Thank God, holding hands during the Our Father hasn't made its way here. Some priests go down the aisle shaking hands. Some leave out the hand-shaking altogether. Sometimes people are still wandering around shaking hands even after the priest has continued with the Mass. When I attended mid-week evening Mass at a nearby parish, Communion was available under both species and a couple of people did the self-intinction until the priest announced at Mass that it was forbidden. They didn't do it again. That was never a practice here. I don't know where those people got the notion to start dipping the Sacred Host into the chalice. Maybe they saw it at some Eastern rite Mass and decided it made them holier. Fine for them but what about the coeliac coming behind them in the Communion line? That priest expressed concern about the Precious Blood dripping off the Host onto the floor. I think that there would be a lot of resistance if priests were instructed to celebrate the Mass ad orientem, or as some people call it "turning his back on the people". In fairness, not all that long ago I would have been among those who didn't understand the significance of ad orientem.
I second Dolours on this. Thanks for making us aware of these homilies. I haven't listened to any yet, but I bookmarked the site as I have never heard of it before. I'm always on the lookout for more good solid Catholic teaching.
We're fortunate here, Mario, in that most hospitals have a chaplaincy, often provided by a religious order. And there's Mass at least once per month in any of the nursing homes I'm familiar with. I hope it's the same when my turn comes. I fear that the growing apostasy among the next generation as well as non-Catholics in the caring professions will result in nobody thinking to call a priest for me. I'll make sure to leave everybody I meet in no doubt about my wishes. Thank God for people like you willing to serve Jesus and His Church. Often a thankless job in this life, but you will get your reward in the next life where it matters most.
The simplest antidote, I believe, will be the most effective. Lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi (as we worship, so we believe, so we live). According to both Cardinal Sarah and Pope Benedict XVI, the cause and answer to the problems in the Church are obvious. From Cardinal Sarah's address at the 10th anniversary of Summorum Pontificum: (emphasis is mine) "Certainly, the Second Vatican Council wished to promote greater active participation by the people of God and to bring about progress day by day in the Christian life of the faithful (see Sacrosanctum Concilium, n. 1). Certainly, some fine initiatives were taken along these lines. However we cannot close our eyes to the disaster, the devastation and the schism that the modern promoters of a living liturgy caused by remodeling the Church’s liturgy according to their ideas. They forgot that the liturgical act is not just a PRAYER, but also and above all a MYSTERY in which something is accomplished for us that we cannot fully understand but that we must accept and receive in faith, love, obedience and adoring silence. And this is the real meaning of active participation of the faithful. It is not about exclusively external activity, the distribution of roles or of functions in the liturgy, but rather about an intensely active receptivity: this reception is, in Christ and with Christ, the humble offering of oneself in silent prayer and a thoroughly contemplative attitude. The serious crisis of faith, not only at the level of the Christian faithful but also and especially among many priests and bishops, has made us incapable of understanding the Eucharistic liturgy as a sacrifice, as identical to the act performed once and for all by Jesus Christ, making present the Sacrifice of the Cross in a non-bloody manner, throughout the Church, through different ages, places, peoples and nations. There is often a sacrilegious tendency to reduce the Holy Mass to a simple convivial meal, the celebration of a profane feast, the community’s celebration of itself, or even worse, a terrible diversion from the anguish of a life that no longer has meaning or from the fear of meeting God face to face, because His glance unveils and obliges us to look truly and unflinchingly at the ugliness of our interior life. But the Holy Mass is not a diversion. It is the living sacrifice of Christ who died on the cross to free us from sin and death, for the purpose of revealing the love and the glory of God the Father. Many Catholics do not know that the final purpose of every liturgical celebration is the glory and adoration of God, the salvation and sanctification of human beings, since in the liturgy “God is perfectly glorified and men are sanctified” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, n. 7). Most of the faithful—including priests and bishops—do not know this teaching of the Council. Just as they do not know that the true worshippers of God are not those who reform the liturgy according to their own ideas and creativity, to make it something pleasing to the world, but rather those who reform the world in depth with the Gospel so as to allow it access to a liturgy that is the reflection of the liturgy that is celebrated from all eternity in the heavenly Jerusalem. As Benedict XVI often emphasized, at the root of the liturgy is adoration, and therefore God. Hence it is necessary to recognize that the serious, profound crisis that has