The cowards that profane the bishopric, who have nearly universally refused to enforce the mandatum in universities and even seminaries, who have let heresy flourish, at best from cowardice at worse sympathy, who have covered up shameful deeds, defended sacrilege refusing to follow canonical discipline in the Eucharist, who have rejected sacrality in liturgy, who cannot even be bothered to establish days for rogations and embertide in the new rite, despite the lip service given to penance, who are almost wholly ignorant themselves of Catholic customs and thought....

You really want them to try and police the internet? The NC Reporter was told decades ago to stop calling themselves Catholic... Think they would obey? Meanwhile, orthodox Catholics, out of obedience, would be silenced.

Some things might good in principle. E.g, it is clear that Rome cannot continue appointing every bishop, that true local synods, provincial and primatial authority ought to be restored, rather then making all appeals direct to Rome. But such a reform would be disastrous in many areas, in the current state of the Church.

Yes it would. But is that only because of the state of the Church and those in power? I don't say only lightly, I'm simply trying to draw attention to another reality, if the tables were turned the other way.

The Church is not designed for power struggles. The laity who owe it to themselves to know their faith, to understand their faith, can safeguard themselves and their families from error. The Church serves the people and serves God. So each of us is one who serves. God resists the proud. However, those who are given authority in the Church are sometimes influenced by wrong things presented in an appealing way. And the laity can be caught up in issues and causes presented to them in an appealing way. But is it true? The Bible tells us: New International Version
The beginning of wisdom is this: Get wisdom. Though it cost all you have, get understanding. Proverbs 4:7

If we can see the truth of what we are being told because we understand it correctly, then we can accept or reject it.

Would that it were so simple.

Indeed.

Not sure entirely what you mean here, but it carries a certain connotation that was not the point to begin with.




There are those who are snakes and there are those who are genuinely following the garbage thinking its true Catholicism. I never ascribed intention to the individuals I mentioned, only that in this particular time period, implementing such idiocy would only strengthen the bad voices.



First, let’s have massive prayer and penance to restore and proliferate the necessary graces which have been lacking for so many decades.

Then, let’s have those in charge speak clearly, without ambiguity, without poisonous influence from bad theologies and philosophies, and in many cases without spewing heresy and error. Let’s have those in charge not only speak clearly but use disciplinary force, prudently even if imperfectly. Or in other words, true reform starting from the top.

After this, then we can talk about censures and regulation.

You are trying advocate for something too far in advance with other problems that need to be dealt with first and foremost. You do not fix the plumbing when the house is on fire.



The solution is grace. A part of this solution is having the ability to speak the truth, not smother it so heresy can spread and the fire burns more intensely. You are missing the point here by citing bad examples.

The crisis has produced beliefs and practices that are harmful, and the vast majority of these kinds of harmful things are not being promoted by Voris, Remnant, SSPX, and other so-called “traditionalists.” You can easily point out how the Remnant et al. promote their own harmful mentalities, but that is extreme minority of Catholics.

With that in mind, if we implement the system you are talking about, then there is a high chance that orthodox voices will be silenced in obedience and the bad voices will flourish with “Church approval.”

Again, the harmful things I am taking about pertains to the crisis, *not* what the Remnant or Voris are doing. So imagine the average Catholic, already drowning in the crisis, sees “church approved” websites, and they are compelled in good faith to follow those “church approved” entities.

Now what would these “church approved” entities give us or even hide if we think about what PED just mentioned concerning our current leadership? Good chance it would make things worse. What if EWTN becomes “approved,” but they are now hamstrung in reporting on bad bishops or talking about some controversy with the Pope? What if they criticize a bad theology and their local bishop comes down on them?

Again, this is all within the perspective of the current situation, leadership, and decades of bad theology, bad morality,and bad philosophy’s undue influence. This is not a regular situation where the Church suffers imperfections and bad leadership, this is a crisis that has almost enshrined error and immorality within official documents, and has produced the loss of millions of practicing Catholics.




God has worked this out in the past in what way? Through people in the Church? The Church militant?

If God will work this out, then no need for those in charge to police Catholic media, right?

Would you be fine with implementing it if the tables were turned? Say we had Orthodox Bishops, but a number of lay catholics had a voice that was corrupting the flock? Or are you opposed to it all together?

