Since my reply builds on what is said by Mario, I will post it on the thread Prophecy - GSWYL where I believe God himself gives his response to those who oppose the Novus Ordo mass and uses it to blame the problems in the Church.
Absolutely true. The two sexes should not mix when it pertains to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Unless you're in dioceses like Lincoln, Nebraska, the Holy Mass has virtually ceased to provide potential priestly vocations. https://liturgyguy.com/2016/04/30/why-arent-other-dioceses-looking-to-lincoln/comment-page-1/ Safe in the Flames of the Sacred Heart!
'Mundabor', in his blog, points out the obvious contradiction between Bergoglio canonising Pope St. John Paul II and trying to shift the McCarrick blame onto him. He reckons most people won't buy his trying to have it both ways-I'd say he's right.
A gun is easier to carry! You in the US should be thankful for small mercies-only drug-dealers can carry guns in Ireland. Some of the police can, but they usually shoot themselves or innocent parties.
As the Pope Emeritus made clear, both orders of Mass are valid. The distinction must be between what is reverent and intended as Golgotha and what isn't. If the Mass isn't Golgotha, it isn't Mass. Am I right or wrong? A Mass may be licit, but still less than desirable. There are so many abuses. 'Jingle-bells' described by the priest as a 'hymn' is the last real atrocity I can remember. In this case, language was but a detail, God help us. Can anyone remember our place-we are mere creatures and we worship God?
Sg, I fully agree with all of these Scriptures. Let me be clarify what I was attempting to express earlier. The party spirit to which I was referring is one which looks at the TLM as the key solution to the quandary the Church finds herself in, and therefore conservative Catholics should abandon the Novus Ordo; if not they are hindering authentic reform. I've seen this stated outright on other websites and the commentary which fueled my previous post appeared headed in this direction. Let me give one crisis that Liturgical reform will not directly address in and of itself: the overwhelming embrace by Catholics of the contraceptive lifestyle. Contraception is immoral, and failed contraception leads to abortion. The marketing of the Pill in 1960 is the main culprit; there really is no liturgical component contributing to this disaster. Did you know the long term consequences of contraceptive use now include the feminization of male fish in our waterways?! There is another unusual sociological effect felt within the context of the Holy Mass which was not directly related to liturgical change. The women's hat industry collapsed during the 1960s which drastically affected Catholic women's usage of head coverings at Holy Mass. Again, this expression and understanding of modesty and submission suffered not because of a change in Liturgy but was a consequence of changing fashion influenced by emerging feminism. My main point here is that the removal of Liturgical abuse is essential and the a new emphasis on the TLM will make a significant difference. But to look to it as the centerpiece of reform is overly simplistic and will not deal with all the "isms" that afflict our Beloved Church. If we do look to the TLM that way, I believe it will nurture an Us vs. Them mentality. Safe in the Barque of Peter!
Contraception is one of the key issues here in the troubles facing our Church. The birth control pills and the IUDs cause abortions in the womb by not allowing the fertilized embryo to implant. As was mentioned in earlier posts, the use of the sex act within marriage was thus taken out of the realm for which God our Creator intended it to be used. Therefore, the connection to sex outside of marriage became a short leap, and from there, the connection to sodomy and other perversions. Think of the widespread usage of contraceptives among those Catholics in the past, and in the present. Think of the number of mortal sins caused by this. Think of the number of sacrilegious Communions. Think of the number of dead babies, the numbers of victims of abuse. Think of the flood of filth. Think of the lack of prayerful penance from many Catholics during the past decades. Think of it this way: My former pastor told me one time in Confession: Ask yourself what was YOUR part in it. All of us are sinners. Right now we need to repent and believe in the Gospel, and we are. Our prayers and penance will be used by Our Blessed Mother to purify and strengthen the Church. I have to agree with Mario that we cannot look at the TLM as the panacea for all of the ills which beset our Church, especially the Us vs. Them mentality, for we are all to some extent guilty of this. (I am going out on a limb saying this, but it is in Scripture that all have fallen short) BTW, it was Pope Paul VI who withstood the flood of opposition to Humanae Vitae which upheld both natural law and God's Law. The rebellion of the priests and people took off after that. Perhaps one of the aborted babies might have grown up to become a great Pope. Maybe we aborted too many Catholics. Only God knows. I remember there were two brothers, both OB_GYNs, practicing together....they dissolved the practice because one of them wanted to prescribe birth control and the other didn't. Also, there were problems in the Church and Society which were foreshadowing our current situation, but the TLM was in place and this was before the NO. As I have said before, I have lived through this. Alice Von Hildebrand herself warned against fanaticism.
