Traditionis custodes, Art. 1, has it that the Ancient Rite is not now and therefore never was an expression of the Lex orandi, the Law of praying, which is the Sacrifice of Jesus. And that means there is no Lex orandi for any rite, ever, including the New Rite, the Novus Ordo. This is evil. An evil law is no law at all. Therefore, I don’t obey or disobey this motu proprio, for it is nothing. It is to be ignored. My offer is this: nothing.
Traditionis custodes, Art. 3. § 2, violently throws Jesus and His Holy Sacrifice right off His own altar, right out of His own church. That’s evil. An evil law is no law at all. Therefore, I don’t obey or disobey this motu proprio, for it is nothing. It is to be ignored. My offer is this: nothing.
I should hope that no priest be subjected to a choice between insulting Jesus and remaining in active ministry for Jesus. Should a priest choose to insult Jesus in order to remain in active ministry for Jesus, it means that such a priest has chosen to be a mercenary who is in ministry for himself and not at all for Jesus. Even if he remains in ministry he has taken himself out of true ministry into a kind of anti-ministry.
I mean this “My offer is this: nothing” is a great meme, right? Just fill in the blank regarding Pachamama demon idol worship, or the blessing of same sex civil unions, or the encouragement of adultery and pro-abort politicians by way of dissing of the Most Blessed Sacrament given to those who don’t give a damn.
My offer to you Pope Francis is this: nothing, or, I take that back, I’ll give you absolution if you’re repentant. But then, that’s not my offer, that’s the offer of Jesus: God or nothing.
To those who say I criticize Pope Francis and therefore am to be put down, thrown out like trash, I say this: I’m no Saint Paul when I also reprimand Peter – who, the Holy Spirit says, stood condemned (Galatians 2:11) – but I must strive to follow the example of Saint Paul in reprimanding Peter. If not, I will be stand condemned.
“But Father George! Father George! You don’t understand! You have no standing! You’re just a priest! Shut your face, Father George!”
So, here’s why I have standing:
I’m the one who is charged with shepherding this portion of the Lord’s Little Flock in my parish: it is I who am mandated to speak the truth with charity, to sanctify with charity, to govern with charity.
I’m the one who is responsible for bringing people into humble, joyful reverence before Jesus instead of bringing people to blaspheme Him, ignore His commandments.
I’m the one who will stand before Jesus in judgment for my soul in regard to protecting Jesus’ Little Flock. He sees all, all the time, and is eager and ready to ask me about every aspect of my ministry at the judgement, which can happen any time, any time, right now… He knows… I want to be ready in all hope that I have done His will for His Little Flock.
And then the stupid answer follows:
“But Father George! Father George! You don’t understand! We here in the Holy See have ways, Father George! We can force you! You should be afraid! Really scared!”
Pfft. Whatever. I answer to Jesus. I’m peaceful and joyful with Jesus. The Holy See doesn’t scare me one bit. I’m not one to be shaken down. I’m one happy priest. So, it just doesn’t work. Not that I’m virtuous. I’m a bit autistic and easily entrench. I’m rigid! I’m a bit of a mafioso that way. Don’t scandalize and mislead the Lord’s Little Flock! I so easily become indignant when Jesus and His dear Mother are insulted. However much grace is at work with all that there’s also quite a bit of my fallen human nature being put to work. I’m a bit of a mafioso that way. So, I’m not just indignant when my family, the Holy Family is insulted, I’m really indignant. No compromise. Ever. Ain’t gonna happen. I say that with joy.
“Concerning the Motu proprio Traditionis custodes the Pope insisted [with the French bishops on their ad limina visit some days ago] on the fact that it must not be that the celebration of the Ancient Rite be a pretext for refusing Vatican II. “A limit must be established and ENOUGH!” he insisted with the Bishops of France to the end that a liturgical attraction must not be cover for an ideological posture. With that, the Successor of Peter incited them to adopt a “paternal attitude” toward the faithful.”
The word “basta” in any latinesque language connotes real anger, voiced sotto voce by the mafia hit-man before a kill, or in the loud shouting of one who is frustrated, cornered, at the end of his rope: “BASTA!” In English such a proclamation of exasperation is likely to be followed by theological methodologies of localities: “ENOUGH! DAMN IT!” The message for the bishops is clear: either they smack priests down or they will be smacked down.
The superlative, if you will, of “basta” is “bastone”, a cane, stick, that with which you would club someone to death, as in the verb bastonare. The image is that of a mafioso smashing someone’s brains out with a baseball bat. You know the famous scene in The Untouchables. It’s the “We’re-the-‘men-of-consensus’-or-else!” baseball-bat-scene”. BTW, this is very violent, but, I think, a poignant analogy regarding the “paternal attitude” (godfather attitude) that is desired from bishops who do not smack down any non-team players among their priests, any priest who’s not a “man of consensus”:
The frustration and resulting anger comes from the weird insistence that the Ancient Rite is somehow itself an ipso facto structuring of the faith of adherents such that, Pope Francis presumes, the Ancient Rite adherent will have such a non-team player reject the spirit of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council (whatever that is).
FUN FACT: The Ancient Rite was the Mass of the Council. It was the only Latin Rite of Mass offered at the Council. Every single Latin Roman Rite Mass was the Traditional Latin Mass. So, I mean, like, um…
For myself, being born before “Vatican II”, I can attest to the fact of the celebration of Second Vatican Council. I accept that. It happened. Yep. Is that enough? Or must I say more. I can say a lot more.
If I did say more, I’m sure that I would be held to be a non-team player, not a man of consensus, a traitor to the spirit of the Council, a betrayer who needs to be bastonato by paternal ecclesiastics somewhere in Rome.
FUN FACT: The bishops at the Council, the “Fathers” of the Council, were allowed to disagree with sentences, paragraphs, articles, or even entire documents, even all of them. No one made a fuss about that. THAT’s the purpose of having a Council. Francis: EVERYONE MUST THINK LIKE I DO OR ELSE, DAMN IT!
Um… just… wow… That’s not the spirit of the Council, is it? If it is, it’s not Catholic in the least.
The spirit of the Council is all about the sycophantry of the non-thinking fear driven “yes men” with whom Francis surrounds himself.
Bishops: “We obey you! We worship you! You are god!”
Question: Why do I say these things? Answer: Galatians 2:11.
Traditionis custodes is defective as law, for it attempts to do evil things. Therefore, that “law” is not law at all. Traditionis custodes is not be obeyed nor disobeyed, for it is nothing. It is to be ignored.
Some evil things:
The lex orandi – the Sacrifice of Jesus at Holy Mass – is held to be invalid also as a source of faith, lex credendi. This is absurd, demonic. It’s not a law as it is evil.
If temporarily the TLM is to be offered it cannot be offered in any parish church but rather Jesus must be tossed out of His own church.
But, I get it. These guys are nervous. They’re trying to out-politicize Pope Francis. Can’t be done. He’ll see through that instantly, and laugh. No one is better at politics than Pope Francis.
What has to be done is to demonstrate Traditionis custodes to be evil and therefore not a law at all instead of trying to find loopholes as if it were law to begin with.
Having said that, I’m quite sure my time will come to be put to the test: “Stop saying the TLM! Novus Ordo only!” As Saint Thomas More said, it depends on the wording. “Accept Vatican II!” It depends on the wording. We’ll see what happens. We have to be as clever as serpents while being innocent as doves.