affected the liturgy and the Church itself since the Council is due to the fact that its CENTER is no longer God and the adoration of Him, but rather men and their alleged ability to “do” something to keep themselves busy during the Eucharistic celebrations. Even today, a significant number of Church leaders underestimate the serious crisis that the Church is going through: relativism in doctrinal, moral and disciplinary teaching, grave abuses, the desacralization and trivialization of the Sacred Liturgy, a merely social and horizontal view of the Church’s mission. Many believe and declare loud and long that Vatican Council II brought about a true springtime in the Church. Nevertheless, a growing number of Church leaders see this “springtime” as a rejection, a renunciation of her centuries-old heritage, or even as a radical questioning of her past and Tradition. Political Europe is rebuked for abandoning or denying its Christian roots. But the first to have abandoned her Christian roots and past is indisputably the post-conciliar Catholic Church. [........] In this global context, therefore, and in a spirit of faith and profound communion with Christ’s obedience on the cross, I humbly ask you to apply Summorum Pontificum very carefully; not as a negative, backward measure that looks toward the past, or as something that builds walls and creates a ghetto, but as an important and real contribution to the present and future liturgical life of the Church, and also to the liturgical movement of our era, from which more and more people, and particularly young people, are drawing so many things that are true, good and beautiful. I would like to conclude this introduction with the luminous words of Benedict XVI at the end of the homily that he gave in 2008, on the Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul: “When the world in all its parts has become a liturgy of God, when, in its reality, it has become adoration, then it will have reached its goal and will be safe and sound.”
It is not like that at all. The overwhelming reason why we are at this point is because the freemasons/ communists/ modernists infiltrated the Church and brought in teachings contrary to that which has always been taught before. 2 John 1 : 7-11 7For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist. 8Watch yourselves, that you do not lose what we have accomplished, but that you may receive a full reward. 9Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son. 10If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; 11for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds. Romans 16: 17-18 17I urge you, brothers and sisters, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. 18For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people. 1 Corinthians 5 : 6-8 6Your boasting is not good. Don’t you know that a little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough? 7Get rid of the old yeast, so that you may be a new unleavened batch—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 8Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old bread leavened with malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. Matthew 7 : 15-20 15“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. Galatians 1 : 6-9 6I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 9As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!
Benefits of Using Latin in the Liturgy & in the Church Include: The use of a single language allows us to pray "in one voice." The use of Latin protects Church dogma - "Dogma is unchangeable and needs to be expressed in a language not subject to change. A single change in words can imply a change in doctrine." With a universal language, it is not necessary to have separate Masses for persons of varying nationalities (thereby segregating the congregation and causing disunity). A single language promotes unity both locally and worldwide. "But amid this variety of languages a primary place must surely be given to that language which had its origins in Latium, and later proved so admirable a means for the spreading of Christianity throughout the West. And since in God's special Providence this language united so many nations together under the authority of the Roman Empire - and that for so many centuries - it also became the rightful language of the Apostolic See. Preserved for posterity, it proved to be a bond of unity for the Christian peoples of Europe." (Pope John XXIII, "Veterum Sapientia", 1962 A.D.) The use of Latin is a sign of unity and safeguards doctrine: "The use of the Latin language prevailing in a great part of the Church affords at once an imposing sign of unity and an effective safeguard against the corruption of true doctrine." (Pope Pius XII, "Mediator Dei", 1947 A.D.) The Latin Language may be considered "immutable". "For the Church, precisely because it embraces all nations and is destined to endure until the end of time...requires a language which is universal, immutable, and non-vernacular." (Pope Pius XI, "Officiorum Omnium", 1922 A.D.) The use of a universal language spares the Church the trouble and expense of creating and constantly updating a multitude (hundreds and hundreds) of translations into the vernacular. Note: Experience since the 1960's shows that this is an expensive and daunting task, which has been plagued with errors (even serious ones). Each translation may require at least one commission and may go through a long approval process. Each new translation