I don't understand what you said here. Could you please rephrase that? Yes, but I believe it is all related. This handing over of autonomy to the Bishops' conferences in the matter of rewriting/ re-translating the liturgy was the subject of contention between Cardinal Sarah and PF. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-publicly-corrects-cardinal-sarah-over-new-liturgy-rules
I am not certain, but it seems that you are saying the Novus Ordo should be retained at all costs. I do believe that widely restoring the TLM is the first and most important starting point for restoring the Church. And that's because I firmly believe in the following: From that article that you linked to, comes this gem: "Against all odds and the prevailing winds of the post-conciliar Church, Lincoln has avoided the craziness and irreverence that has afflicted so many other dioceses. This has largely been achieved through the stability and orthodoxy provided over the last fifty years by three men: Bishop Glennon Flavin (1967-1992), Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz (1992-2012), and Bishop James Conley (2012-present). They succeeded despite the occasional scorn of their brother bishops, and by making the Church’s perennial priorities their own. The National Catholic Reporter (known as the Fishwrap to Fr. Z readers) once bemoaned that it was as if the “reforms” so prevalent in the aftermath of Vatican II had missed Lincoln altogether. Exactly."
No; if "the Reform of the Reform" usurped the Novus Ordo and provided a liturgy as outlined strictly by Council documents, or even returned us to the TLM alone, I would embrace it wholeheartedly. I say this even though that might mean the end of my liturgical function as a deacon...Long live the chaplaincy! Your word is perfect: Exactly. Safe in the Barque of Peter!
Imho, the liturgical reform did contribute to the disaster. With the sweeping changes made according to the 'spirit' of Vatican II, it was perceived by the laity that the Church had abandoned old 'fuddy duddy' traditions and embraced everything new, so as to be in line with 'modern' society. Maybe someone who lived through the changes can verify/ dispute this, or maybe someone can give a better explanation/ example, but this excerpt from a book review of 'The Spirit of Vatican II: A history of Catholic reform in America by Colleen McDannell', gives one an idea about what it was like: "McDannell is at her best in recounting the early Vatican II years, when the National Catholic Reporter was formed in large part to chronicle the changes about which she writes. Working with NCR accounts and newspaper and magazine features of the 1960s and ’70s, she describes the massive exodus of religious sisters, impatient with the pace of renewal, and priests, who began to wonder if the life of the laity extolled in Vatican II documents and the lure of family life were worth exploring for themselves. Her account of folk Masses reminds me of my post-Vatican II experience as a 10-year-old in my suburban Long Island, N.Y., parish listening to a Communion reflection of Bob Dylan’s “The Times They Are a-Changin’ ” -- indicating that they really were. When McDannell’s family moved to suburban Denver, they encountered a parish led by Fr. Bill, who encouraged the informal moniker. He supervised a new modernist-style church building. Architectural details -- the new church had no altar rail -- are cited by McDannell as a sign of the new inclusivity the parish fostered. Modernist architecture in churches built at the time embraced open space, much in contrast to older European-style churches filled with statues and artifacts. Fr. Bill fostered guitar Masses and small faith communities that challenged the sterile individualism of exurbia. He chose not to build a Catholic school, a deliberate decision made to encourage his flock to be part of the wider culture, not to educate their children in separate enclaves. He encouraged an active parish council, inviting the laity to participate in all aspects of church life. He dissented from Humanae Vitae and its teachings from the pulpit. And then, like so many progressive priests of that era, he left the priesthood."
