Quoted:

That's operating under the assumption that a reinstitution of the TLM would lead to an increase in Church-wide attendance. That's a big assumption, and your "evidence" that it would by showing the attendance rates at TLM masses is anecdotal at best. It relies on too small a pool and too homogeneous a sample.

Quoted:
P

Bottom line: If the Church stopped recognizing (and I hope they never do) the sacraments of the TLM, would you abide by its decision, and would you still acknowledge him as the legitimate heir to the Seat of Peter?

ETA: And do you not see how the Trads/NO identifications are problematic within the Roman Rite? You did not address the first part of that post, and I think it's important.

Quoted:

You and H46Driver share the same myopia on this subject. You continually equate the abrogation of the TLM with just about all evil that is currently befalling the Catholic church. Heresy, apostasy, drop in attendance, the subversion of the church from the inside, etc. etc. You do this to the point where you question the authority of the Magisterium. What else is one supposed to conclude from those statements?

And I continue to be baffled by the second point of your statement, one that is shared by several others: Namely, that the abrogation of the TLM is the cause of all these woes. The statement highlighted in red: Show me the data.

Quoted:

What does "downfall" mean? either way, the answer is no; Vatican 2 was the breaking open of the crust where the magma of modernism spewed forth.

Quoted:


How is this a surprise? I said "duplicitous" didn't I?

Sure, anyone can say something...once....but all of their subsequent actions are what really tell the story.

It's not what is "said", but what is "done" that defines a man.

Quoted:


Question:  why do you reject V2 and the NOM
Amswer: I don't reject V2 or the NOM. I prefer TLM, but NOM is valid

https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/23930/8F879627-B4A9-40BF-BF49-47300D6C6565_png-2026857.JPG

Quoted:


You mean like recommending that the guy considering leaving his NO parish talk to his pastor, get involved in his parish, and, most importantly, pray about it?

Quoted:


How about you work within the NO, as many have suggested, pushing for changes within it rather than pushing the TLM so hard?

I'm not talking about, "Well at my old Church...", I'm talking about doing it now. Go to a TLM for your own worship, but still play an active part of in an NO Church to alter it. That's what the logical extrapolation of this would look like.

You are saying that you are all for changing the NO from within (at least that's what you think others should do), but meanwhile you will only participate in the TLM if you have your druthers.

I'm working from within mine to allow for kneeling at the alter rails, (which we now have rails), taking communion in the tongue without issue now that vaccines are out, more Latin usage in mass, etc.

I'm working within the NO, not hiding behind the walls of the TLM attacking the Pope and the contemporary Church.

Quoted:
Other selected quotes from this thread:

Further proof that the smoke of Satan has not only entered the Church, but that it now sits upon the Chair of Peter.  I will continue to pray for this miserable pope's repentance and conversion, but I will also now pray for a speedy end to his papacy.

It's been Traditionalists who have opposed Bergoilian plans (yeah, VG, I finally said it - but only because Franciscan would be confusing) to further Protestantize the liturgy, grow syncretism and indifferentism, promote homosexuality as holy, disestablish traditional gender roles, etc.

So why do TLM parishes teach the truth and, apparently, most NO parishes don't?

I'll stop here because I don't care to re-read the entire thread. The question posed was "Plenty of assertions from some in this thread about non-acceptance of V2 without any examples of non-accepted teachings.". Now granted, you could logically say that none of what I posted technically could be defined as "not accepting the teachings of V2", but that is semantics, pure and simple. The hatred and vitriol directed at the Pope and the actions ascribed to the church in just the quotes above do not give me the warm fuzzies about someone embracing the Magisterium or its decisions.

Quoted:

I have been to NO mass in a dozen states, four countries, several Navy ships, and in the Italian, French, Portugese, Spanish, and English.  None of them had those 4 things.  Two were ad orientum:  Sunday Mass at Santa Maria Maggiore and Saturday evening Mass at the JEB Little Creek chapel.  None have had Gregorian chant, and only my previous parish had much use of Latin:  the Sanctus, the Agnus Dei, and the Mysterium Fidiei (this exists only in the NOM).