You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, with the point being to kill as many flies as possible.
But, of course, there are some who think that it’s not about playing on the instincts of the flies. Instead, it’s all about obliterating them all by brute force. Attracting to kill is a show of weakness. Just kill ’em all!
However, if you put out honey, killing the flies, you might also at the same time and in the same way attract honey bees, and that will be good all around for everyone and everything. And it makes for lots of pollinated flowers for the Immaculate Conception.
The “just kill ’em all!” crowd – if they would just take a breath – might see that what they thought were flies were actually honey bees, which help them, nourish them, make life sweet for them. “NO! JUST KILL ‘EM ALL!” Sigh.
I might have added some appropriate categories and tags to this post, just enough to get killed. All for you, Mary, you who stood under the Cross when the Lord of the Flies was attacking your sweet Son, who will, of course, come to judge the living and the dead and the world by fire. Amen.
Pope Francis, with supreme bridge burning, claims that all those who offer or attend the Traditional Latin Mass are lost to ideology. It used to be that the word “ideology” was used quite exclusively for Marxism, Atheistic Communism, you know, the hammer and sickle mockery of God stuff, whereby people were tortured and killed by the hundreds of millions, Stalin, Mao et alii. But, I mean, like, see the picture above. Ideology is from the Father of Lies, Satan.
Ideology is that which is disconnected from reality, being merely one’s own singular idea that is projected onto everything and everyone regardless of inconsistencies and contradictions, egoism and arrogance, violence and the cancellation of life. Marx imposed his analysis of dialectical materialism so as to impose hatred of God, hatred of neighbor, hatred of self, killing everyone and destroying everything, inconsistent and contradictory to the One True God of Life, forbidding worship of God, forbidding conscience and individual rights. There is no softer version of ideology; it’s just a matter of how much violence you want to use to smash others down who do not share your ideology. It only gets more violent, ever darker, with no hope whatsoever.
Francis is saying that all those who offer or attend the TLM are now ideologues who must be stopped, and stopped now. Everything that was the pastoral intention of Pope Benedict XVI (which he misinterprets) has been (already past tense) transformed into ideology, no exceptions, all are ideologues, all men, women, youngsters, children, infants, sucklings at the breast, and they, as a group, must be stopped! After a “survey”, Francis said:
“The concern that appeared the most was that something that was done to help pastorally those who have lived a previous experience [but not only! Summorum Pontificum of Benedict XVI 7 July 2007] was being transformed into ideology. That is, from a pastoral thing to ideology.”
“Was being transformed” = fait accompli. It’s all ideology, and all are ideologues.
INTERVIEWER: “I don’t know if Pope Francis is a man who likes to bang his fist on the table. Would it be possible that the last blow on the table has been the pontifical document limiting the celebration of the ‘Tridentine Masses’? And I also ask you to explain to my audience what the ‘Tridentine Mass’ is, what is it about the Tridentine Mass that is not mandatory.”
POPE FRANCIS: “I’m not one to bang on the table, I don’t get it. I’m rather shy. The history of Traditionis custodes is long. When first St. John Paul II—and later Benedict, more clearly with Summorum Pontificum—, gave this possibility of celebrating with the Missal of John XXIII (prior to that of Paul VI, which is post-conciliar) for those who did not feel good with the current liturgy, who had a certain nostalgia… [That’s not Benedict’s motivation] it seemed to me one of the most beautiful and human pastoral things of Benedict XVI, who is a man of exquisite humanity. And so it began. That was the reason. After three years he said that an evaluation had to be made. An evaluation was made, and it seemed that everything was going well. And it was fine. Ten years passed from that evaluation to the present (that is, thirteen years since the promulgation [of Summorum Pontificum]) and last year we saw with those responsible for Worship and for the Doctrine of the Faith that it was appropriate to make another evaluation of all the bishops of the world. And it was done. It lasted the whole year. Then the subject was studied and based on that, the concern that appeared the most was that something that was done to help pastorally those who have lived a previous experience was being transformed into ideology. That is, from a pastoral thing to ideology. So, we had to react [a dialectical usage there] with clear norms [clear=brutal, as in throwing Jesus out of His own church, off His own altar, part of his protocol]. Clear norms that put a limit to those who had not lived that experience [No. This kicked everyone in the face with extreme prejudice]. Because it seemed to be fashionable in some places that young priests would say, “Oh, no, I want…” [judging that this desire cannot be about Jesus, that these young priests cannot have pure motives, but only evil motives] and maybe they don’t know Latin they don’t know what it means [but it’s more likely they know Latin better than he does, and that’s his real fear]. And on the other hand, to support and consolidate Summorum Pontificum. [obliterating it, literally erasing it] I did more or less the outline, I had it studied and I worked, and I worked a lot, with traditionalist people of good sense. And the result was that pastoral care that must be taken, with some good limits. For example, that the proclamation of the Word be in a language that everyone understands; otherwise it would be like laughing at the Word of God [which just demonstrates how little he knows]. Little things. But yes, the limit is very clear. After this motu proprio, a priest who wants to celebrate that is not in the same condition as before—that it was for nostalgia, for desire, &c.— and so he has to ask permission from Rome. A kind of permission for bi-ritualism, which is given only by Rome. [Like] a priest who celebrates in the Eastern Rite and the Latin Rite, he is bi-ritual but with the permission of Rome. That is to say, until today, the previous ones continue but a little bit organized. Moreover, asking that there be a priest who is in charge not only of the liturgy but also of the spiritual life of that community. If you read the letter well and read the Decree well, you will see that it is simply a constructive reordering, with pastoral care and avoiding an excess by those who are not…” [[ You can read the rest at LifeSite]]
In Article 1 of Traditionis custodes Francis vaunts himself as the great ideologue, destroying the Lex orandi, the Law of Prayer, the Sacrifice of Jesus at the Last Supper united with Calvary regardless of the rite, saying that that Sacrifice of the Mass at the Traditional Mass is no longer valid, and therefore is no longer valid as a source for the Lex credendi, the Law of believing. We believe that which we are presented in the Holy Sacrifice of Jesus. But if Pope Francis says this is not valid for one rite, then it is invalid for all rites. Therefore, he can come up with whatever “faith” he wants to invent by way of a dialoguing Church, which he is now founding with the Synod on Synods. Let’s see… who’s the ideologue?
For myself, the TLM has bolstered my priesthood. The TLM has pointed me very directly to Jesus and His Sacrifice, in Mass, outside of Mass. For me, this has everything to do with Jesus. For Pope Francis, it has nothing to do with Jesus.
In his General Wednesday Audience of 1 September 2021, Pope Francis spoke about the second chapter of Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, you know, about the precept of circumcision first given to Abraham. For twenty five years Abraham was not our Father in Faith, disbelieving all that time that God could give him his own son with his own wife. Then Isaac happened, and later the angel staying his arm. Abraham became a believer. But in punishment for all those years of unbelieving, of laughing at God’s promise of life, Abraham and those of the family of faith after him would have to undergo a pedagogical punishment reminding them to be open to life, a painful, graphic, disgusting punishment: circumcision. This was meant to be an occasion with which, and with God’s grace, that they could assent to having a humble, contrite heart, having their hearts circumcised, as St Paul puts it.That pedagogy of circumcision was valid only until the time when the Messiah, the Divine Son of the Living God, the God of Life, would come among us and lay down His life for us Innocent for the guilty, so that He might have the right in His own justice to have mercy on us. Jesus Himself was circumcised as a babe and then also His heart when the soldier thrust his sword into that Sacred Heart, when the very Temple was circumcised, the veil of the Holy of Holies being torn from top to bottom by the angels.
