Thanksgiving Mass for Summorum Pontificum at St. Stan's 7/7

KTMT: Bishop to bishop letters are magisterial just because... lol

As I have stated in the past I will reserve my takes on the current papacy; however, there is something to be said about how poorly catechised trads and neo catholics are.

First, lets be clear, all these statements carry about as much authority and binding influence as a glazed donuts do to the appetite of a boulder... absolutely none. Personal letters from a bishop to a bishop or to a person do not constitute magisterial teaching, no matter how frustrating.  To say otherwise would necessarily lead to Pope Liberius' ambiguous letter to his fellow bishop constituting formal teaching, which we deny as Catholics in accordance with the formal teaching from Vatican Council One.

Yes he said the gates of hell would not prevail, this does not mean that a Pope cannot hold to an erroneous take, such would be a personal sin because the proposed teaching would be a novelty, thus when subjected to the ordinary magestarium, as all teachings are, would violate one if not more of the marks of the church and could be ignored as a novelty by the faithful.

Francis is the Pope, I have no reason nor pride to believe anything else at this point.  Is he a great or a bad Pope? History will decide that... I am personally not giddy but if we do more complaining than praying for Peter in the midst of this storm nothing will be fixed any time soon.

Remember that modernists be they bishops or laymen, formal or material, have no interest in formally changing doctrine. They are either consciously or unconsciously aware of the old adage, "Lex Orendi, Lex Credendi". If the practices are changed, an end around can be had to effectively change teachings without formally submitting such. Which is one of the reasons why Bugnini, who asked that the ancient rite be abrogated, was denied permission to formally abrogate the Rite of St. Gregory, but was allowed to do informal restrictions, effectively abrogating its use until really Benedict released Summorum Pontificum.

So, end game... this is not the end. An Irish Paper, even a Vatican paper... dare I say an encyclical or ecumenical council that proposes and even seems to bind the faithful to a novelty is nothing more than one bad night at a hotel in relation to eternity as Teresa of Avila would say.  Its not worth getting hot and heavy about.  The Church doesnt fall under this or that Pope, Rome is not the seat of the Anti-Christ yet, though its entirely frustrating. If you approach the Popes comments as binding and play them off that leads to the confusion seen below.  So, be level headed. Pray, hope and dont worry.  Its not like this is catching God by surprise.  Its that simple

When St. John Bosco had his vision of the Barque of Peter out in the midst of the storm it presumes that Peter took his ship out in the midst of the storm to begin with, the solution is to keep our sights on the Eucharist and Our Lady, offer up the sufferings and be grateful for the trials to grow in and merit from.



Ferrara makes it pretty clear below

Fr. Hunwicke: Blessed Paul VI

I came across a fantastic post by Fr. Hunwicke on the topic of the late pontiff Paul VI, and i think it is well worth a full read:

Blessed Paul VI

"I wish to propose a theory about Blessed Paul VI for which, currently, I can adduce some evidence; I wonder if there is more. 
HE WAS UN POCO AMLETICO