I’m not just seeing this in consideration of the current climate the Church finds herself in. That may be where we depart. I’m seeing this as a general rule. When thinking of this, I didn’t exclude the venomous pride, quasi-sedevacantism, quasi-ultramontanism, feeneyism, Anti-semitism, and most importantly a flirtation with disobedience, etc. that infects some of the more Traditionalist groups. Fr. Ripperger has equally shown concern over this. I can’t imagine V2 being the cause for all this as well.

So in that sense……no, It’s not a bad example. It’s a microcosm of what is happening in what is a growing minority. A minority that is being heard from the various platforms. It’s who I listen to the most and it’s what many Catholics are listening to as well. Numbers in this case don’t necessarily equate to effectiveness or quality. In fact, it’s who I’d rather listen to. I lean far more Traditionalist then I ever have because of these outlets. It would irritate and sadden me if they were to come to a halt.

Every time I read a Mark Shea post, I find I am wholeheartedly behind Bp. Barron's proposal

I have a very difficult time with that was well.

Interesting to see the same issues posted here and elsewhere. Vatican II was responsible for nothing. Persons unknown began removing altar/communion rails, statues and other things from Churches. A visit to youtube will show a number of Catholic Churches have restored what was taken away. Pope Benedict XVI clearly stated the problem about how the Mass was deformed by some: "Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church." [LETTER OF HIS HOLINESS
BENEDICT XVI TO THE BISHOPS ON THE OCCASION OF THE PUBLICATION OF THE APOSTOLIC LETTER "MOTU PROPRIO DATA" SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM ON THE USE OF THE ROMAN LITURGY PRIOR TO THE REFORM OF 1970.]

That an Us vs Them mentality continues to exist in spite of this does, in some cases, suggest that the Church is viewed as a political entity with power struggles, or as a corporation. Neither view clarifies the situation of the last 50 years. For example, bad Catechesis. What? Someone forgot how to do something well one year when it was done well the year before? The Wall Street Journal published an article titled: As The Flame of Catholic Dissent Dies Out [Jan. 14, 2010]. Here is the opening: "Mary Daly, a retired professor at Boston College who was probably the most outré of all the dissident theologians who came to the fore of Catholic intellectual life in the years right after the Second Vatican Council, died on Jan. 3 at age 81. Back in the 1960s and 1970s, which might be called the golden age of Catholic dissidence, theologians who took positions challenging traditional church teachings—ranging from the authority of the pope to bans on birth control, premarital sex, and women's ordination—dominated Catholic intellectual life in America and Europe."

Nothing could be clearer. Someone decided the interior, and later, the exterior of Churches should change, resulting in further problems, not the least of which being a diminishing of a sense of the sacred. For those interested: https://www.amazon.com/Ugly-as-Sin-Mich ... 1933184442

I find myself avoiding Bishop Barron since what he says is not consistent with what the Church has said and is saying.

I'm still holding out on Barron.

Anon, never look into the Consilium or its directives if you want to continue with your whiggish history.

Vatican II, taken as a whole, did a lot of damage. Whether the pelagian spirit of GS (Then Ratzinger's words!) Or the explicit directives in SC to dismantle the Roman office (e.g abolishing Prime). And if we read all the Acta, we would have to be wilfully ignorant to say it was unproblematic.

Did you know Paul VI himself ordered that the translation of the NO be loose, childish, etc. The old ICEL translation was actually more literal than the pope ordered (the instructions explicitly mentioned the Our Father, among other things). Yet a whiggish history has chosen to pretend all blame goes to ICEL, as if they were violating their task!

"whiggish" There's a word you don't see every day. Let me be specific. There was no order from Vatican II to remove statues, communion rails, etc. from Churches. I've read the various bits and the picture points to an unauthorized inside job. Yes, ICEL and the rest. Your point? Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI did their best to set the ship aright. Meanwhile, the "blame it on Vatican II" message gets out often enough to confuse people. I was there before and after. Trust was violated by mostly outside forces with some apparent inside help. All of those dissidents took advantage of the fog to change the scenery. The faithful, what were they to think? I obeyed Holy Mother Church the moment the new, smaller altar appeared, the priest faced the people and spoke English. But when those frequent deformations appeared? I don't blame people for walking out. I commend Pope Benedict for encouraging the traditional Mass, which has at its center the sacred. Someone else can have their clown masses.