That God is the God of Life is never more evident than when the Messiah dies on the cross undergoing a painful, graphic, disgustingly brutal punishment, paying the price of our sin from Adam until the last man is conceived. Nothing can teach us better about punishment for sin, about the aptness of contrition for sin. To insist on disgusting mere circumcision as a better sign than Jesus Himself on the Cross – and then rising from the dead – is blasphemy, condemning those who do this.
Insisting on circumcision is exactly what Peter does, after the death and resurrection of the Lord:
“When Cephas [Peter] came to Antioch, I [Paul] opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.” (Galatians 2:11)
“Condemned…” Quite the strong language, that: ὅτι κατεγνωσμένος ἦν. But Peter had flipped, uselessly, hypocritically siding with those insisting on circumcision despite the Lamb of God already having been sacrificed for us so as to bring us to life. His political correctness stood condemned? “He stood condemned.” Paul reprimanded Peter as an act of charity for Peter and the whole Church, and also to save his own soul. These days, with soft ecclesiastics brutally criticizing all criticism, even Paul’s act of charity in this reprimand of Peter is rejected with the attitude that we are never to help each other to stay on the right path. That “Be soft!” attitude is execrated by so many bishops right around the world, as if they wanted us all to go to hell and go there with us.
Distinctions, distinctions! Circumcision, though a precept the breaking of which would cut one off from the family of faith, is, however, not similar to the Ten Commandments. Circumcision, as mentioned above, was a mere pedagogical and merely temporary precept, however obligatory at the time, while the Ten Commandments are instead essentially reflective of our obligations before God and neighbor and those commandments are always in force for us as creatures of our Creator.
Any blurring of the lines here between commandments and a temporary precept is gravely misleading.
But also, any blurring of the lines is not meant to raise circumcision to the level of an always-valid-commandment, but rather to lower the Ten Commandments to the level of a merely passing precepts like circumcision, which had to give way to fulfillment with the God of Life hanging from the cross. There it is. Bam.
Here’s the deal: Francis speaks of not being scrupulous about precepts. But a Catholic must scrupulously reject circumcision if circumcision is chosen against belief in the redemption wrought by Christ Jesus.
But Francis is not concerned in the least with circumcision. Francis wants to draw an analogy with our own times with other… um… mere precepts?… mere commandments?… mere laws of praying and believing?… Lex orandi lex credendi?… Here’s just a minute of that:
See the transcript here: POPE FRANCIS GENERAL AUDIENCE Wednesday, 1st September 2021 Catechesis on the Letter to the Galatians: 7. Foolish Galatians Note that I’ve changed the translation. Whoever it is translating didn’t like to use the word “rigidity”, but that’s what Francis said repeatedly. That word “rigidity” is a technical word for him. He uses it against those who give religious assent to correct doctrine and correct morality and rejoice when the Holy Sacrifice of Jesus is offered with reverence and humility and joy and no idol worship. With real anger in his voice he condemns such RIGIDITY. Here’s the core paragraph:
“In this way, Saint Paul invites us too to reflect: how do we live our faith? Does the love of Christ, crucified and risen again, remain at the centre of our daily life as the wellspring of salvation, or are we content with a few religious formalities to salve our consciences? [This doesn’t seem to refer to, say, Amoris laetitia, but rather to the Liturgy.] How do we live our faith? Are we attached to the precious treasure, to the beauty of the newness of Christ, or do we prefer something that attracts us momentarily but then leaves us empty inside? [He wouldn’t be saying that the Sacrifice of Jesus does that, would he?] The ephemeral often knocks at the door during our days, but it is a sad illusion, which makes us give in to superficiality and prevents us from discerning what is truly worth living for. [Is that a reference to Genesis 4:7?] Brothers and sisters, let us however keep the certainty that, even when we are tempted to turn away, God still continues to bestow His gifts. Throughout history, even today, things happen that resemble what happened to the Galatians. Even today, people come and harangue us, saying, “No! Holiness is in these precepts, in these things, you must do this and that”, and propose a rigid religiosity, rigidity that takes away from us that freedom in the Spirit that Christ’s redemption gives us. Beware of the rigidity they propose to you: be careful. Because behind every rigidity there is something ugly, which is not the Spirit of God. [Yep. This seems to be about the Liturgy, specifically those who love the TLM. They are all monsters who are against Christ and against the Holy Spirit. These words of his are pretty much verbatim to his continuous condemnations of religious communities and seminaries and seminarians and priests and bishops who simply love the TLM.] And for this reason, this Letter [to the Galatians] will help us not to listen to these somewhat fundamentalist proposals that set us back in our spiritual life, and will help us go ahead in the paschal vocation of Jesus. [Because the TLM, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, specifically thwarts progress in the spiritual life and removes us from the paschal vocation of Jesus?] […]”
It would be bad enough if Francis were to equivocate the precept of circumcision and the Ten Commandments, but here he equivocated a temporary pedagogical precept of circumcision with the Traditional Latin Mass, not to bring circumcision up to the level of the Holy Sacrifice of Christ Jesus, but to lower that Law of Prayer to the level of that which can be fulfilled, surpassed. That is the heart and soul of Traditionis custodes. The Sacrifice of Jesus and the faith that went with it – doctrine and morality – is old, dead, forgotten, a hindrance, the enemy of all that is good and holy, ugly and, most of all, RIGID.
It would make it a lot easier to put up with all the insults from Pope Francis if bishops were to not be so scrupulous and would go ahead and make use of Canon Law 87. Hey! There’s an idea to fulfill the wish of Pope Francis that none of us be rigid!
Anyway, too much information, but not really: It was my family practice to have males circumcised right quickly after birth, meaning that yours truly is circumcised. And while I carry that pedagogical sign of punishment of unbelief in my body, it is my wish that circumcision of the heart – as Saint Paul says – would also be mine. Mind you, that would involve quite the solidarity of my heart with the Heart of Christ Jesus. His Sacred Heart was cut up by the sword of the soldier whilst He was yet on the Cross. We will all look on Him whom we have all pierced through. Cor ad Cor loquitur. Cor cum Cordis loquitur. Our hearts are restless until…
Unity with Christ is never out of date, and while His love and truth is ever ancient, it is also ever new. No one denies this. Everyone rejoices in this. We are happy to receive absolution of real sin. We are happy to witness to Christ regardless of the cost, you know, all that parrhresia.
See link in video show notes for full story. What follows are a few snippets and then some comments.