(1) He relied upon dishonest people for advice. (a) From the Memoires of Louis Bouyer: "At different stages, be it with regard to the dumping overboard (sabordage) of the Liturgy of the Departed, or again in that unbelievable enterprise of expurgating the psalms in view of their use in the Office, Bugnini came up against an opposition, not just massive, but one could say pretty well unanimous. In some such cases, he did not hesitate to tell us 'But the Pope wants it!'. After that, to be sure, there was no longer a question of discussing it." Bouyer recounts how he once met Bugnini in circumstances in which the latter, mistakenly, believed that he, Bouyer, had just been with Pope Paul ... whom Bugnini was on his way to see. "On seeing me, he not only turned completely white but, visibly, was knocked for six (non seulement il blemit, mais, visiblement, il fut atterre)". "The answer was to be presented to me, but some weeks later, by Paul VI himself. Nattering with me about our famous labours, which he had confirmed, he finally said to me 'But why, then, did you put into this reform ...' (Here, I have to admit that I don't recall any longer which of the details which I have mentioned particularly irritated him.) Naturally, I replied 'But purely and simply because Bugnini guaranteed to us that you were absolutely set on it (avait certifie que vous le vouliez absolument).' His reaction was immediate: 'Is it possible? He said to me personally that you were unanimous in this respect!'". (b) Bishop Tissier's biography recounts that when Archbishop Lefebvre was received in audience by the Pope, Paul VI was hostile from the start. It transpired that he had been informed, probably by Cardinal Villot, that the Archbishop made the priests whom he formed "sign an oath against the Pope". Given such shameless mendacity, it is hardly surprising that the Holy Father's mind was poisoned against Lefebvre.
(2) Blessed Paul VI preferred to compromise with disorder rather than to face it down. It seems clear, from Dom Cassian Folsom's Adoremus series of articles, that the provision of alternative Eucharistic Prayers was a pathetic but well-meant attempt to rein in the chaos which existed particularly in the Low Countries, where home-made Eucharistic Prayers were proliferating in (literally) hundreds. He was assured that the Hierarchy, given this concession, were prepared to restore order. (Big of them ... Traditionalists would also do well to remember that it was the provision of these alternatives which saved the Canon itself from being mangled ... better, surely, to be unused for a few decades than permanently debased?)

As well as the human and historical tragedy, there is an ecclesiological point here. If you blend together in one saucepan an exaggerated notion of papal authority (as analysed by Joseph Ratzinger) with the activities (described in detail by Louis Bouyer) of unscrupulous and dishonest and ruthlessly determined manipulative individuals who have the pope's ear, you are gravely at risk of having a disaster the results of which it may well take generations to mitigate. Quod factum est."

When I read this the article that Tancred posted the other day about the FFI and the banning of Fr. Manelli from saying the ancient rite came to mind.  The joke is that conservatives and liberals alike love to play the word game that trads weaponize the ancient rite and hurt the church in the process.  Well what do you call banning a priest from saying "a form" of the Latin rite that is just as legitimate and to be accessible as the other.  At the very heart of this all is the idea that one can only say the ancient rite if there is a need by a group of people for it.  As if Mass was dependent on how many people are assisting therein. Do you know why the priest in the OF does not genuflect before the elevation of the host immediatly after consecration?  Its because the focus is on the people first seeing the Sacred Host and then he can genuflect because the people now affirm that he is there after they see Him... which is insane.  They are weaponizing the OF against the EF, and they are doing it because they know that their time is short on the matter.  For years they played word games that the OF was just the translation of the EF and the ignorant bought it hook line and sinker.  And what of these priests that are banned from saying the EF, it is happening right here in Milwaukee where I know at least one priest who is not allowed to say it in fear of punishment, and that is with a "conservative" bishop. They are driving good priests into trouble and paranoia just as they did with Lefebvre, and frankly I dont think they care.  Pray for these Bishops and priests!

+JMJ+

Ten Days of Davies: A supporter of Summorum before it was cool

Way before the possibility of Summorum was even spoken of in Rome, Michael Davies was out and about demanding the ancient rite be restored to its dignity within Holy Mother Church.  It was his contention that the promulgation of the 1962 missal should once again be the major focus of matters liturgical in the Church.  There was some debate as to what would Pope Benedict promulgate as the ancient rite, be it the 1962 or 1965 missal, or even earlier missals.  Michael touches on this below.

The following article from The Latin Mass Magazine was written by Mr. Davies and its relevence to Summorum cannot be understated.  You can read the whole article HERE.  The following in an excerpt:

Source

The liturgical destruction did not begin in 1969 with the promulgation of the new rite of Mass, the Novus Ordo Missae. The debacle was well under way in 1965 when the Vatican allowed its liturgical bureaucrats to begin revising the Missal that had last been revised in 1962. The 1962 Missal incorporated the mainly rubrical changes contained in the General Decree Novum Rubricarum of the Sacred Congregation of Rites of July 26, 1960. This rubrical reform had been ordered by Pope Pius XII, and few of the changes would have been noticed by the layman using a pre-1962 Missal apart from the omission of the second Confiteor before the Communion of the Faithful. In pre-1962 Missals in the Ritus servandus in celebratione Missae, X, 6, this Confiteor is stipulated. In the same section in the 1962 Missal it is not mentioned, but nowhere in the rubrics is it forbidden. Apart from this omission the ordinary of the Mass was not changed. 