Maybe. I would have to see how and to what extent it would be implemented. For now, definitely not due to the current situation.



I may not be following what you mean here exactly. What are you not seeing? I knew you were thinking of the things you listed. And again, those issues should be addressed, but they are not currently biggest issues.

The point was this: there is a high chance those who control censure are of varying degrees aligning themselves with what is infecting the Church at on a larger scale. Much, much larger than faux-trads and the problems you list. Normal Catholicism would get hit along with faux-trads. Good Catholics would more likely submit due to obedience and bad Catholics voices remain unaffected (faux-Trads would most likely continue as well). Worse still, the current filth could grow as those who would control censure may promote the filth as they stifle Orthodox voices.

Forget Voris, Matt, et al. There is a beast larger than them and normal/good Catholics combined.




I don’t think I mentioned Vatican II, but one could argue that the massive change, especially to the liturgy – implemented at break neck speed and pushed top-down, caused massive scandals and disenfranchisement among the faithful. If we talk Vatican II, it didn’t explicitly/actively initiate any of crisis so to speak, but rather lowered the defenses of the Church towards such destruction. Why? The nature of the documents themselves are more open to manipulation AND because of the current time period; the swell of wicked men, weak men, the explosion of modernity and its filth (bad philosophies/theology), and cultural rot towards sensual pleasure.

This has not stopped, and is arguably worse. Therefore, censorship is rash and imprudent at this time.

Vatican II did not help so-called “modern man” via “updating” the Church for them to understand and participate better. Most things got worse, especially in terms of practicing Catholics. In this sense, it’s at least a failure of a council. Hence, a few components of reform (a few of many, and nothing will be perfect) are to clarify doctrine, condemn widespread error, and actually use their offices to force disciplinary measures.



I don’t understand. You want censorship to stop faux-trads or you would be sad that they would go??

PED was specific that it indeed directed the explicit removal of some liturgical items, but not the ones you listed. However, ambiguity and imprecision in the council text helped to cultivate bad theological interpretation among the well-intentioned Catholics and willful manipulation by the ill-intentioned Catholics.

Sacrosanctum concilium has its issues that related to the items you listed:




With a progressivist bishop, they can justify removal of sacred images and label them “repugnant” or lacking pretense. We have seen this time and time in the justification of sacking of sanctuaries.


What can this mean? Was there an issue with how churches were built? Is it criticizing modern churches or taking aim at traditional ones?

Remove the altar rails: better participation for the faithful so the sanctuary is not closed off and distant to them – this excuse has been used numerous times.



Was there an issue with excessive amounts of sacred images in many places and stupid lay people wallowing about in confusion as a result?

Or how about this: the average Catholic church at the time had and an average of X amount of images. The council was called for reform and change. Is there a danger here that this can be misinterpreted (or manipulated) to start a removal of statues as you mentioned? The mindset of the time was massive reform and change for the Church, combine this with the directive above, and one can easily see how statues could be unjustly removed using Vatican II as a foundation.




This implies that there was art, vestments, ornaments, of sumptuous display. Where? What are they? Was it a real issue to even mention in directives for bishops? How could people influenced with the spirit of the times, spirit of Vatican II (some of them the dissents that you mention), interpret such a passage?




What we got out of this was freestanding altars, which encouraged the novelty of versus populum. We also got the exile of the tabernacle under the pretense that the laity would be confused over the Presence of Christ in the tabernacle and of His Presence on the altar.

Or maybe it influenced the construction of that smaller altar you mentioned?



Opens the door for ugly modern art.


Again, in the hands of men engulfed with the spirit of that age, what could possibly go wrong in interpreting these directives?

“But, those don’t say to remove statues and communion rails.”

Right, but it can be easily twisted and interpreted to mean just that – the langue is very clever and subtle. This is the exact issue with some parts of Vatican II.




Sometimes, yeah. Other times not so much.




As shown above, one could argue that Vatican II helped produce some of that fog.

