venezuela?: Ex-CIA Official told Epoch Times "Chávez started to Focus on [Smartmatic] Voting Machines to Ensure Victory as early as 2003": http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/12/will-us-be-venezuela-ex-cia-official.html
http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2021/01/a-hour-which-will-live-in-infamy-1001pm.html?m=1
http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/epoch-times-show-crossroads-on-capital.html?m=1]
Comments