risks confusion, disunity, error, etc. Each new translation may bring with it a high cost (including high fees for experts). With so many languages and translations, it also becomes difficult even to get them approved, possibly leading to the use of unapproved translations. Further, translations into "living languages" tend to become obsolete as time goes by. The Latin language is majestic and concise: "Of its very nature Latin is most suitable for promoting every form of culture among peoples. It gives rise to no jealousies. It does not favor any one nation, but presents itself with equal impartiality to all and is equally acceptable to all. Nor must we overlook the characteristic nobility of Latin's formal structure. Its 'concise, varied and harmonious style, full of majesty and dignity' makes for singular clarity and impressiveness of expression." (Pope John XXIII, "Veterum Sapientia", 1962 A.D.) "It is fitting that Christ be praised universally by a united tongue." It is fitting that a universal Church use a universal language. "Since 'every Church must assemble around the Roman Church,' and since the Supreme Pontiffs have 'true episcopal power, ordinary and immediate, over each and every Church and each and every Pastor, as well as over the faithful' of every rite and language, it seems particularly desirable that the instrument of mutual communication be uniform and universal, especially between the Apostolic See and the Churches which use the same Latin rite. When, therefore, the Roman Pontiffs wish to instruct the Catholic world, or when the Congregations of the Roman Curia handle matters or draw up decrees which concern the whole body of the faithful, they invariably make use of Latin, for this is a maternal voice acceptable to countless nations." (Pope John XXIII, "Veterum Sapientia", 1962 A.D.) The Church is unchangeable and it is fitting for her to use a language that is also "unchangeable". Note that when certain words in a language change, this tends to cause division. The worldwide use of Latin gives us a universal bond: "In addition, the Latin language 'can be called truly catholic.' It has been consecrated through constant use by the Apostolic See, the mother and teacher of all Churches, and must be esteemed 'a treasure...of incomparable worth.' It is a general passport to the proper understanding of the Christian writers of antiquity and the documents of the Church's teaching. It is also a most effective bond, binding the Church of today with that of the past and of the future in wonderful continuity." (Pope John XXIII, "Veterum Sapientia", 1962 A.D.) When vernacular languages are used instead of a universal language, the Church hierarchy tends to lose control. The use of Latin protects against heresy (note that vernacular languages are subject to frequent changes of meaning). A universal language saves time and prevents people from being left out (e.g. rather than forcing the Pope to address a dozen people in their native languages, he can simply address them in a universal language - and this way no one is left out). With a universal language, visiting prelates can say Mass in any parish with little difficulty. It makes sense that our priests should have to learn only one language rather than many. (continues...)
The use of Latin "ties us together in a common culture" and unites us with those who have gone before us: "It is without doubt elevating and inspiring to offer [the] sacrifice [of the Mass] and pray in the very language and in the very words, whose forcible yet sweet tones once resounded in the mouths of the primitive Christians and our forefathers in the dark depths of the Catacombs, in the golden areas of the ancient basilicas, and in the sumptuous cathedrals of the Middle Ages. In the Latin language of divine worship innumerable saints, bishops and priests of all times have offered [the] sacrifice [of the Mass], prayed, and sung... Should not this ancient Latin language of divine service, so venerable and hallowed in its origin and use, be extremely dear and precious to us, so that we would not for any price give it up or be deprived of it at the celebration of Holy Mass?" (Gihr) It is fitting that Almighty God be worshipped in a majestic language. "Since the Latin language has been withdrawn from daily life, from the ordinary intercourse of mankind, since it is not heard on the street or in the market-place, it possesses in the eyes of the faithful a holy, venerable, mystic character... The celebration of this mystic Sacrifice [of the Mass] fittingly calls for a language elevated, majestic, dignified and consecrated; religious sentiment demands this" (Gihr). As one well-known Catholic convert has said, "The vernacular has robbed the Mass of its majesty and mystery." (Brown) The use of a universal language allows us, the members of a universal Church, to speak with one another ("without a common tongue, we cannot all speak to each other"). Without a universal language, even the hierarchy of the Church will be divided and unable to talk to each other. The use of Latin is a sign of historical continuity in the Church: "The use of the Latin Language is, not metaphysically but historically, connatural to the Catholic Church, and is closely connected even in the poplar mind with things ecclesiastical. It also constitutes an important instrument and sign of historical continuity in the Church." (Amerio) When Latin is used in the liturgy, the faithful can feel at home in every