Statement on the Motu Proprio «Traditionis Custodes»

Many faithful – laity, ordained and consecrated – have expressed to me the profound distress which the Motu Proprio «Traditionis Custodes» has brought them. Those who are attached to the Usus Antiquior (More Ancient Usage) [UA], what Pope Benedict XVI called the Extraordinary Form, of the Roman Rite are deeply disheartened by the severity of the discipline which the Motu Proprio imposes and offended by the language it employs to describe them, their attitudes and their conduct. As a member of the faithful, who also has an intense bond with the UA, I fully share in their sentiments of profound sorrow.

As a Bishop of the Church and as a Cardinal, in communion with the Roman Pontiff and with a particular responsibility to assist him in his pastoral care and governance of the universal Church, I offer the following observations:

1.  In a preliminary way, it must be asked why the Latin or official text of the Motu Proprio has not yet been published. As far as I know, the Holy See promulgated the text in Italian and English versions, and, afterwards, in German and Spanish translations. Since the English version is called a translation, it must be assumed that the original text is in Italian. If such be the case, there are translations of significant texts in the English version which are not coherent with the Italian version. In Article 1, the important Italian adjective, “unica”, is translated into English as “unique”, instead of “only.” In Article 4, the important Italian verb, “devono”, is translated into English as “should”, instead of “must.”

2.  First of all, it is important to establish, in this and the following two observations (nos. 3 and 4), the essence of what the Motu Proprio contains. It is apparent from the severity of the document that Pope Francis issued the Motu Proprio to address what he perceives to be a grave evil threatening the unity of the Church, namely the UA. According to the Holy Father, those who worship according to this usage make a choice which rejects “the Church and her institutions in the name of what is called the ‘true Church’,” a choice which “contradicts communion and nurtures the divisive tendency … against which the Apostle Paul so vigorously reacted.”

3.  Clearly, Pope Francis considers the evil so great that he took immediate action, not informing Bishops in advance and not even providing for the usual vacatio legis, a period of time between the promulgation of a law and its taking force. The vacatio legis provides the faithful and especially the Bishops time to study the new legislation regarding the worship of God, the most important aspect of their life in the Church, with a view to its implementation. The legislation, in fact, contains many elements that require study regarding its application.

4.  What is more, the legislation places restrictions on the UA, which signal its ultimate elimination, for example, the prohibition of the use of a parish church for worship according to the UA and the establishment of certain days for such worship. In his letter to the Bishops of the world, Pope Francis indicates two principles which are to guide the Bishops in the implementation of the Motu Proprio. The first principle is “to provide for the good of those who are rooted in the previous form of celebration and need to return in due time to the Roman Rite promulgated by Saints Paul VI and John Paul II.” The second principle is “to discontinue the erection of new personal parishes tied more to the desire and wishes of individual priests than to the real need of the ‘holy People of God’.”

5.  Seemingly, the legislation is directed to the correction of an aberration principally attributable to the “the desire and wishes” of certain priests. In that regard, I must observe, especially in the light of my service as a Diocesan Bishop, it was not the priests who, because of their desires, urged the faithful to request the Extraordinary Form. In fact, I shall always be deeply grateful to the many priests who, notwithstanding their already heavy commitments, generously served the faithful who legitimately requested the UA. The two principles cannot help but communicate to devout faithful who have a deep appreciation and attachment to the encounter with Christ through the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite that they suffer from an aberration which can be tolerated for a time but must ultimately be eradicated.

6.  From whence comes the severe and revolutionary action of the Holy Father? The Motu Proprio and the Letter indicate two sources: first, “the wishes expressed by the episcopate” through “a detailed consultation of the bishops” conducted by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 2020, and, second, “the opinion of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.” Regarding the responses to the “detailed consultation” or “questionnaire” sent to the Bishops, Pope Francis writes to the Bishops: “The responses reveal a situation that preoccupies and saddens me, and persuades me of the need to intervene.”

7.  Regarding the sources, is it to be supposed that the situation which preoccupies and saddens the Roman Pontiff exists generally in the Church or only in certain places? Given the importance attributed to the “detailed consultation” or “questionnaire,” and the gravity of the matter it was treating, it would seem essential that the results of the consultation be made public, along with the indication of its scientific character. In the same way, if the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was of the opinion that such a revolutionary measure must be taken, it would seemingly have prepared an Instruction or similar document to address it.

