Brushed off by my Bishop

[markadm]

I don’t know. I’m not privy to such information. I’m glad we have the Mass completely in the vernacular, but I readily admit that it would have been far simpler to go with a vernacular translation of the Tridentine. But there was also the goal of “noble simplicity.” The Mass of Paul VI, if celebrated properly, does acheive that goal.

I’d be excited to hear a good rendering of the Missal of Bl. Pope John XXIII in (preferrably Elizabethan-style) English.

Regarding simplicity… it has its place, at times, but I am wary of liturgical abbreviation. I compare the two Missals and can’t help feeling that we’ve been deprived of some immensely beautiful things. Guéranger condemned liturgical abbreviation, but yet I suppose he was reacting to weird Jansenist heresies at the time, e.g. the 18th Century Abbé Jacques Jubé (no Epistle, no Gospel, no nothing)!

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I’d be excited to hear a good rendering of the Missal of Bl. Pope John XXIII in (preferrably Elizabethan-style) English.

Regarding simplicity… it has its place, at times, but I am wary of liturgical abbreviation. I compare the two Missals and can’t help feeling that we’ve been deprived of some immensely beautiful things. Guéranger condemned liturgical abbreviation, but yet I suppose he was reacting to weird Jansenist heresies at the time, e.g. the 18th Century Abbé Jacques Jubé (no Epistle, no Gospel, no nothing)!

Oh, no, I quite agree, you could take it too far. But we could have kept the Tridentine with one confietor (for example), the readings given once (in the vernacular), the responses consistently made by the people,etc. I wouldn’t have gotten rid of the prayers at the foot of the altar, or the Asperges, or the Final Gospel (imagine that chanted as a recessional antiphon every mass). No, there is much there that give honor and glory to God and feeds the human soul.

 

[latinmasslover]

None of that matters in regard to the NO. It is a lawfully promulgated Mass of the Church. And there is still no evidence that the Archbishop was a mason. He denied it and the Holy See denied it. So that’s what we have to go on.

Why would Bugnini, or the Holy See, admit that the main author behind the NO was a Freemason? Freemasonry has been condemned by the Church and the Blessed Virgin in numerous apparitions and has been referred to as “evil” by both.

"I have never had any interest in Freemasonry: I do not know what it is, what it does, or what its purposes are.”

What a lie! Any prince of the Church who makes that claim needs more than a light slap on the wrist. The fact is, Bugnini admits that the accusation was made, and therefore he was sent away. Admitting to it would’ve defeated the purpose of what he was doing. What cop infiltrates into a gang and, when accused of being a cop, says “Well, yes, I am in fact a cop…but that has nothing to do with why I’m here today.” It’s ridiculous. One only has to look at his theology to know that he was a Freemason, in spirit even if not a formal member.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Why would Bugnini, or the Holy See, admit that the main author behind the NO was a Freemason? Freemasonry has been condemned by the Church and the Blessed Virgin in numerous apparitions and has been referred to as “evil” by both.

"I have never had any interest in Freemasonry: I do not know what it is, what it does, or what its purposes are.”

What a lie! Any prince of the Church who makes that claim needs more than a light slap on the wrist. The fact is, Bugnini admits that the accusation was made, and therefore he was sent away. Admitting to it would’ve defeated the purpose of what he was doing. What cop infiltrates into a gang and, when accused of being a cop, says “Well, yes, I am in fact a cop…but that has nothing to do with why I’m here today.” It’s ridiculous. One only has to look at his theology to know that he was a Freemason, in spirit even if not a formal member.

How do you know that it is a lie as far as his involvment? Are you saying that our hierarchs (Bugnini was not a cardinal, ie, not a prince of the Church) are or should be well-versed in free masonry? And can you present his theology side by side with the teachings of freemasonry so that they can be compared? Have you compared them?

 

[latinmasslover]

How do you know that it is a lie as far as his involvment? Are you saying that our hierarchs (Bugnini was not a cardinal, ie, not a prince of the Church) are or should be well-versed in free masonry? And can you present his theology side by side with the teachings of freemasonry so that they can be compared? Have you compared them?