Catholic church in the world: "As it is, the Latin unites the Western Church together in one Catholic body with a union which is that of a family or a household. Every Catholic is at home in every Catholic church of the world. Moreover, the Latin keeps the whole Church in union with the See of Rome, the source and principle of Catholic unity." (Bishop Hedley) "The use of the Latin language in the liturgy contributes to a sacred atmosphere and safeguards the purity of the doctrine by preventing heterodox translations." The worldwide use of Latin the Church was an impressive sign to those outside the Church. "It used to be a tribute to the Church that all her children spoke the same language." Since the Church has "gathered all nations", it is proper that she should make use of a language that is universal and not tied to one particular nation. "In her bosom we behold how the Holy Ghost has 'gathered all the nations from out of the babel of tongues into the unity of faith.' Being formed of 'all nations and tribes and peoples and tongues' she constitutes but one family of God, one kingdom of Christ, a kingdom not of this world, but exalted above every nation of the earth. Therefore, it is proper that the Church, when celebrating divine worship, when offering the divine sacrifice [of the Mass], should make use not of the language of some one single country or nation, but of a language that is universal, consecrated and sanctified. Thus, at the altar is a figure of the heavenly Jerusalem, where all the angels and saints in unison sing their 'Holy, holy, holy' and Alleluia." (Gihr) As one well-known Catholic convert has said, "The existence of a common liturgical language of some kind is a sign of the Church's mission to reverse the curse of Babel and to create a body of unity between the peoples." (Dawson) Remember also that "The confusion of languages at Babylon was the expression of God's anger." (Fr. Groenings) The Latin language lifts us up: "One virtue of Latin, perhaps the least, is that it makes no attempt to get everybody talking: it is the language of Holy Church, of God's priest, not 'my' language. And it is a language imposed by the Mystery itself, the language of Pontius Pilate and of those who being his contemporaries crucified the Incarnate Lord as our agents, the language of the penitent Gentiles. It lifts us out of our complacent English suburb and our self-sufficient century into that universal moment in which man first acknowledged the divine Savior, the Son of the Living God. The vernacular reverses the procedure. The whole change has been made in concession to ourselves. The vernacular is the language of our private prayers, the grammar of our private life. It accompanies an extensive and potentially disastrous change of mind" (Mr. Gregory, as quoted by Davies) The Latin language is especially useful for education. "In accordance with numerous previous instructions, the major sacred sciences shall be taught in Latin, which, as we know from many centuries of use, 'must be considered most suitable for explaining with the utmost facility and clarity the most difficult and profound ideas and concepts.' For apart from the fact that it has long since been enriched with a vocabulary of appropriate and unequivocal terms, best calculated to safeguard the integrity of the Catholic faith, it also serves in no slight measure to prune away useless verbiage. Hence professors of these sciences in universities or seminaries are required to speak Latin and to make use of textbooks written in Latin. If ignorance of Latin makes it difficult for some to obey these instructions, they shall gradually be replaced by professors who are suited to this task." (Pope John XXIII, "Veterum Sapientia", 1962 A.D.) Even honest persons outside the Church admit that the use of the Latin language "raises up the mind from everyday interests and into a language of worship." They have even admitted that the use of Latin "shows deep insight into the human mind." Etc. http://www.mycatholicsource.com/mcs... Latin in the Liturgy & in the Church Include: I believe there has been some debate about this, but the accepted conclusion is that the Orans posture is reserved only for the priest.
According to Cardinal Raymond Burke, “The introduction of girl servers also led many boys to abandon altar service. Young boys don’t want to do things with girls. It’s just natural. The girls were also very good at altar service. So many boys drifted away over time. I want to emphasize that the practice of having exclusively boys as altar servers has nothing to do with inequality of women in the Church. “I think that this has contributed to a loss of priestly vocations. It requires a certain manly discipline to serve as an altar boy in service at the side of priest, and most priests have their first deep experiences of the liturgy as altar boys. If we are not training young men as altar boys, giving them an experience of serving God in the liturgy, we should not be surprised that vocations have fallen dramatically.” https://onepeterfive.com/opposing-practice-altar-girls-not-disobedient/
I think I remember this being discussed on the forum before. If I remember correctly, this is not considered disrespectful because the Italians (? also Europeans) have been doing so since ?forever, or something to that effect. In the address by Cardinal Sarah for the 10th anniversary of Summorum Pontificum, he also sometimes refers to the pope as simply Benedict XVI.