8.  The Congregation enjoys the expertise and long experience of certain officials – first, serving in the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei and then in the Fourth Section of the Congregation – who have been charged to treat questions regarding the UA. One must ask whether the “opinion of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith” reflected the consultation of those with the greatest knowledge of the faithful devoted to the UA?

9.  Regarding the perceived grave evil constituted by the UA, I have a wide experience over many years and in many different places with the faithful who regularly worship God according to the UA. In all honesty, I must say that these faithful, in no way, reject “the Church and her institutions in the name of what is called the ‘true Church’.” Neither have I found them out of communion with the Church or divisive within the Church. On the contrary, they love the Roman Pontiff, their Bishops and priests, and, when others have made the choice of schism, they have wanted always to remain in full communion with the Church, faithful to the Roman Pontiff, often at the cost of great suffering. They, in no way, ascribe to a schismatic or sedevacantist ideology.

10.  The Letter accompanying the Motu Proprio states that the UA was permitted by Pope Saint John Paul II and later regulated by Pope Benedict XVI with “the desire to foster the healing of the schism with the movement of Mons. Lefebvre.” The movement in question is the Society of Saint Pius X. While both Roman Pontiffs desired the healing of the schism in question, as should all good Catholics, they also desired to maintain in continuance the UA for those who remained in the full communion of the Church and did not become schismatic. Pope Saint John Paul II showed pastoral charity, in various important ways, to faithful Catholics attached to the UA, for example, granting the indult for the UA but also establishing the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter, a society of apostolic life for priests attached to the UA. In the book, Last Testament in his own words, Pope Benedict XVI responded to the affirmation, “The reauthorization of the Tridentine Mass is often interpreted primarily as a concession to the Society of Saint Pius X,” with these clear and strong words: “This is just absolutely false! It was important for me that the Church is one with herself inwardly, with her own past; that what was previously holy to her is not somehow wrong now” (pp. 201-202). In fact, many who presently desire to worship according to the UA have no experience and perhaps no knowledge of the history and present situation of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X. They are simply attracted to the holiness of the UA.

11.  Yes, there are individuals and even certain groups which espouse radical positions, even as is the case in other sectors of Church life, but they are, in no way, characteristic of the greater and ever increasing number of faithful who desire to worship God according to the UA. The Sacred Liturgy is not a matter of so-called “Church politics” but the fullest and most perfect encounter with Christ for us in this world. The faithful, in question, among whom are numerous young adults and young married couples with children, encounter Christ, through the UA, Who draws them ever closer to Himself through the reform of their lives and cooperation with the divine grace which flows from His glorious pierced Heart into their hearts. They have no need to make a judgment regarding those who worship God according to the Usus Recentior (the More Recent Usage, what Pope Benedict XVI called the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite) [UR], first promulgated by Pope Saint Paul VI. As one priest, member of an institute of the consecrated life, which serves these faithful, remarked to me: I regularly confess to a priest, according to the UR, and participate, on special occasions, in the Holy Mass according to the UR. He concluded: Why would anyone accuse me of not accepting its validity?

12.  If there are situations of an attitude or practice contrary to the sound doctrine and discipline of the Church, justice demands that they be addressed individually by the pastors of the Church, the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops in communion with him. Justice is the minimum and irreplaceable condition of charity. Pastoral charity cannot be served, if the requirements of justice are not observed.

13.  A schismatic spirit or actual schism are always gravely evil, but there is nothing about the UA which fosters schism. For those of us who knew the UA in the past, like myself, it is a question of an act of worship marked by a centuries-old goodness, truth and beauty. I knew its attraction from my childhood and indeed became very attached to it. Having been privileged to assist the priest as a Mass Server from the time when I was ten years old, I can testify that the UA was a major inspiration of my priestly vocation. For those who have come to the UA for the first time, its rich beauty, especially as it manifests the action of Christ renewing sacramentally His Sacrifice on Calvary through the priest who acts in His person, has drawn them closer to Christ. I know many faithful for whom the experience of Divine Worship according to the UA has strongly inspired their conversion to the Faith or their seeking Full Communion with the Catholic Church. Also, numerous priests who have returned to the celebration of the UA or who have learned it for the first time have told me how deeply it has enriched their priestly spirituality. This is not to mention the saints all along the Christian centuries for whom the UA nourished an heroic practice of the virtues. Some have given their lives to defend the offering of this very form of divine worship.