  No layman could help noticing the changes made to the Ordinary of the Mass in the 1965 Missal, and there can be little doubt that its purpose was to prepare the faithful for the revolutionary changes that were to be introduced in 1969. By design or by coincidence the preparation for this revolution followed precisely the strategy of Thomas Cranmer, the apostate Archbishop of Canterbury, prior to the imposition of his English Communion Service of 1549. One of the principal features of the Catholic liturgy had been stability. Developments in the manner in which Mass was celebrated did occur, but they crept in almost imperceptibly over the centuries, and the Missals in use in England and throughout Europe in the sixteenth century had remained unchanged for at least several hundred years. The faithful took it for granted that whatever else might change, the Mass could not. In order to avoid provoking resistance among the Catholic faithful Cranmer deemed it prudent not to do too much too soon. Parts of the Mass were celebrated in the vernacular – but, many insisted, it was still the same Mass, so why risk persecution by protesting? New material was introduced into the unchanged Mass, which while open to a Protestant interpretation was in no way specifically heretical; once again, why protest? 

An important innovation was the imposition of Communion under both kinds for the laity at the end of 1547. Catholics in England made the mistake of conceding this change without opposition for the sake of peace. The great Catholic historian Cardinal Francis Gasquet writes: 

It was, after all, only a matter of ecclesiastical discipline, although some innovators in urging the incompleteness of the Sacrament, when administered under one kind, gave a doctrinal turn to the question which issued in heresy. The great advantage secured to the innovators by the adoption of Communion under both kinds in England was the opportunity it afforded them of effecting a break with the ancient missal.

+JMJ+

On Benedict and the ending of a pontificate

                             On Benedict and the ending of a pontificate

But anyways I want to give a quick take on the Papacy of Pope Benedict XVI who by the time this will be posted will be Pope emeritus. 

I cannot be more thankful for this pontificate because his Holiness has done more in his 7 year pontificate then JPII, JPI, Paul VI and John XXIII did in my opinion.  Of course many of you will disagree and that’s fine, I tend to be very focused on church history and the “hermeneutics of continuity” as the Holy Father termed it. 

Too often there has been passing of the buck on issues for various reasons.  One of the problems to often avoided has been the ambiguity of VII.  Again I am not against VII on the whole, I just wish that some of the abuses and misinterpretations would be clarified by the Holy Father (still waiting on a new syllabus but don’t expect one anytime soon, heres to hoping for Bishop Schneider being made a Cardinal).  I think Benedict has begun cleaning up things in this manner making it clear that the only way VII can be interpreted in in continuity with the tradition of the church.  His freeing of the use of the 1962 missal from the Moto Proprio Summorum Pontificum has been a jolt in my faith life, not saying it is for all. 

His encyclicals have also been a great joy for me to read and take in fully.  I remember the first book I read when attempting to better understand the faith was to read Jesus of Nazareth Vol 1.  The book was a hit in my mind, so to was his book with Peter Seewald where he really hit on the controversies of the day, calming my mind and instilling great love for Holy Mother Churches selection. 

 

I only hope for the very best for the Holy Father moving forward.  If you have time during this period of Sede Vacante offer a Rosary for the intention of his wellbeing. As well as one for his successor.

As much as I am terrified as to the path we are about to embark on I have great hope since Christ is always present in the barque of Peter and all we need do is trust him and not be too worrysome.

St. Pope Pius X Pray for us

St. Pope Celestine V Pray for us 

St. Pope Linus, successor of Peter, Pray for Us

Blessed Peter, Pray for us!

Immaculate Heart of Mary, Pray for us!

Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, Have Mercy on Us!

                                                      +JMJ+