Very good point, if true. Perhaps someone can confirm this. I suspect you are correct, but not entirely so. A poster above quotes St Paul's fear of "dissension and party spirit". He is quite correct. However, this charge requires one to be absolutely certain of the identity of the dissenting party. If a random Catholic chosen from any period of time from the Resurrection up to the Second World War could be transported by time machine up to the modern period and asked to identify the dissentors, the choice being between those who were fond of tradition and those who innovated, who might he choose? I believe unquestioningly in Hell and eternal damnation for some-truth be told, it is the principle reason I try to obey Christ-but our present Pope almost certainly does not believe in these essentials of the Faith, or at best has a sinfully inadequate method of affirming them, so am I the 'dissentor' for dissenting from these views or methodology of our Pope? Things have now begun to come to a head and the consequences of innovation and forced modernism are clearly showing themselves. The greatest heresy is the decoupling of Mercy from Justice (mercy, now being human, losing its capital in the process). This is intrinsically a lead-in, via 'universal salvation', to 'anything goes'. And just about anything seems to be going or about to go. The example of the family that refused the deaconical ministry might be a consequence of this false form of mercy. Why not indulge one's prejudices when you have no Fear of God and assume that one's loved one is going to Heaven-don't most priests make that assumption at funeral Masses nowadays, anyway?
I have read before that it is a European custom to sometimes refer to a sitting Pontiff by their last name. Such as Ratzinger or Bergoglio. I'm not saying that it is right or proper, only that I have heard it is a custom, perhaps mostly in Italy. It is also proper, grammatically speaking, that after a Pope is referred to by his full title the first time in a piece of writing that for brevity he may late be referred to without all of his monikers. By this I mean that if I were writing an essay on Pope St. John Paul II, I would refer to him by that title the first time and then from that point on it would be correct to simply call him "The Pope" or "John Paul II" etc. The reason being that it actually would sound redundant and awkward to continually use the full title in a piece of writing or even a speech. Just as if I was writing a book on President Reagan, I wouldn't call him that every time. After the initial notification to the reader about his full title, from then on "Reagan" would suffice.
One change would immediately improve the Novus Ordo Mass -- If the priest were to celebrate the Mass Ad orientem. A simple solution that would re-direct the Mass towards God and improve worship immediately.
Interesting to think of the word orientation -- it has a positive and negative characteristics -- Diabolical disorientation - Sister Lucia's memorable phrase -- Se-ual orientation (there is only one orientation in nature) Ad Orientem -- oriented towards the East -- We mus be oriented towards God -- including priests at Mass.
Sg, I appreciate all that you comment on because I see that for 2 thousand years the Catholic faith has increased its devotional practice to Our Lord in the Mass and this has been a progression of truth and represents the Catholic faiths enthronment of Our Lord as King of Kings and Lord of Lords it has been a natural and beautiful growth! After reading dissertation of St Polycarp, St Justin Martyr, St Cornelius and St Steven I realise that when the Apostles celebrated Mass as well as the early church fathers they could be seen as celebrating Mass with the bare bones!, as it were, yet they had the greatest recourse to the truth of the Mass! We also know that Our Lord was faceing them at the last supper. In the 1st century, as known, the Church of Rome, like all other Christian Churches, celebrated the Holy Eucharist by obeying Christ's direction and doing as he had done the night before he died, at the Last Supper. There were the bread and wine consecrated by the words of Institution and by an invocation of the Holy Spirit; the bread was broken and Communion was given to the faithful. Undoubtedly, too, before this part of the service lessons were read from the Bible, as explicitly stated by Saint Justin Martyr. It is also known that this Mass was said in Greek. Koine Greek was the common tongue of Christians, at least outside Palestine, when it was used throughout the empire since the conquests of Alexander the Great, later incorporated into the Roman Empire. This is shown by the facts that the inscriptions in the catacombs are in Greek, and that Christian writers at Rome use that language. Of the liturgical formulas of this first period little is known. The First Epistle of St Clement contains a prayer that is generally considered liturgical (lix-lxi), though it contains no reference to the Eucharist. Also it states that "the Lord commanded offerings and holy offices to be made carefully, not rashly nor without order, but