14.  For myself and for others who have received so many powerful graces through participation in the Sacred Liturgy, according to the UA, it is inconceivable that it could now be characterized as something detrimental to the unity of the Church and to its very life. In this regard, it is difficult to understand the meaning of Article 1 of the Motu Proprio: “The liturgical books promulgated by Saint Paul VI and Saint John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II, are the only (unica, in the Italian version which seemingly is the original text) expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.” The UA is a living form of the Roman Rite and has never ceased to be so. From the very time of the promulgation of the Missal of Pope Paul VI, in recognition of the great difference between the UR and the UA, the continued celebration of the Sacraments, according to the UA, was permitted for certain convents and monasteries and also for certain individuals and groups. Pope Benedict XVI, in his Letter to the Bishops of the World, accompanying the Motu Proprio «Summorum Pontificum», made clear that the Roman Missal in use before the Missal of Pope Paul VI, “was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted.”

15.  But can the Roman Pontiff juridically abrogate the UA? The fullness of power (plenitudo potestatis) of the Roman Pontiff is the power necessary to defend and promote the doctrine and discipline of the Church. It is not “absolute power” which would include the power to change doctrine or to eradicate a liturgical discipline which has been alive in the Church since the time of Pope Gregory the Great and even earlier. The correct interpretation of Article 1 cannot be the denial that the UA is an ever-vital expression of “the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.” Our Lord Who gave the wonderful gift of the UA will not permit it to be eradicated from the life of the Church.

16.  It must be remembered that, from a theological point of view, every valid celebration of a sacrament, by the very fact that it is a sacrament, is also, beyond any ecclesiastical legislation, an act of worship and, therefore, also a profession of faith. In that sense, it is not possible to exclude the Roman Missal, according to the UA, as a valid expression of the lex orandi and, therefore, of the lex credendi of the Church. It is a question of an objective reality of divine grace which cannot be changed by a mere act of the will of even the highest ecclesiastical authority.

17.  Pope Francis states in his letter to the Bishops: “Responding to your requests, I take the firm decision to abrogate all the norms, instructions, permissions and customs that precede the present Motu proprio, and declare that the liturgical books promulgated by the saintly Pontiffs Paul VI and John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II, constitute the unique [only] expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.” The total abrogation in question, in justice, requires that each individual norm, instruction, permission and custom be studied, to verify that it “contradicts communion and nurtures the divisive tendency … against which the Apostle Paul so vigorously reacted.”

18.  Here, it is necessary to observe that the reform of the Sacred Liturgy carried out by Pope Saint Pius V, in accord with the indications of the Council of Trent, was quite different from what happened after the Second Vatican Council. Pope Saint Pius V essentially put in order the form of the Roman Rite as it had existed already for centuries. Likewise, some ordering of the Roman Rite has been done in the centuries since that time by the Roman Pontiff, but the form of the Rite remained the same. What happened after the Second Vatican Council constituted a radical change in the form of the Roman Rite, with the elimination of many of the prayers, significant ritual gestures, for example, the many genuflections, and the frequent kissing of the altar, and other elements which are rich in the expression of the transcendent reality – the union of heaven with earth – which is the Sacred Liturgy. Pope Paul VI already lamented the situation in a particularly dramatic way by the homily he delivered on the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul in 1972. Pope Saint John Paul II labored throughout his pontificate, and, in particular, during its last years, to address serious liturgical abuses. Both Roman Pontiffs, and Pope Benedict XVI, as well, strove to conform the liturgical reform to the actual teaching of the Second Vatican Council, since the proponents and agents of the abuse invoked the “spirit of the Second Vatican Council” to justify themselves.

19.  Article 6 of the Motu Proprio transfers the competence of institutes of the consecrated life and societies of apostolic life devoted to the UA to the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life. The observance of the UA belongs to the very heart of the charism of these institutes and societies. While the Congregation is competent to respond to questions regarding the canon law for such institutes and societies, it is not competent to alter their charism and constitutions, in order to hasten the seemingly desired elimination of the UA in the Church.