CNA August 23, 2021 Costa Rican bishop suspends priest for saying Ordinary Form Mass in Latin ad orientem
Fr. Sixto Eduardo Varela Santamaría has been suspended by the Bishop of the Diocese of Alajuela in Costa Rica after the priest said Mass in the Ordinary Form in Latin and ad orientem. at his parish of St. Peter the Patriarch – ACI Prensa
ACI Prensa, the Spanish sister news agency of CNA, confirmed that the Diocese of Alajuela, in the Northern region of Costa Rica, ordered Fr. Sixto Eduardo Varela Santamaría to be suspended from all ministries for six months, and will be sent to a psychological treatment clinic for celebrating in Latin the Mass of the Missal of Pope Paul VI, also known as the Ordinary Form or “Novus Ordo.”
[… Even though Father Sixto said a Novus Ordo Mass] “Bishop Buigues Oller gave as a truly confusing reason [for punishing Father Sixto, because,]: according to him, the only way we could keep celebrating the Traditional Latin Mass was for us to either be in existence before 1970 or to be related to the schismatic Society of St. Pius the X (SSPX,) something that is not mentioned either by Summorum Pontificum or Traditiones Custodes,” the association told ACI Prensa.
[…] “Fr. Varela Santamaría revealed that he has temporarily been sent to his sister’s home, and that the diocese will send him to a retreat house/clinic that will provide him, “spiritual, psychological and medical attention, at least according to the website of this place.”
This is where we are headed. Can the bishops be that insanely ignorant? I doubt it. But — hey! — we’re to think the best of others, right? I guess we have a lot of insanely ignorant bishops. Meanwhile, Jesus’ own priests are effectively getting their throats slit.
Here’s the deal: When young seminarian Joseph Ratzinger was in moral theology class in Germany, a fellow seminarian stood up and asserted that Hitler would surely go to heaven if only he had an erroneous conscience, you know, because he might have had feelings that he was, like, sincere. Later, Ratzinger recounted it was at that exact moment that he realized that erroneous conscience doesn’t save. Jesus saves.
In all the hell of chaos we’re experiencing the One whom we don’t hear about is Jesus. How is it that the bishops don’t know that Christ our God, Divine Son of the Immaculate Conception, will come to judge the living and the dead and the world by fire? It’s all hush hush about the Living Truth, hush hush about proper doctrine and morality. How is it that NOT telling the Living Truth with honesty and integrity and enthusiasm and joy and charity is best way forward?
“Silence that Jesus!” Is that the way it is? I thought we were to help each other get to heaven, even to correct and admonish out of love for one another, putting no one on a pedestal, making no one beyond reach of being helped, you know, out of human respect, so that we all just go to hell together. I want to help others get to heaven so as to get there myself. That includes Pope Francis and the bishops. To leave anyone out, so that we can continue under the radar and just do our own thing, is to condemn others and oneself. If the only way to continue is to compromise one’s priesthood so as to remain a priest, one will never be a priest for anyone.
Here’s something to ponder, because if it’s in the Scriptures, it’s because it is absolutely relevant in every culture of every time and every place, for all from every tribe, tongue, people and nation:
“The apostles were brought in and made to appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. “We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name,” he said. “Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man’s blood.” Peter and the other apostles replied: “We must obey God rather than human beings! The God of our ancestors raised Jesus from the dead—whom you killed by hanging him on a cross. God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might bring Israel to repentance and forgive their sins. We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.” When they heard this, they were furious and wanted to put them to death.”
Yep. That’s the way it is. Surely all in the Sanhedrin were exclaiming to themselves that they had nice feelings about their erroneous consciences. Surely they were all on their way to heaven while exclaiming the damnation of the Apostles and of Jesus. Some things just don’t change.
Bishops today are furious, limiting the ministry of priests who speak about Jesus, who speak about good doctrine, good morality. “You’re telling everyone about Jesus!” is actually an accusation these days, as always: “People might notice, and to “have that kind of thing going on is unacceptable!”
And that means that we have the opportunity to count it a privilege to be mistreated for the sake of the Name, the Holy Name of Jesus, for upholding the Most Holy Trinity, God, before whom there is no other god, no damned Pachamama, no demons, no narcissistic human beings holding themselves to be gods.
Count it a joy. And this is true joy.
Yikes! I only right now remember Saint Francis asking Brother Leo about true joy. Remember what happened. Yikes!
We have a number of TLM altar boys. This fellow started being an altar boy when he was seven years old. That was seventy years ago. At the main Sunday Mass – 11:00am – in the main parish church, 15 August 2021, he was again an altar boy (that’s 77 years old).
Me: Introibo ad altare Dei.
Him: Ad Deum qui laetificat iuventutem meam.
His response was immediate, no stumbling over the Latin. Perfect pronunciation. God gave joy to his youth. After seventy years. He rejoices with a profound joy. As do many young families with lots of children. :-)
We had two altar boys. They coordinated well. I didn’t have to train them. Instead, they point out minutiae to me, for which I am grateful.
I’m getting psyched to do a Sung Mass. I did these in the “Upper Basilica” of the Immaculate Conception (high atop the grotto of Lourdes), when I became the first Latin Mass Chaplain in the sanctuaries since the TLM was forbidden there in the early years of post-Conciliar chaos.
Since all main altars must be free standing in the diocese, the altar cards must be supported by the six candle sticks on either side. In the middle we’ve been using two candlesticks with no candles to support the main altar card. Those were replaced by the crucifix you see him holding. I gave him that to bring in as I returned from across the mountain from another parish Mass. You’ll notice that it is very tall. The reason for that on free-standing altars is so that the crucifix is visible above the central altar card. We’ve been using the crucifix above the tabernacle for that purpose (at the back of the sanctuary), but this is rather felicitous.
We’re not letting the perfect get in the way of the good. We’re trying the best we can.
Pope Francis gets mentioned in the Roman Canon, sotto voce, of course. Traditionis custodes is an evil law, and therefore no law at all, and therefore is not to be obeyed or disobeyed, as it is simply nothing. It is to be ignored. But again, let me emphasize, for the gazillionth time, this doesn’t make me or anyone else against the person of Pope Francis. That would be absurd. We have to help each other get to heaven. I offered Holy Mass for Pope Francis this past weekend. Did you? Or did you cause a Mass to be offered for his person?
There’s a reason why I say “altar boys.” I’m very nostalgic. I was an altar boy myself. When girls started serving we automatically called them “girl-altar-boys.” I think pretty much everyone did. And then it all fell apart.
/// UPDATE: I wasn’t able to watch Part I of the Trilogy when it was released on 15 August 2021, because Sundays are rather busy days for priests. But I watched it early morning 16 August. Great! It’s on YouTube, and I could simply post the video of Part I here. But that would be very unfair to the creators of this treasure. Instead, go to their webpage and see the growing wealth of their presentation there: ///
These guys have been working on this film, a trilogy, for years about the TLM, the Mass of the Ages. High quality.
That they should be ready to bring this to the world – via YouTube – at this precise time, while the Catholic world is reeling from the harsh smackdown by Pope Francis, is most providential.
As you can see from the trailer above, just one glorious minute, we are in for a treat.
The first part will by broadcast Sunday 15 August 2021, the great feast of the Assumption, soul and body, of the Immaculate, Virgin, Mother of God, she who stood by the cross, by her Divine Son, when all the Apostles ran away. Thank God for that son of thunder, John, the beloved (=David), who returned, unable to abandon now his heavenly mother and her Son, Christ our God.
Nota bene: You might have to let the site load up for quite a while (this from someone with almost zero internet connection). It’s not blank pages that are there. Scroll down and you’ll see what is loading up. It’s worth the wait.