Actually, I have. Read up on Freemasonry, their beliefs of what the Church should be, and you will find these similarities with the beliefs of Bugnini, as well as many other bishops and cardinals.
A good source would be the Alta Vendita, it’s all there. When you’re in the researching mood (and my tone is not rude here) look up the changes the Protestant “Reformers” made to the Mass, the *reasons *they did it, and the ***effect ***it had. Freemasons have admitted to infiltrating the Church to corrupt it from within, the Blessed Virgin warned of it, the popes have said that the smoke of Satan has entered the Church…and I believe it was said on EWTN that JPII trusted very few people in the Vatican. Funnily enough, everybody wants to make every statement out of Rome Gospel. This is condemned infallibly at Vatican Council I. Jesus told us to obey the Scribes and Pharisees, and then he condemned them. The same thing is happening in the Church today, and anybody who doesn’t see it *very likely *is **choosing **not to see it, and those people are condemned, as Jesus Christ Himself said.

That is why the Catholics make such a big deal regarding the form of the Mass. The results of the NO are the same as when the Protestants did their revisions, abuses only add to the corruption. “Against the truth there is no argument.” You can deny the facts and live in fantasy land, or face up to the facts and try to make a difference. Pushing for reverent NO is not the answer if it means that one will no longer push for the TLM.

And about what I said earlier, about the TLM becoming the only Mass; as has been shown since VII, the “extraordinary” always becomes the “ordinary.” It’s only a matter of time.

The Church is in a load of trouble today because She’s been too nice, resulting in apostasy, heresy, schism, lukewarmness, loss of faith, etc. A word of truth is often needed, and among the “Catholics,” it is usually necessary to be harsh, as Jesus was with the Jews, versus the Gentiles. Jesus was looked down upon for holding to the truth of the ages, not the modern corrupted “truth” of His time.

 

[GerardP]

But again, the Holy See denied that the Archbishop and others were masons.

The Holy See denied JPII’s Parkinson’s for a long long time.

So how does the flock arrive at the truth if the shepherd is supposed to be lying?

Absolute Certitude is not always possible.

What if it’s NOT true? What if the Holy See is not lying?

It doesn’t really matter when looking at the results. I think I posted a quote from Dietrich von Hildebrand that said that if one of C.S. Lewis’ devils from the Screwtape Letters had been given the task of destroying the Roman Rite. He couldn’t have done a better job than what has already happened.

In the balance, who should we believe?

Whatever or whoever is the most traditional. Hold fast to the traditions as St.Paul says, “though WE or an angel of light preach a different gospel.” St. Paul and the Holy Ghost obviously thought “We” meaning the heirarchy were fully capable of preaching a different gospel.

Has anyone claimed that they saw the Archbishop engaged in masonic ceremonies, saw him take an oath or make a pledge or a funny handshake?

Tito Casini was the reporter who publicly made the accusation in 1974. Micheal Davies claims a roman priest who says he had evidence of Bugnini’s freemasonry had it placed in the hands of Paul VI. Davies doesn’t say that he had the proof but he was convinced that whatever was placed in Paul VI’s hands convinced Paul VI that Bugnini was a freemason.

Who were they and why, in the balance, should we believe them over the Holy See?

Because of the similarities of Bugnini’s efforts with freemasonic principals and the goals of the permanent instruction of the Alta Vendita.

In the absence of definitive proof, how do we know that all of this isn’t the sin of calumny?

It’s the general consensus of history not a personal vendetta against the man. If it turns out the story of the Appian Way is not true, is that a detraction of St. Peter?

 

[rtconstant]

The OP asked the bishop for help in finding a priest to say the TLM. The bishop replied that “he believed that language didn’t matter, and that it is imperative that people are able to understand the mass.” and that the Novus Ordo was the normative form.

Well it is the normative or ordinary form. Albeit that isn’t what the OP was asking about.

The “need” for the TLM is not the bishop’s call. From what the OP stated the closest one is 8 hours away. So, it sounds like there are no needs for “further” TLMs since there are none at all. How very prudent of his excellency.

You make a broad assertion. Ever stop to think there is no need to an EF any closer than 8 hours away? One person asking doesn’t qualify. When there is no EF near the burden falls on those who want one to demonstrate the need. If they have not then it isn’t the bishop’s fault.

Again for many diocese the need for an EF can easily fall within the juridiction of the bishop as many priets who want to do a public EF will likely still have to seek the approval of their bishop to replace or add a new mass (whether EF or OF).

The OP didn’t ask for a lecture on the Novus Ordo or what the bishop “believes” about the vernacular vs Latin. He asked for help in finding a priest in his diocese who can say one.

The bishop should have referred him to Ecclesia Dei if he didn’t want to do anything.

This is true. If the bishop was unaware of or didn’t have a local priest qualified for the EF he should have sent the OP towards Ecclesia Dei. No argument there.

He could have asked if there were priests who said private TLMs and helped him exercise his right to attend that one.

In other words, the bishop did nothing in accord with the Holy Father’s wishes to provide for the faithful.