As much as I often find your posts very edifying and what you have to say is often well said, I find this statement to be off the mark. First off there is absolutely no way you can know this. Second, the Mass is the center of our faith and the prime source of Grace in the world. If something is off-kilter with it then logic would dictate that it most certainly would be not only a component of the current disasters wracking the Church and the world, but most likely the central spoke upon which much of the rest of these problems orbit.
Sg posted an interview with Alice Von Hildebrand wherein she blamed the problem on the lack of holiness in the priests who said the TLM. I remember the post and in the ending of the interview, she cautioned us against fanaticism. She strongly advised striving for personal sanctity no matter what form of liturgy. I am on my phone and can’t link. The other thing is that some people on this forum who make it part of their agenda on this forum to promote the TLM don’t even worship there. I also agree with Mario that I would dearly love the return of the TLM as the ordinary form. I also think it is simplistic to think that Freemasons only infiltrated the Catholic Church and that the effects of their influence did not extend to Society as a whole. I attended a state college. In my freshman year, women were required to wear dresses to classes and meals. This was in 1966. The following year, pants were allowed. The year after that was the Summer of Love in San Francisco, and the rest is history.
I have to disagree. This too happened because of Vatican II. The following article is very good and includes all the points I would like to present. It explains how the change happened and why it is wrong. (some of the emphasis are mine) Why Women Should Wear Chapel Veils in Church NOV 4, 2017 BRIAN KELLY http://catholicism.org/women-wear-chapel-veils-church.html Some may say that an issue such as this is not my prerogative to engage — being a man, and a layman at that. Nevertheless, I will discharge my mind. And I shall be brief. Certainly it is a minor issue compared with the major ones afflicting our Church. Yet, it is symptomatic of what are latent weaknesses in certain practicing Catholic women who may be tinged with a bit of feminism without even realizing it. Ironically, some of the very same otherwise devout women who do not cover their heads in church are critical of modernist nuns for having discarded their own veil. Again, I am addressing practicing Catholic women who take their Sunday obligation seriously and sincerely want to adore God and receive Him reverently in Holy Communion. I am not addressing those who have no scruple receiving Communion in the hand. If a woman has no problem doing the latter then, obviously, she will dismiss the former as passé. My wife, who is ten years younger than me, explained to me that Catholic women her age were told in the 1970s (in her case from the pulpit) that Rome no longer requires women to wear a veil or mantilla in church. And that is true. The 1917 Code of Canon Law that mandated the wearing of a veil (or other head covering) for women in church, has been abrogated by the 1983 new Code, which has nothing on the subject. All prior disciplinary laws, therefore, that are not in the new Code are no longer in effect: “Can. 61. When this Code goes into effect, the following are abrogated:1. the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917; etc.” Specifically, in the 1970s, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith did issue a decree, Inter Insigniores, which stated: “t must be noted that these ordinances, probably inspired by the customs of the period, concern scarcely more than disciplinary practices of minor importance, such as the obligation imposed upon women to wear a veil on their head (1 Cor 11:2-16); such requirements no longer have a normative value.” “Normative value”? Well, in that they are no longer related to a norm or standard (which by the time the Holy Office decree was issued was the case) that much is true. However, neither was there any prohibition of wearing the veil. That would have been difficult to justify in light of First Corinthians. The question is: Why was wearing the veil in church no longer normative in the 70s? One may well ask: Why were so many other good traditions, complementing and nourishing piety, no longer normative after the post-Vatican II liturgical revolution? One could make a list. Did women just start giving in to peer pressure, “since no one else is wearing a veil, why should I?” Many straddlers simply did not want to appear to be “different.” The holier than thou complex I suspect. Nevertheless, when it is time for a girls’ First Communion, mothers still (thank God) put a white veil on the child’s head in honor of the Holy occasion. So, too, do Catholic brides still wear a veil at their wedding. Refusal of women to don a veil in church is a western phenomenon for the most part. When you see photos of women in church in the East, Near East and Far East, they