“Click the purple ‘GET NOTIFIED’ button to join us for the August 15th LIVE Premiere.” Everyone who signs up will get access.
That “GET NOTIFIED” purple button will (eventually appear, when it loads up) at the bottom of your screen. Click on that. As they say: Everyone who signs up will get access.
Traditionis custodes – Art. 1. “The liturgical books promulgated by Saint Paul VI and Saint John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II, are the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.”
Shocking? Get used to it. As the Synod on Synods moves forward, we see that the one established foundation of truth for dialogue is that everyone is infallible. We’re just to make it all up as we go along. A future post on that soon.
Everything Pope Francis has done through the years is consistent with dialectical materialism, which has only brought about the unity of the lowest common denominator: six feet below ground for the martyrs, hell for the sycophants after they are also buried. Memento mori.
Do I criticize publicly something that Pope Francis said or did publicly that needs criticizing for the sake of the salvation of souls? Yes. Cura animarum… Remember that, my friends?
This is what we are to do for each other as believers. Remember how Saint Paul rightly smacked down Peter when Peter what being a totally politically-correct sycophant of the idiocy du jour? Thank God. If Saint Paul didn’t do that, we wouldn’t have either Saint Paul or Saint Peter. If we don’t help each other out also in this fashion, we will go to hell for such a great lack of charity. I don’t want to go to hell. So, here we are. It ain’t my fault. I’m not the cause of division. Publicly pronounce sheer idiocy and I’ll be happy to provide a correction of that inanity. Every time. Not my fault.
If anyone wants to berate Jesus for being God, for being absolute, unmanipulatable Living Truth in all Charity, if anyone wants to tell Jesus that those wounds He still bears on his Risen Body are a joke, you tell him that. No, really! You go before Him at your judgment and tell Him that. No, better! Tell our dear Blessed Virgin Mother, the Immaculate Conception, now also in heaven soul and body, that her dear Son’s Sacrifice doesn’t count anymore. Be sure to tell her that not only was Jesus a damn fool for not being a man of consensus, but that she’s a damn fool too. I’ll be happy to watch what happens to you next. What a bunch of hypocrites.
I do not criticize Pope Francis’ person, as if I were somehow better than him. No. I’m the worst if I’m without the grace of our Lord. I’m just a jackass, but even a jackass gets to do what the dear Lord wants him to do.
Sorry, but I have to repeat this for the millionth time:
I pray for Pope Francis.
I mention his name in the Roman Canon.
I add him to the prayers of the faithful.
I actually offer Holy Mass for him. Let me repeat that: frequently, when there is a day with no Mass intention (and there are a lot of free days in this smallest of all parishes in North America), I will make Pope Francis the intention for that Mass, and I will publicly announce this, time and again, and again, and again. My question is, is there any priest or bishop in the world who prays more, offers Mass or has Mass offered more for Pope Francis than I do? Really, I doubt that. So, I will bring up that hypocrisy to anyone’s face that iterates that I’m somehow against the person of Pope Francis. I’m no schismatic. I want to be a faithful son of the Church. I’m just trying to do the best I can.
In this case, what I’m saying is that Traditionis custodes is an evil law, but an evil law is no law at all. Therefore, there is absolutely no question about obeying or not obeying Traditionis custodes, for it is simply nothing. It is to be ignored, you know, even as we pray for Pope Francis, even offering for him, as I have done, the Traditional Latin Mass in the main parish church at the main parish Mass, you know, even after 16 July 2021.
The following is from Catholic News Live. You can tell who the author is by the tell-tale “Ask Father” format with the intro to the question using the word “Quaeritur.” Just sayin’…
ASK FATHER: Must the priest wear the cassock to celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass – Oct 18, 2017 at 11:47 am
QUAERITUR: Is the cassock required for a priest to wear a cassock under his vestments when celebrating the Extraordinary Form Mass? I did not think so, and I know other priests who celebrate the 1962 Mass without it, but I was kindly told the other day it was a defect to go without it. I could not find an official determination of this question. Obviously a thorough-laced alb would look funny over anything but a cassock, but my question is about what is actually required. I am a newly ordained priest, still figuring many things out and I appreciate your help!
The Ritus Servandus in the front part of your traditional Missale Romanum has a section entitled De Præparatione Sacerdotis celebraturi… “Concerning the preparation of the priest who is going to celebrate (Mass). In paragraph 2 of that section we read:
Quibus ita dispositis, accedit ad paramenta, quæ non debent esse lacera, aut scissa, sed integra, et decenter munda, ac pulchra, et ab Episcopo itidem, vel alio facultatem habenti, benedicta; ubi calceatus pedibus, et indutus vestibus sibi convenientibus quarum exterior saltem talum pedis attingat, induit se, dicens ad singula singulas Orationes inferius positas.
Once these things are arranged, he goes to the vestments, which must not be ripped or torn, but undamaged and decently clean, and beautiful, and also blessed by the Bishop or by another having the faculty; whereupon, his feet being shod, and having dressed himself in appropriate attire [[um… it’s “convenient attire” that is, customary…]] which outwardly reaches at least to the ankle[[That’s referring to non-Mass-vestments.]], he vests himself, saying with each (vestment) the individual prayers given below [[That’s referring to Mass vestments]].
Latin talus means “ankle”. One Latin term for the cassock is habitus talaris. In Italian we say “talare” for a cassock. [[But that’s reading into the law, not interpreting it as is, using other customs of other countries in other legislative times. See below…]]
So, from the Ritus Servandus we see that it is foreseen that the priest should wear the cassock for Mass. [[That’s not what it actually says, is it?]]
However, I admit that I often dispense myself from the cassock when it is hot [[because he sees this as at most being a defect, and not a mortal or even venial sin. I gotta wonder if some priests go that far…]]. In that case, I always use a plain alb with no lace. [[Kudos. His is a good instinct, as expected, seeing the reasoning behind whatever “appropriate attire which outwardly reaches at least to the ankle.”]] Even when I do have the cassock on, I usually wear a plain alb unless it is a feast, but that’s another matter.
Interesting. Let’s see what’s happening in other legislative times in other places where lawful custom has reigned. Let’s take a look at the commentary on the Code of Canon Law by the USCCB:
Canon 284 – Clerical Garb — On November 18, 1998, the Latin Rite de iure members of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops approved complementary legislation for canon 284 of the Code of Canon Law for the Latin Rite dioceses of the United States.
The action was granted recognitio by the Congregation for Bishops in accord with article 82 of the Apostolic Constitution Pastor Bonus and issued by decree of the Congregation for Bishops signed by His Eminence Lucas Cardinal Moreira Neves, Prefect, and His Excellency Most Reverend Franciscus Monterisi, Secretary, and dated September 29, 1999.
Complementary Norm: The National Conference of Catholic Bishops, in accord with the prescriptions of canon 284, hereby decrees that without prejudice to the provisions of canon 288, clerics are to dress in conformity with their sacred calling. [[That refers to both “street wear” and liturgical rites.]]
In liturgical rites, clerics shall wear the vesture prescribed in the proper liturgical books [[referring to liturgical vestments]].
Outside liturgical functions [[not referring to liturgical vestments]], a black suit and Roman collar are the usual attire for priests. The use of the cassock is at the discretion of the cleric. [[And obviously one is not going to wear a suit-coat under liturgical vestments.]]