There are many other observations to be made, but these seem to be the most important. I hope that they may be helpful to all the faithful and, in particular, to the faithful who worship according to the UA, in responding to the Motu Proprio «Traditionis Custodes» and the accompanying Letter to the Bishops. The severity of these documents naturally generates a profound distress and even sense of confusion and abandonment. I pray that the faithful will not give way to discouragement but will, with the help of divine grace, persevere in their love of the Church and of her pastors, and in their love of the Sacred Liturgy.

In that regard, I urge the faithful, to pray fervently for Pope Francis, the Bishops and priests. At the same time, in accord with can. 212, §3, “[a]ccording to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.” Finally, in gratitude to Our Lord for the Sacred Liturgy, the greatest gift of Himself to us in the Church, may they continue to safeguard and cultivate the ancient and ever new More Ancient Usage or Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite.


Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke
Rome, 22 July 2021
Feast of Saint Mary Magdalene, Penitent

Quoted:
Yeah, the things that make me angry make me angry.  This would all be so much easier if I actually was a sedevacantist.  Then I could just look down my nose and laugh at the poor rubes who have to listen to Pope Francis.  The fact that I am NOT a sede is what makes this hard.  My Church is stuck with this awful pope and I am have to pray every day for this man that I don't like very much and with whom I have many disagreements.

Quoted:

His answer was 1) Catechisis, and 2) More reverence for the blessed sacrament. He does reject the NO as being a singular fault though, but leaves open the idea that we could do more to treat it as it should be.

An Evil Edict from Pope Francis
Bishop Rob Mutsaerts
Auxiliary Bishop of ‘s-Hertogenbosch
...
What Pope Francis is doing here has nothing to do with evangelization and even less to do with mercy. It is more like ideology.

Go to any parish where the Old Mass is celebrated. What do you find there? People who just want to be Catholic. These are generally not people who engage in theological disputes, nor are they against Vatican II (though they are against the way it was implemented). They love the Latin Mass for its sacredness, its transcendence, the salvation of souls that is central to it, the dignity of the liturgy. You encounter large families; people feel welcome. It is only celebrated in a small number of places. Why does the pope want to deny people this? I come back to what I said earlier: it is ideology. It is either Vatican II—including its implementation, with all its aberrations—or nothing! The relatively small number of believers (a number growing, by the way, as the Novus Ordo is collapsing) who feel at home with the traditional Mass must and will be eradicated. That is ideology and evil.
...
Why? For God’s sake, why? What is this obsession of Francis to want to erase* that small group of traditionalists? The pope should be the guardian of tradition, not the jailer of tradition. While Amoris Laetitia excelled in vagueness, Traditionis Custodes is a perfectly clear declaration of war.

Quoted:
Shots fired from the Netherlands. I really expected it to be from Cdl. Eijk; I had never heard of Bp. Mutsaerts.  God bless him.

https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2021/07/liturgy-is-not-toy-of-popes-it-is.html?m=1

Quoted:
I noticed that Vigano uses "Bergoglio" instead of "pope Francis" here.  Does that mean he is now an open sedevacantist of some sort?  If so, that seems significant.  But maybe that is common knowledge and I have just been living under a rock.

Quoted:


I don't think that's the case.  He referred to him as pope and used the name Francis plenty in the video above.

Bishop ___________,

In light of Pope Francis’s recent motu proprio, Traditionis Custodes, I wanted to describe the impact and importance of the traditional Latin Mass in my life.  I am a man and in my  (age range).  I grew up regularly attending the Mass of Pope Paul VI in the diocese of _________ .  I attended twelve years of Catholic school there and served as an altar boy at _________ parish for the last five of those years.

I have primarily lived in ________ for the past 21 years except for a year in ________ and I have been a member of __________ and ________ parishes.  I attended my first traditional Latin Mass in late June of last year (2020) at _________.  I was immediately struck by the immense beauty and reverence of the low Mass, especially its focus on God and its quiet prayerfulness.  I felt like this mass completed my practice of the Catholic faith.  I was not eager to leave (NO parish), which I truly loved and where I had many friends, so I asked God for a month to choose a course of action.  During that month, I prayed and attended Mass often at both parishes while discerning where God wanted me to be.