are veiled. This is so in the Eastern Rites and in the Latin Rites, both in the Extraordinary Form and the Ordinary. It is the norm in the East. For that matter, women, Christian or not, have from time immemorial (until modern times) covered their heads outside the home. Although in Eastern Europe (i.e., Poland, Russia, and Ukraine), women use a shawl or head scarf rather than a veil, the covering of the hair in church is so common as to be the custom everywhere, even though in the eastern rite canons it is no longer obligatory. Is it merely national culture? Partly. And so what if it is? It’s part of Catholic culture too. And it is a good thing. A man, on the other hand, uncovers his head in church as a sign of his respect for the divine Presence. Is there any culture in the world where this is not the custom in religious services? What a scoundrel a man would be to refuse to take off his hat when entering a church! Defiant Communists in China wore their red-starred caps in churches to mock the faithful, while performing other blasphemous outrages. These were of course atheists. Buddhist men uncover their heads in their temples. On the other hand, Jewish men, at least the Orthodox and Reformed branches, cover their heads with a yarmulke in the synagogues, although some Jewish exegetes claim that this custom was introduced for laymen only in the 17th century and that on account of the Talmudic prohibition not to imitate the heathen customs. Let’s cut to the chase. For if a woman be not covered, let her be shorn. But if it be a shame to a woman to be shorn or made bald, let her cover her head” (1 Cor.:11:6). I am certain that any devout Catholic woman would affirm with the Church that the Bible is inspired by God. Therefore, what is written here by the hand of Saint Paul is divinely inspired. And the Church has always maintained this discipline for women (as well as that of keeping silence in church — 1 Cor.:14:34). That is, up until the liturgical revolution post Vatican II. Saint Paul explains why women ought to cover their heads in verses 7-10, continuing with the passage just quoted: “The man indeed ought not to cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man. For the man was not created for the woman, but the woman for the man.Therefore ought the woman to have a power over her head, because of the angels.” I have seen women smirk — I am referring to practicing Catholic women — with the reading of these verses. Saint John Chrysostom is not unique among the Fathers of the Church in noting that the veil is a “sign of subjection” to the man, as Saint Paul clearly teaches, in that Eve came from Adam and was to be his helper and mate, as well as the mother of his children. (continues...)
“Because of the angels!” The holy angels are present at Mass. They take note of the reverence and modesty of the worshipers. The exterior sign of a woman’s humility as well as her modesty in covering the glory of her hair is pleasing to God, the angels, and, especially, each faithful woman’s guardian angel. Saints Ambrose, Anselm, and Thomas Aquinas interpret “angels” in this verse as the priests and bishops, the latter of whom are called “angels” in the Apocalypse. A man uncovers his head in church because, as Saint Paul says, “he is the glory of God.” It would be a distraction to elaborate from the Fathers concerning this verse; suffice it to say that, as Cornelius a Lapide notes, “[M]an is the image of the glory of God, or the glorious image of God, in whom the majesty and power of God shine forth most clearly. He is placed on the topmost step in nature, and is as it were God’s vicegerent, ruling everything.” The glory of God then ought to be manifest in the man and hidden in the woman, especially during the holy sacrifice. If someone objects that a priest or bishop has his head covered when he enters the church for the liturgy, be it noted that he removes his biretta or mitre for the holy ritual. The biretta and mitre, let me add, are symbols of the priestly office. The mitre, in fact, goes back to the attire mandated for the priestly function in the Old Testament. In a certain sense, the woman participates in the liturgy in a more visible way than the layman because her veil is an outward sign, not, of course, as part of the rubrics, but certainly as her part in the ceremony which includes so many other visible signs performed by all the worshiping faithful. Protestants, as we know, have no liturgy, no divine Presence. Even still, the principal heresiarchs of the Revolt, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Wesley, and Knox, all kept the biblical mandate for female head covering. This changed somewhat in the early twentieth century in the Anglophone West. Veils were deemed too Catholic. So, leave it to the Protestants to find a solution: bonnets. But that was only for a time. Now they rarely even wear hats during their services, except perhaps at Easter time. Amish and Mennonite women still wear a long, tied in the back, kerchief head covering by rule. Today, Bible