In the case of religious clerics, the determinations of their proper institutes or societies are to be observed with regard to wearing the religious habit. As President of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, I hereby decree that the effective date of this decree for all the Latin Rite dioceses in the United States will be December 1, 1999. Given at the offices of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops in Washington, DC, on November 1, 1999.
Most Reverend Joseph A. Fiorenza -Bishop of Galveston-Houston -President, NCCB
Reverend Monsignor Dennis M. Schnurr – General Secretary
Mind you, this is after there are legitimate celebrations of the TLM and the Novus Ordo going on at the same time in the same bishops conference. The law for both street wear and for that which is worn under liturgical vestments is covered.
The intent of the law of yore and presently for the TLM is that what is worn under liturgical vestments be of ankle length. Period. Why? I mean, I’ve seen the so-called “talare” be commonly worn in the style of a house-dress, reaching only just below the knees, not at all to the “ankles” as the name would imply, and whatever about “shod feet” this looks very, very, very odd indeed. It’s typically a French thing but I’ve seen this in other countries. Put a lace alb over that lack of cover, as mentioned above… just… no…
But surely, you might be saying, a priest would be wearing trousers under all that. No. Priests I know wear knickerbockers under their cassock. You know what knickerbockers are, don’t you?
Actually, I’m not relating that quite rightly. They wear knee length gym shorts. And because that was a custom and because wearing a very short cassock was also a custom, and because all of this looked so incredibly utterly stupid under a laced alb, legislation refers merely to that which goes down to the ankles, which neither cassock nor even talare nor even trousers necessarily did, as most wore / wear knickerbockers with short cassocks.
So, I say, with the actual wording, the intent of the legislation is about whatever convenient (customary) attire there is (see USCCB for our time in our place) is about vesture going down to the actual ankles. Trousers which cover the tops and sides of “shod feet” fit the law, fittingly. It’s not a mortal sin, venial sin, fault, defect or insult to the Sacred Mysteries to be wearing ankle-length trousers under the Sacred Liturgical Vestments. Indeed, it can be more virtuous, more law abiding, to wear ankle-length trousers without a short cassock called talare only by custom not reality.
It’s not that I never wear a cassock (and it’s ankle length). That’s a picture of a much younger me while TLM chaplain in Lourdes to the right and my successor TLM chaplain at Lourdes to the left (and now district superior of FSSP).
Sometimes it is difficult to wear a cassock:
The ballistic vest says: POLICE CHAPLAIN.
So, alright, I admit it. The only cassock I have, while ankle length, is appropriate only for the northern stretches of Norway, a “winter cassock”, very heavy, lined, the works, the only thing offered by many ecclesiastical tailors as that’s what makes them money. A summer cassock, more like a servers cassock, or what the French call a “gooney cassock” along the lines of the great don Camillo, is something I may be able to get now that I’m stateside. I’ve been negligent. Just don’t tell me I’ve been in mortal or venial sin for not wearing a cassock, a talare, either on the street or in liturgical rites. It’s not a even a fault or defect to not wear that particular ankle length attire. Trousers that are ankle length and not knickerbockers are are even virtuous. Think virtue.
By the way, I think it is still a law on the books in Boston (from centuries gone-by) that one can legally shoot a priest who wears a cassock in public. That’s one of those laws that is not only not a law in view of natural law, but is also not a law because of it not being received by the populace. We are a for, of and by the people constitutional republic here in these USA.
Francis: You must accept Vatican II or… or… or… splutter splutter…!
Father George: Do you mean to say against Pope Saint Paul VI that Vatican II is dogmatic and infallible?
Francis: NO! I agree that Vatican II is pastórially pastóral and means nothing doctrinally or morally! Are you crazy in the head, little Father George!?! I’m so angry with you!
Father George: Well, Jorgito, if Vatican II means nothing except passing prudential judgements, which times are passed, and therefore by definition everything in Vatican II means nothing, are you wanting me to say that Vatican II means nothing?
Francis: It’s not nothing! It’s the spirit of Vatican II that I’m talking about! It’s ambiguous! It’s the way to reject all that it is good and holy! And that’s something! Why aren’t you ambiguous like me? Why do you follow Jesus with clarity, saying that Jesus is absolute truth, unmanipulatable Truth, even the Way and the Life, in whom you rejoice!?! You are to be rejected as a priest for having the pretense of having great joy in the Holy Ghost! You are bad and evil, little Father George!
Father George: Why don’t we take the sixteen documents, sentence by sentence, which will take centuries?
Francis: You don’t get it, do you!?! I’m not talking about some stupid sixteen documents! I’m talking about the spirit of the Council, my spirit, which I want to project unto you, force into you, so that you are reflection of me! I’m the spirit of the Council!
Father George: I am the Pope’s good servant, but God’s first.
Father George: Oh, I almost forgot. Hier stehe ich. Ich kann nicht anders. Gott helfe mir.
Francis: splutter, splutter, splutter…
Father George: And besides, Pope Saint Pius X said that ambiguity was to be treated just like any heresy, for it’s purpose is to lead people into heresy, and away from Christ Jesus, Divine Son of the Immaculate Conception, who will come to judge the living and the dead and the world by the ardent flames of Living Truth of the Holy Spirit.
Pope Francis: Agghh!!!!!! I’m gonna forbid you to say the TLM!!!!!!!!!
Father George: So what?
Where’s that picture photoshopped by a traditionalist website? Ah yes…
The guy who took the picture of me almost smashed his camera on the ground. He couldn’t get it to stop the bright sheen. He said that that light gives the totally wrong impression. And that’s true. It does. But I am a validly ordained priest despite their putting “Fr.” in scare quotes. Also, I’m guessing that photoshopping Francis as a Lutheran is an insult to the Lutherans.
Traditionis custodes: “Art. 1. The liturgical books promulgated by Saint Paul VI and Saint John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II, are the unique [=only, l’unico] expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.”
Let’s demonstrate the heresy in article one of Traditionis custodes:
(1) Francis pits the two rites (Traditional Latin Mass and the New Order of Mass) against each other, delegitimizing the TLM as not being at all an expression of the lex orandi, the Law of Praying merely because of having different rubrics. In other words, Francis equates rubrics and the Law of Praying. Wrong! That’s a hellish insult of Christ Jesus.
(2) All rites of Holy Mass throughout the Church throughout history constitute the Law of Praying each of them and together, for the Law of Praying is that, in the Holy Mass, Christ Jesus is offering Himself to the Father with us at the Last Supper united with Calvary, all this regardless of the rite, regardless of the century, regardless of the place, regardless of the culture, regardless of the people assisting at that particular Holy Mass in that particular rite. The Law of Praying is univocal, one expression of the Law of Praying, the one Sacrifice of Jesus, the Divine Son of the Living God, Divine Son of the Immaculate Conception, who redeems us, and please God saves us in this Law of Praying.
(3) The mention in article one above of lex orandi is inescapably a reference to an ancient formula variously reported from a disciple of Saint Augustine, Prosper of Aquitaine. The most common received maxim, continuously cited by all, entirely correct right through the centuries, is Lex orandi lex credendi. “The law of praying is the law of believing.” In other words, the One Sacrifice of Jesus in every rite of Mass is that by which, in which we believe all of divinely provided faith.