While attending the First Saturday Mass at (TLM parish) on August first last year, I suddenly realized that my month was up and that this (TLM parish) was where God wanted me to be.  Since that time, my faith has grown as attending the traditional Latin Mass brought out devotion in me that is deeper than what preceded it.  I attend Mass more frequently, including daily Mass on the weekdays when my work schedule permits.  I receive the sacrament of Reconciliation more frequently; I pray more often.

I tell you these things because they are my lived experience, the effect that regularly attending this Mass has had upon me.  I have not seen the division that Pope Francis spoke of in the motu proprio or the accompanying letter.  I accept all of the teachings of Vatican II.  How could any Catholic not?  And while I believe that the Mass of Pope Paul VI is a valid Mass that conveys sacramental grace, it is the Mass of the Ages, a Mass that I am too young to have known growing up, that has deeply attracted and affected me.

I humbly ask you to prayerfully consider my experience as you face the difficult task of implementing Traditionis Custodes in the Diocese of ___________.  

Excellency, you and your fellow bishops are often in my prayers.

Sincerely,

H46Driver

Quoted:
Well, now that we got that out of the way...

https://newwalden.org/archives/30267

https://www.marcotosatti.com/2021/08/05/after-taking-down-summorum-pontificum-the-new-objective-is-inter-communion/

Dear friends and enemies of Stilum Curiae, a friend from inside the Vatican Walls tells us  and naturally the news still needs to be verified  that the reigning Pontiff wants to return to concerning himself with Intercommunion, that is, making it possible for the faithful of other non-Catholic Christian confessions to participate in the Eucharist.

Quoted:


While not terribly surprising, I don't see how they could receive worthily, other than perhaps the Eastern Orthodox faithful.

Quoted:


Just illicit?  Not invalid?

Quoted:

While not terribly surprising, I don't see how they could receive worthily, other than perhaps the Eastern Orthodox faithful.

Originally Posted By Pope Francis:
“I am not afraid of schisms,” Francis said in a 10-minute response, adding that there had been many in the 2,000-year history of the Church.

Quoted:
Well, now that we got that out of the way...

https://newwalden.org/archives/30267

https://www.marcotosatti.com/2021/08/05/after-taking-down-summorum-pontificum-the-new-objective-is-inter-communion/

Dear friends and enemies of Stilum Curiae, a friend from inside the Vatican Walls tells us  and naturally the news still needs to be verified  that the reigning Pontiff wants to return to concerning himself with Intercommunion, that is, making it possible for the faithful of other non-Catholic Christian confessions to participate in the Eucharist.

Quoted:
Well, now that we got that out of the way...

https://newwalden.org/archives/30267

https://www.marcotosatti.com/2021/08/05/after-taking-down-summorum-pontificum-the-new-objective-is-inter-communion/

Dear friends and enemies of Stilum Curiae, a friend from inside the Vatican Walls tells us  and naturally the news still needs to be verified  that the reigning Pontiff wants to return to concerning himself with Intercommunion, that is, making it possible for the faithful of other non-Catholic Christian confessions to participate in the Eucharist.

Quoted:

Thank you.

This has been prophesied. One world religion is well on its way. Communion will be taken from us again permanently. "All the Faithful will have is the Rosary. "

Interesting times. My wife & I are increasing our children's access to Confession. Unfortunately, "stage 5" precautions have been reinstated and many priest are again inhibiting the Faithful.

Originally Posted By Our Lady of Akita:

The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, bishops against bishops. The priests who venerate me will be scorned and opposed by their confreres … churches and altars sacked; the Church will be full of those who accept compromises and the demon will press many priests and consecrated souls to leave the service of the Lord … Pray very much the prayers of the Rosary. I alone am able still to save you from the calamities which approach. Those who place their confidence in me will be saved.

Quoted:


Agree. These are trials that the Church must go through for God to restore it.  Our Lady of LaSalette told of this and it's likely that Our Lady of Fatima did as well in a part of the third secret that the popes have withheld since John XXIII (see his "prophets of doom" comments).

With great trials come great graces.

Quoted:

I've heard that the 3rd secret was similar to the prophesy at Akita according to those who have read it. Malachi Martin? Essentially the Blessed Mother had to reveal the warning a second time because the masonic progressives in the Hierarchy failed to do what she instructed earlier.