begone, Catholic women have joined with Protestant women in baring their heads in church. Why is this important liturgically? Prescinding from First Corinthians, the woman is a figure of Our Lady. Our Lady is almost always veiled in art, as she was in life. Women should do their best to imitate Mary especially in their modest dress at all times. In church, “because of the angels.” There are two points I need to make here. They are liturgically related: First, there is the tabernacle. Tabernacles are covered with a veil. In the Old Testament, the tabernacle, or Holy of Holies, was separated from every other place in the temple by a gigantic veil. So, in the New Holy of Holies, (the Sanctuary), the Tabernacle is veiled. The veil symbolizes Our Lady. As Our Lady’s Heart was rent on Calvary, the veil of the tabernacle in the temple was ripped in two by an angel when Jesus died. There is more to ponder. It is written in Jeremias and in capital letters: “[T]he Lord hath created a new thing upon the earth: A WOMAN SHALL COMPASS A MAN.” (31:22). And, again, “ [H]e that made me, rested in my tabernacle” (Ecclesiasticus 24:12). Even when we pray the Hail Mary, Mary compasses Jesus, for she is invoked before and after the Holy Name. Therefore, she is the Veil of the Tabernacle; she is the door through which we pass to Jesus: Ad Jesum per Mariam. Second, only a woman can imitate Mary in this way. She is veiled in honor of the Veil of the Tabernacle. A woman hides her beauty under a veil, for, especially in God’s House, “All the glory of the king’s daughter is within in golden borders” (Psalm 44:14). “O Lord,” the priest prays at the Lavabo: “I have loved the Beauty of thy House, the place where thy glory dwelleth” (Psalm 25:8). Many holy commentators attribute this verse to Mary. And how wonderful that is! Finally, as an aside: How is it that even to visit the pope, who, although the Vicar of Christ, is a sinner, a woman wears a veil and then, before God Himself, she does not? Melania Trump, God bless her, wore a modest black dress and a black veil when she accompanied her husband to greet Pope Francis. Even Michele Obama did the same, and so did Laura Bush. Mrs. Trump, granted, is Catholic, but the only other Catholic First Lady was Jacqueline Kennedy, who, by the way, not only wore black with a mantilla for her private audience with Pope John XXIII in 1962, but genuflected before him and kissed his ring. (When John, as president, met with Paul VI a year later he did not kiss the pope’s ring but gave him a hearty handshake.) Even Elizabeth II, the Queen of England, wore black and was veiled when she met Popes John XXIII and John Paul II. When she visited Pope Francis she at least wore a hat, a blue one. I think I have made my point. More important than the chapel veil issue is that of the brown scapular. How few practicing Catholics, men or women, wear the brown scapular! This is tragic indeed. What an insult to the mercy and generosity of the Mother of God! And what is the excuse given by some practicing Catholic women, especially younger ones, for not wearing the brown scapular? It’s unsightly! Yes, I am sure many of you have heard that, or certainly many mothers have heard it, from their daughters. Seems that, in their vanity, they would rather exhibit their scapulae than wear a scapular. Well, that is an issue for another time.
Praetorian, By the mid-1960s, before the Novus Ordo was fully implemented: In 1965, five years after the Pill was approved, 27% of American women reported use of the Pill, 18% used condoms, and just 10% relied on a diaphragm. By 1973, more than a third of American women (36%) used the Pill for birth control; only 13.5% reported using condoms, and a mere 3.4% used a diaphragm.* Thus, the momentum toward fully embracing the contraceptive lifestyle was already established. Your second statement is plausible, but debatable. The stats above seem to indicate the tide had significantly turned before the full impact of liturgical abuse had been reached. This is why I stated the contraceptive mentality does not have a correlation to liturgical abuse. * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3464843/ Safe in the Barque of Peter!
It seems all of this began because of what began happening with the Modernists at Vatican II. I would think that is why we were warned about the date 1960. Liturgical abuse did not necessarily only begin when the Mass was switched to the Novus Ordo although that is when it hit full steam. It also happens for any number of reasons and could happened at the TLM by careless priests before the Mass was switched. I think much of this abuse began in the 60's as well when the priests stopped thinking of Christ as God and King and began thinking of Him as a just a "nice guy". The faith was demolished during and after Vatican II. Even Pope Paul VI admitted that. All of the specifics are arguable, but that fact that it was is evident from the decades of proof we have. The pill is a symptom of this disease, not a cause. Material rot follows spiritual rot.