(4) To reduce this Most Holy Sacrifice of Jesus to mere rubrics and then delegitimizing one set of rubrics, one rite of Mass which has been offered from time immemorial until this very day, is to attack Jesus personally, to attack His Sacrifice, to attack that which we believe in divinely provided faith about that one Sacrifice of any and all rites regardless of any rubrics. To equate rubrics and faith is an attack on the faith, delegitimizing all faith from time immemorial until this very day. The only true faith is to be found in the rubrics of the New Order of Mass with the New Order of Faith insisted upon by self-absorbed and self-congratulatory Promethean Francis.
(5) Oh, and don’t think this is about also disabusing the New Rite of Mass of abuses. There can be no abuses in the mind of Francis, for he committed the worst abuse of all, spoken of by Daniel, by Jesus and in the Apocalypse, setting up, establishing, enthroning that Abomination of Desolation, that demon idol Pachamama on the Altar of Jesus’ Sacrifice, the Papal Altar in Saint Peter’s Basilica, where by divine mandate it must not be.
(6) Daniel also mentions that there will be ending of the Daily Sacrifice at this time. What Francis has done is equating rubrics and faith for one rite while entirely ignoring the Holy Sacrifice of Christ Jesus is not only to say that one rite of Mass, the TLM, is illegitimate and an incorrect source of believing, but he has simultaneously said the Sacrifice of the Mass in all rites – that pesky of law of praying – is incorrect and must be discarded, including the Sacrifice of the Mass in the New Rite of Mass. Get that? In the eyes of Francis, the Daily Sacrifice has ended, the Faith has ended. He can make it up as he goes along.
(7) In the Synod on Synods, now already in motion with consultation, it is first of all said right up front that the faith doesn’t matter in the least, for it is all relative to whatever consultation comes up with, it being that the entire population is infallible. More on that latter. But what it means is that if dialogue results in Pachamama being a nice thing, then idol worship and blasphemy and sacrilege will be the “faith.” If same-sex marriage is dialogued out to be a nice thing, then that will be the “faith.” Etc. And of course, all of those things and more will have special liturgies in the New Order of Mass. There are already Pachamama liturgies.
(8) Therefore we already have a total lie in the very title of the document. For Pope Francis, the bishops are destroyers of Tradition, of the faith, which is why he says that they are custodians of Tradition. This is also a heresy. Trent, in defining this, spoke of Tradition as that which is handed on almost as if by hand, quasi per manus, having it that this is actually done by the Holy Spirit. But the Holy Spirit is blasphemed as the Spirit of ___________ (fill in the blank).
(9) In those same years as Augustine and Prosper of Aquitaine, it is Saint Vincent of Lérins who had his own correct maxim cited and held by all, always and everywhere: “Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all.” Let’s see: “Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est”:
That would be the faith, the law of believing, the lex credendi, which shines forth from the law of praying, the Sacrifice of Jesus offered in whatever rite with whatever rubrics, as offered by all peoples of all ages and everywhere.
What Francis has wrought in Traditionis custodes is heresy, blasphemy, and is not a law of any kind, and therefore is not to be obeyed, disobeyed, nothing, for it is simply nothing.
ALSO, don’t think I’m angry with Pope Francis, or bitter, or some stupid thing like that. I think that what he does is terribly wrong, but I publicly pray for him, I publicly not only mention him in the Roman Canon, but frequently offer Holy Mass for him, though somewhat ironically, of course, offering the Traditional Latin Mass in the parochial church as the main parish Mass on Sunday. And that intention is pronounced in the hearing of all the people.
I want to be a good son of the Church. I want to go to heaven. One of the things I do toward that end is to go to confession. I try to go weekly. When I get the chance, I go more than that.
I apologize for any typos and such in this screed. I typed as fast as I could possibly go early this morning. I’m too worn out to go back over it. I’m just a weak and fallen human being. I’m no better than Francis on my own. We all need to look to the grace of Jesus, Divine Son of the Immaculate Conception. We all need to help each other get to heaven. I want to see Pope Francis in heaven. That’s the only way I’ll ever get to heaven. No one is out of reach of the Sacrifice of the Mass. But Jesus does want us to assent, to believe in the Holy Sacrifice. Jesus wants that His law of praying is our law of believing. I’m with Jesus. I am Francis’ good servant, but God’s first. Amen.
There was to be a pilgrimage to the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception with the Traditional Latin Mass on the Vigil of the great Solemnity of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary, soul and body, into heaven. “Was to be…”
All was prepared, but then, just now, a couple of weeks beforehand, it was cancelled by the powerful powers that be, now cancelling even a bishop who has full rights to celebrate Mass Mass in that basilica without need to ask any permissions (outside of arranging logistics of schedules). The TLM was condemned as inappropriate in times of Traditionis custodes, and Canon 87 was also condemned, as it is judged that the universal law of the Church which grants bishops leeway to grant dispensations over against such as Traditionis custodes when such statutes and regulations are merely a heavy burden placed upon the shoulders of the faithful. There are powerful powers that be that won’t lift a finger to help with those burdens, who are only eager to add to those burdens. So very sad.
I include that picture up top, that being yours truly offering the TLM, a Solemn High Mass, on the great Solemnity of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, soul and body, into heaven. When I see what is happening now, I recognize how great that privilege was in the Lower Basilica of Pius X in the Sanctuaries of Our Lady of Lourdes back in 2008, with a pilgrimage present inside that Basilica of some seven to eight thousand people. The chasuble may have been donated from Pius IX himself. I feel terribly humbled by this, and that leads me to being most indignant for Jesus, for the bishop and the pilgrims who have been spit upon for what would have been the upcoming TLM at the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception.
Father Dana is dying of ALS. He’s a friend of friends for me, and I met him a number of times here in North Carolina. What a great priest. Read his cry from the heart by clicking on “Continue reading” above. Hail Mary…
When some of my own unrepeatable circumstances weigh on me, I think of other priests such as Father Dana. His very life of profound faith in the midst of impossible circumstances – his very life now on what will be his death bed being an act of intercession for the entire Church – is a great encouragement to me.
Let’s begin this screed here in the Diocese of Charlotte, NC, USA, with our Vicar General’s email sent out late Saturday night [the day after, 17 July, 2021]. It contained the above PDF from the Most Reverend Bishop. We are now to “begin to study” [indefinite time frame] and only then will we “being to consider” [a consecutive indefinite time frame]. That refers to quite a long space of time, which is prudent, given the weighty but oft contradictory commentary of Canon lawyers, bishops and cardinals, with wildly different and contradictory applications right throughout the world.
This already testifies to the stunningly ambiguous and imprecise nature of both the “Letter” of Pope Francis and the “Motu proprio”. This allows for lots of wiggle room, say, loopholes. In the discovery of those loopholes, those suffering the restriction are to be given the widest possible latitude, the least restrictive interpretation possible.
There is some emotionalism regarding this highly controversial letter because of the Promethean “manner and tone”, angry and sarcastic, the taunting, the baiting. It’s quite bullying, non-Fatherly, quite the iron fist, no mercy, no accompaniment, just a literal casting into the peripheries (further comment on that below). In other words, however imprecise the Canon law in these “documents” of Pope Francis, we know precisely, incisively, painfully, exactly what he means. Burn it all!