at fixed times and hours." From this it is evident that at Rome the liturgy was celebrated according to fixed rules and definite order. Chap. xxxiv tells us that the Romans "gathered together in concord, and as it were with one mouth" said the Sanctus from Is., vi, 3. St. Justin Martyr (died c. 167) spent part of his life at Rome and died there. It is possible that his First Apology was written in that city,[8] and that the liturgy he describes in it (lxv-lxvi) was that which he frequented at Rome. From this we learn that the Christians first prayed for themselves and for all manner of persons. Then follows the kiss of peace, and "he who presides over the brethren" is given bread and a cup of wine and water, having received which he gives thanks to God, celebrates the Eucharist, and all the people answer "Amen." The deacons then give out Holy Communion (loc. cit.). So therefore I can only comment on the NO Mass as a child that tries to love and understand as the first apostles did! Perhaps the church has been brought again to its knees! to its bare bones! so that, we can experience the truth of Our Lords words......... Mark 14:22-25 Institution of the Blessed Sacrament 22 And as they were eating, he took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to them, and said, “Take; this is my body.” 23 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. 24 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. 25 Truly, I say to you, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.” I am but a small, insignificant nobody! yet in my insignificant and despicably nothingness, I Love my Jesus! and I pray that He hears my poor prayers! I pray my Masses as the poor apostles of Jesus prayed in their first masses. May He hear Our Prayers. Amen
Sg, No offense but this makes no sense. Peter Kwasniewski is not Italian, he was born in Arlington Heights, Illinois and he grew up in New Jersey. In this country, it is "old school" or traditional to use someone's title when referring to them especially a saint or pope. It is a matter of respect and I know I try to use their titles when blogging about them and I certainly would use their titles if I was writing about them for a Catholic news source. In addition, I have noticed that occasionally American Catholic writers and others like Cardinal Robert Sarah who is not an American use the pope's proper title at least once in an article. Peter Kwasniewski did not do this at all in the subject article. If we don't demonstrate respect for saints and popes how do we expect others to respect them, this does not appear to be a concern of Peter Kwasniewski and it strikes me to be very odd coming from someone who is fighting for tradition unless he does not respect these men at all.
I agree with Cardinal Burke. I don't think, however, that it tells the whole story and I suspect that Cardinal Burke and others trying to reform the reform are avoiding their own compliance with another detrimental effect of Vatican 11. Prior to Vatican 11, heterodox clergy and theologians were disciplined to prevent them spreading error. After Vatican 11, presumably in the new spirit of ecumenism, they were tolerated. Popes and Bishops tolerated them. It's rather late to begin facing down the preachers of a different Gospel now that they have gained control of the hierarchy. If one of the purposes of having altar boys was to encourage vocations, it stands to reason that one of the purposes of having altar girls was to encourage vocations to a female clergy. Looking at the ratio of male to female EMHC's and Lectors in the sanctuary, it's hard to discount the suspicion that the laity were being conditioned to accept a female priesthood. That strategy worked very well until Pope John Paul put the kybosh on female ordination. One thing about modernists, however, is that they never take their eye off the prize. They kept chipping away and will continue to do so. They certainly won't let the latest crisis go to waste. People are so horrified at the abuse committed by perverted priests that they will accept anything which looks like a solution, however short-term. A female diaconate and married priests "in certain limited, defined cases" will be the start. Then, if and very likely when, they pin the most recent scandals on Pope John Paul, you can expect everything he taught to be brought into question and reversed, including the all male priesthood. Mass in the vernacular is the least of our problems. With Pope Francis giving ever more autonomy to Bishops' Conferences, European Bishops can re-write the liturgy to say anything they want it to say. It's not beyond their capabilities to make up a Latin liturgy invoking the buddha. At least when Mass is in the vernacular, the pew sitters have some idea of what the priest is saying. I believe that a proper solution would be for the Congregation for Liturgical Texts to stipulate a strict liturgy for the Mass in each language with instructions to each Bishop that the faithful be informed of the correct liturgy and encouraged to report first to their Bishop and, if necessary to Rome, any deviations by priests.