That’s just drama. More accurately the bishop (if reported fully and correctly) could have handled the OP’s request better. However, we have nothing that suggests he isn’t doing everything he can in providing for the Faithful.

 

[latinmasslover]

That’s just drama. More accurately the bishop (if reported fully and correctly) could have handled the OP’s request better. However, we have nothing that suggests he isn’t doing everything he can in providing for the Faithful.

When you’re doing everything you can, or intend to, you don’t avoid the question. My parish priest did the exact same thing, and the abuses during the NO Masses that he celebrates have grown. He won’t even discuss the issues with me, but won’t mind throwing a fit when I go to the bishop with this, not that he’ll do anything either. It’s the same in many parts of the country…they just don’t care, ignore it and it will go away. If they continue doing that then Jesus is going to come a lot sooner than expected (not that they’re expecting it as many don’t even believe it) and He’s going to be pretty darn perturbed with His unfaithful stewards.

 

[30miller]

When you’re doing everything you can, or intend to, you don’t avoid the question. My parish priest did the exact same thing, and the abuses during the NO Masses that he celebrates have grown. He won’t even discuss the issues with me, but won’t mind throwing a fit when I go to the bishop with this, not that he’ll do anything either. It’s the same in many parts of the country…they just don’t care, ignore it and it will go away. If they continue doing that then Jesus is going to come a lot sooner than expected (not that they’re expecting it as many don’t even believe it) and He’s going to be pretty darn perturbed with His unfaithful stewards.

You are right on target as usual, latinmasslover.

I’d also like to add that it appears that New York’s Cardinal Egan has (inadvertantly, I’m sure) defined what “coetus” and “stable” mean regarding how big and stable a group is required to make a request of and receive the remarkable assistance of their Bishop (Cardinal) - in making their groundbreaking (and not even directed by a papal MP at that) request happen. The number is TWO. Thank you Cardinal Eagan for putting that issue to rest. See the attached link: nytimes.com/2007/09/29/nyregion/29academy.html?ex=1191729600&en=b514412194b3542f&ei=5070&emc=eta1

 

[otjm]

Basically you do have a problem with “why” I have a preference. You’ll allow me to prefer something as long as I don’t say why.

No, I suggest that you find a way to say “why” that does not come across as putting down the OF, which you have thoroughly done in this thread. For anyone who has not experienced the EF, having someone come in and “dis” the only form of the Mass they are familiar with is a really good way to get the opposite reaction that you are looking for. Most people, when they feel attacked, have a tendency to either "fight or flight"mode; in either case, they will not be receptive to something different.

Preferring is to put one thing above another in its value. You have a problem it seems with the reasons for this value being objective and not subjective.

No, my problem is with the way you present. You end up coming across as disparaging the OF. That will not sit well with those who have little or no knowledge of the EF, which includes a whole lot of people.

How judgmental you come off. It must be tough sitting that high up and making all of those predictions about how the rabble will react.

Advice is free, and you are free to reject it. Enthusiasm tempered does not cease to be enthusiasm.

Wrong. Most people are dissatisfied which is why Mass attendance is so low according to leading Catholic indicators. Most Catholics unfortunately think that the Novus Ordo is as good as it gets. So, they leave, go into apostasy or start to tinker with it in order to “make it relevant.”

Most indicators I have seen show that one of the leading causes of people leaving the Church is because of poor to non-existenet catechesis, not because of the form of the Mass. the second leading indicator I have seen is secualrism, and in particular the sexual “liberation” that goes hand in hand with it. another leading indcator is materialism, as it makes possessions and money into the god to be worshiped.

 

[Ignatius]

Your best bet is to avoid the bishop and look for a willing priest. The bishop’s stand on the matter is largely irrelevant. Here is a site that helps put people in touch with willing priests and other like-minded faithful in their region. I don’t know how effective it is, but it’s a start:

lumengentleman.com/findcontacts.asp

Actually, the bishop needs to be charitably corrected. As another poster suggested, contact the Ecclesia Dei Commission --and send them your bishops response.

 

[stmaria]

Oh, no, I quite agree, you could take it too far. But we could have kept the Tridentine with one confietor (for example), the readings given once (in the vernacular), the responses consistently made by the people,etc. I wouldn’t have gotten rid of the prayers at the foot of the altar, or the Asperges, or the Final Gospel (imagine that chanted as a recessional antiphon every mass). No, there is much there that give honor and glory to God and feeds the human soul.

For once I agree with you JKirk. What you have outlined is what the* Constitution on the Liturgy *called for.