It’s prudent to wait some time while more knowledgeable minds opine. I saw a great comment the other day, for instance, which would solve a great deal of anguish:
When there is a matter of discipline, that is, something not absolutely essential to the faith, an odious and unbearable burden foisted upon Christ’s faithful, priests or laity, any demand for obedience to that prescription, that law, can be lifted by the local ordinary with the stroke of a pen. Yes. Very cool, that. I mean, we’re interested in the motivation of Canon Law and other law, that is, the care of souls, the cura animarum. I, for one, expect this care for Jesus’ Little Flock from our Shepherds.
There is concern that “at the moment, and until further notice [uh oh… or is that just being diplomatic? ;-) ] those priests who have already been offering the Extraordinary Form of the Mass [btw: using that language is a most polite but strong rejection of Pope Francis’ efforts, much along the lines of what Cardinal Mueller has just published. ;-) ] may continue to do so.” Great, for the moment, I mean, that does sound a bit ominous, but we’ll see how it works out.
There is also the statement that we will be “moving together as a diocese in a smooth and orderly transition to the new course charted by Traditionis Custodes.” That is also a merely very carefully phrased statement, for it could include dispensations from prescriptions that are most odious to the faithful. ;-)
While there are a myriad internal inconsistencies and contradictions and impossibilities and ambiguities in both the “Letter” and the “Motu proprio” of Pope Francis, there are a couple of observations which I am compelled in conscience to make as a priest of Christ Jesus.
There are circumstances in which the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass offered in the traditional use is cast right out of any parish church. Well, there are consecrated non-parish churches or chapels close to Charlotte, such as Belmont Abby and, certainly, the new seminary chapel. And that makes me laugh out loud with great joy. You can’t get better than that, you know, if you live nearby to those places, you know, like the seminarians. Door to door travel time both ways for someone in my parish would be fully ten hours, not to mention the time to arrive early, assist at the Mass, and a little time to pray afterward. Can you imagine the burden for those who are elderly, weak? How terribly cruel would that be? Very.
The solution for my parish, in the middle of nowhere back-ridges at the end of the diocese, would be to sanction that this form of the Mass be offered in the ultra-filthy slimy Community Center of the town. The Mayor of Andrews has already promised that I can have a few early morning hours every Sunday provided no one else has signed up for that time. And that’s unworkable for a thousand reasons where people travel from a number of other states to get here.
But this brings us to the heart of that which horrified me. There are plenty of good reasons for Holy Mass to be said outside of any parish church. Priests said Holy Mass in their bunks in Auschwitz, for instance. Or how about this:
But this action of Pope Francis is an attack from inside the Church. Not to be done.
To throw out any Rite of Holy Mass, right out of any and all parish churches, is to physically throw Jesus Christ Himself out of His own church, His own sanctuary, His own altar. “Damn you, you damn Jesus!” Isn’t that what’s being said? Just a question. But a valid and necessary question that is, at any rate, perhaps, rhetorical.
Oh, I forgot! I get it now! Pope Francis did this on the Feast of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, and Alexander Tschugguel went into the Carmelite church at the end of Via della Conciliazione up from the Vatican, grabbed the demon idol Pachamama, brought it to the Tiber River, and threw it in the river. What Pope Francis is doing – throwing Jesus out of His own church – is it in vengeance for Pachamama being thrown out? Remember that Pope Francis held a worship ceremony for the demon idol Pachamama, and then had the demon Pachamama placed on the Papal Altar in Saint Peter’s (above Saint Peter’s bones). This is the Bdelugma, the abomination of desolation where it should not be (see Matthew 24:15; Mark 13:14).
In other words, Pope Francis has equated Jesus and Pachamama.
“But Father George! Father George! You obviously didn’t read what Pope Francis wrote about how much he hates abuse of the New Order of Mass! What you say cannot be! You’re an old meanie, rigid!”
Well, here’s the deal, for Pope Francis there is no abuse possible in the Novus Ordo Mass, for he himself is the worst abuser of the New Order of Mass, having enthroned the demon idol Pachamama on the Papal Altar.
HERE’S MY PROPHESY:
There will be forced concelebrations of all priests once a month, say, with their bishop at their Cathedrals, with each occasion having having a different theme:
Gay-marriage theme in honor of enculturation of Germany
Demon Pachamama idol theme in honor of enculturation of the Amazon
Dirt-bringing theme in honor of enculturation of aboriginal peoples in Australia
Red-Mass theme in honor of pro-abort politicians, making sure all them get Holy Communion
Need I continue for all 12 months of the year? I think you get the idea. Perhaps you can think of other themes.
If you are a bishop somewhere in this world trying to suck up to Pope Francis, smashing down priests, but having no intention of following up yourself on such diabolical behavior, know that you will be the next target. If this is done to Jesus, don’t think you are safe. And then what will you do? Follow Jesus or deny Him. Those who deny Him in this world be denied by Him before His Heavenly Father.
BONUM EX INTEGRA CAUSA, MALUM EX QUOMUNQUE DEFECTU:
“A thing is good because it is integrally so; a thing is evil on account of any defect. An evil law is no law at all. It can’t be obeyed or disobeyed; it is simply nothing. The law-giver is acting ultra vires, beyond his powers. It is to be ignored.
To put that differently, disobedience of a subject to an evil order from a superior is supreme obedience, an act of charity beneficial to the subject, to the superior, to all others who hear of it.
I AM JOYFULLY ENTHUSIASTIC IN MY HOPE TO SEE POPE FRANCIS IN HEAVEN
I’m not angry, bitter, upset with Pope Francis. I pray for him. Thanks be to God and to the prayers of many, even I rejoice in profound peace. I offered Holy Mass for Pope Francis today. I included bishops who are cancelling priests unjustly. I included priests who are have been cancelled, and those who are in the process of being cancelled unjustly, and know it or don’t know it.
The irony is that the Holy Mass that I offered was in the use of the Traditional Latin Mass at the main parish Mass in the Main parish church this past Sunday, two days after this was forbidden. The letter of my own bishop was sent out late Saturday night, but I knew nothing of it until after Sunday, on Monday morning. :-)
God called us to live in this time. Let us have the joy and peace of the Holy Spirit, come what may. Hail Mary…
OH! AND HERE’S ANOTHER PROPHESY…
I’m thinking that Pope Francis will require all priests to get vaccinated with vaccines which are dangerous and immoral, having been derived from living tissue ripped from babies as they are taken living out of the womb. Priests who are faithful to baby Jesus in the womb of His dear Immaculate Virgin Mother will be dismissed forthwith from the clerical state (laicized) and large numbers of Jesus’ Little Flock will be deprived of the sacraments. Jesus is not happy with that, nor is our Blessed Mother.
ONE LAST PROPHESY…
Those who are close to Jesus and Blessed Mother (say the Rosary!) will find themselves rejoicing in heaven.
That was the Noon Mass. It’s all about the Lamb of God.
I still haven’t read the missive at 7:45 pm, nor was there any note from the chancery. And no, I don’t trust the Vatican communications crowd. They have blatantly lied many times and changed texts. Why should I trust those who repeatedly lie? When I get a copy promulgated in the Acta in Latin I’ll consider considering it.