I knew when it was finally revealed by the Vatican that it was only about John Paul II being shot (and surviving) it was likely BS. Child Lucia was shown hellfire full of grotesque demons and tortured souls yet was so much more disturbed by the 3rd secret that she had to be commanded to write it down. The revelation of a future pope getting shot and surviving would have made her yawn at worst.

There I learned that the Latin language was not the only distinguishing feature of this form of worship. The entire ritual was different from the post-Vatican II Mass. It wasn’t a mere translation into the modern vernacular; less than 20 percent of the Latin Mass survived into the new.

Years later, Pope Benedict allowed devotees of this Mass to flourish in the mainstream of Catholic life, a gesture that began to drain away the traditional movement’s radicalism and reconcile us with our bishops. Today, it is celebrated in thriving parishes, full of young families.

Yet this Mass and the modestly growing contingent of Catholics who attend it are seen by Pope Francis as a grave problem. He recently released a document, Traditionis Custodes, accusing Catholics like us of being subversives. To protect the “unity” of the church, he abolished the permissions Pope Benedict XVI gave us in 2007 to celebrate a liturgy, the heart of which remains unchanged since the seventh century.

In the Latin Mass, the priest faces the altar with the people. It never had oddities, as you sometimes encounter in a modern Mass, like balloons, guitar music or applause. The gabby religious talk-show host style of priest is gone. In his place, a priest who does his business quietly, a workmanlike sculptor. By directing the priest toward the drama at the altar, the old Mass opens up space for our own prayer and contemplation.

In the years after Pope Benedict liberalized the old rite, parishes began to bring back the mystical tones of Gregorian chant, the sacred polyphony written by long-dead composers like Orlando Lassus and Thomas Tallis as well as contemporary composers like Nicholas Wilton and David Hughes.

A freshman religious studies major would know that revising all the vocal and physical aspects of a ceremony and changing the rationale for it constitutes a true change of religion. Only overconfident Catholic bishops could imagine otherwise.

The most candid progressives agreed with the radical traditionalists that the council constituted a break with the past.

Pope Francis envisions that we will return to the new Mass. My children cannot return to it; it is not their religious formation. Frankly, the new Mass is not their religion. In countless alterations, the belief that the Mass was a real sacrifice and that the bread and wine, once consecrated, became the body and blood of our Lord was downplayed or replaced in it. With the priest facing the people, the altar was severed from the tabernacle. The prescribed prayers of the new Mass tended never even to refer to that structure anymore as an altar but as the Lord’s table. The prayers that pointed to the Lord’s real presence in the sacrament were conspicuously replaced with ones emphasizing the Lord’s spiritual presence in the assembled congregation.

The prayers of the traditional Mass emphasized that the priest was re-presenting the same sacrifice Christ made at Calvary, one that propitiated God’s wrath at sin and reconciled humanity to God. The new Mass portrayed itself as a narrative and historical remembrance of the events recalled in Scripture, and the offering and sacrifice was not of Christ, but of the assembled people, as the most commonly used Eucharistic prayer in the new Mass says, “from age to age you gather a people to Thyself, in order that from east to west a perfect offering may be made.”

For Catholics, how we pray shapes what we believe. The old ritual physically aims us toward an altar and tabernacle. In that way it points us to the cross and to heaven as the ultimate horizon of man’s existence.

The new ritual points us toward a bare table, and it consistently posits the unity of humankind as the ultimate horizon of our existence. In the new Mass, God owes man salvation, because of the innate dignity of humanity. Where there was faith, now presumption. Where there was love, now mere affirmation, which is indistinguishable from indifference. It inspires weightless ditties like “Gather Us In.” Let’s sing about us!

I believe the practice of the new Mass forms people to a new faith: To become truly Christian, one must cease to be Christian at all. Where the new faith is practiced with a zealous spirit — as in Germany now — bishops and priests want to conform the religion’s teaching to the moral norms of the nonbelieving society around them. When the new faith was young, after the council, it expressed itself in tearing up the statues, the ceremonies and religious devotions that existed before.

Quoted:
Pope Francis Is Tearing the Catholic Church Apart

By Michael Brendan Dougherty
Mr. Dougherty, a senior writer at National Review, has written extensively about faith and the Roman Catholic Church.

Long excerpts