 

[GerardP]

No, I suggest that you find a way to say “why” that does not come across as putting down the OF, which you have thoroughly done in this thread.

That would be a challenge considering the reason “why” I prefer the TLM is because it is the real Roman rite and not what then Cardinal Ratzinger called “fabricated liturgy. or a banal, on the spot product.”

I used to wonder how an institution could last 2000 years with my experiences of 12 years of Catholic schooling and post-conciliar liturgies.

Then I found out about the origins of what I was going to each Sunday.

For anyone who has not experienced the EF, having someone come in and “dis” the only form of the Mass they are familiar with is a really good way to get the opposite reaction that you are looking for.

The problem is, all you see is “dissing” as if it’s not based on facts. We can go over the texts of the two missals and I’ll show you, not only what is missing but what the modernist purpose was behind each change. Reading the Ottaviani Intervention which is based on the Latin missal is a major revelation. I’ve already mentioned the changes in the Confiteor and the Kyrie. You haven’t responded.

Most people, when they feel attacked, have a tendency to either "fight or flight"mode; in either case, they will not be receptive to something different.

Most people pay close attention when you tell them they’ve been robbed and losing more and more of their inheritance year after year.

Originally Posted by GerardP
Preferring is to put one thing above another in its value. You have a problem it seems with the reasons for this value being objective and not subjective.

No, my problem is with the way you present. You end up coming across as disparaging the OF. That will not sit well with those who have little or no knowledge of the EF, which includes a whole lot of people.

I’ve been reading a book on Christian Unity by Card. Augustin Bea culled together from speeches, articles and interviews before the Council as he was doing his preparatory work. One of the “problems” he cited is that the Catholic Church cannot pretend that it is equal with the separated Churches and communities. This disproportionality is inevitably going to upset people who are doggedly going to defend their positions. His solution was just to tell the truth and let the chips fall where they may.

Advice is free, and you are free to reject it. Enthusiasm tempered does not cease to be enthusiasm.

It’s just lukewarm. And you know what Christ thinks of those who are neither hot nor cold.

Most indicators I have seen show that one of the leading causes of people leaving the Church is because of poor to non-existenet catechesis, not because of the form of the Mass. the second leading indicator I have seen is secualrism, and in particular the sexual “liberation” that goes hand in hand with it. another leading indcator is materialism, as it makes possessions and money into the god to be worshiped.

The late Michael Davies expressed it perfectly and quoted the current Holy Father when he wrote in an article: "The Cardinal expressed his belief that the suppression of the old Mass marked a “break in the history of the liturgy the consequences of which could only be tragic.” He accepted that **"the ecclesial crisis in which we find ourselves today depends in great part on the collapse of the liturgy." “I was dismayed at the ban on the old Missal,” he went on, “since such a development had never been seen in the history of liturgy. The impression was given that this was completely normal.”

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Most indicators I have seen show that one of the leading causes of people leaving the Church is because of poor to non-existenet catechesis, not because of the form of the Mass. the second leading indicator I have seen is secualrism, and in particular the sexual “liberation” that goes hand in hand with it. another leading indcator is materialism, as it makes possessions and money into the god to be worshiped.

What indicators are you talking about? And while I wholeheartedly agree that catechesis has been poor (and I consider the liturgy to be the primary form of catechesis) how do you reach the conclusion that the form of the Mass has nothing to do with the drop in Mass attendance?

I know I’ve given this link out before but here it is again:

Novus ordo Missae:
The record after thirty years

unavoce.org/Novus_ordo_record.pdf

 

[Sure]

What indicators are you talking about? And while I wholeheartedly agree that catechesis has been poor (and I consider the liturgy to be the primary form of catechesis) how do you reach the conclusion that the form of the Mass has nothing to do with the drop in Mass attendance?

I know I’ve given this link out before but here it is again:

Novus ordo Missae:
The record after thirty years

unavoce.org/Novus_ordo_record.pdf

You always trot this one out…why did Mass attendance drop more in the 9 years before the new Mass than in the 9 years following the new Mass???

 

[stmaria]

You always trot this one out…why did Mass attendance drop more in the 9 years before the new Mass than in the 9 years following the new Mass???

I can’t take your word for it. Where did you get it.

 

[Sure]

I can’t take your word for it. Where did you get it.

Oops sorry.

Here is the link:

cara.georgetown.edu/ATTENDPR.pdf

And, I’m sorry I meant 11 years before and after not 9…

From 1958 to 1969 - 74% to 62% = -12%
From 1969 to 1980 - 62% to 52% = -10%

 

[Jean_Anthony]

This thread is closed.