NB: Everything above can also be interpreted traditionally. But sometimes they way it's phrased is very curious, as if there was substantial problems in these areas.

A highly limited response. And partly expected.

Shortly before stepping down as Pope, what did Pope Benedict XVI choose to speak about? Vatican II.

https://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/b ... -the-storm

There were two Councils, he said.

About the priest facing the people, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger writes in the book, The Spirit of the Liturgy:

"The turning of the priest towards the people has turned the community into a self-enclosed circle. In its outward form, it no longer opens out on what lies ahead and above, but is closed in on itself. The common turning towards the East was not a "celebration towards the wall"; it did not mean that the priest "had his back to the people": the priest himself was not regarded as so important. For just as the congregation in the synagogue looked together toward Jerusalem, so in the Christian liturgy the congregation looked together "towards the Lord." As one of the Fathers of Vatican II’s Constitution on the Liturgy, J. A. Jungmann, put it, it was much more a question of priest and people facing in the same direction, knowing that together they were in a procession towards the Lord. They did not close themselves into a circle, they did not gaze at one another, but as the pilgrim People of God they set off for the Oriens, for the Christ who comes to meet us."

And regarding Latin. The Council did not say it should be done away with.

'Paragraph 54 is a key paragraph: "In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue." What did the Council have in mind? Let's continue: "This is to apply in the first place, to the readings and to the Common Prayer. But also as local conditions may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the people." Yet it goes on to say, "Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass" - (that is, the unchanging parts, the parts that are there every day) - "which pertain to them."

'So, the Council did not abolish Latin in the liturgy. The Council permitted the vernacular in certain limited ways, but clearly understood that the fixed parts of the Mass would remain in Latin. Again, I am just telling you what the Council said."

The above was taken from Sacrosanctum Concilium and this from an article by Fr. Joseph Fessio, S.J.

So the attempt to keep the fog alive today should be met with historical facts, especially by those who lived through it all. I refer to Pope Benedict in particular.

I am not sure you understand what I am saying here. Vatican II opened the way towards this stuff; in the hands of weak men and even nefarious ones, it’s a recipe for disaster. Nothing you say here addressed my points - no one said the council mandated 100% vernacular or the priest facing the people.

Priest facing the people:

There was already a split in the liturgical movement in the 20th century over if the priest can (and did in the past) face the people, and vice versa. So much so that some took it upon themselves to implement Novus Ordo-style versus populum decades before the council. Pioneers of 20th century liturgical abuse, basically.

The council should have not given an opening towards this distortion. In fact, it was already occurring before the Novus Ordo during the so-called "transitional missal" phase. Pope Paul VI even did it himself, and continued to do it. Paul VI didn’t stop this novelty, but bought into it as a part of implementing the council. JPII and Benedict XVI continued to use versus populum as well, the same guys you said we trying to fix the mess and set things straight. However, Benedict XVI knew it was inferior and a novelty (as you show above), but probably continued to do it as to not rock the boat and cause alienation of a generation who already experienced such fast and confusing change.






I never mentioned Latin, but sure, let’s take a look.



But this proves my point. Take it together with what was left out in the council's text:

“And wherever a more extended use of the mother tongue within the Mass appears desirable, the regulation laid down in Art. 40 of this Constitution is to be observed.”

This regulation appeared to involve the decision of the local bishop about how to extend the use of vernacular where it appears “desirable" beyond the stipulations in article 54. How far can “desirable” go? To the asinine point of only retaining the Kyrie in Greek and Sanctus in Latin perhaps?

The defenses were lowered. There was too much wiggle room, “desirable” circumstances were produced, and things were taken too far. E.g. a Bishop could say: “It’s desirable for all vernacular liturgies because people in my diocese can’t say those ordinary parts in Latin quite yet.”



Nobody in this thread claimed this.



The “limits” where given a condition to be expanded by the council itself – Vatican II is partially to blame here.



But, nobody in this thread said the council mandated or even gave the option for versus populum and 100% vernacular.

Regardless of whether the Council said that Latin in the liturgy should be abolished, it was the will of the Pope who implemented the Council's decrees that Latin and Gregorian Chant should be mostly scrapped

I have read a few articles by a critic of Pope Paul VI. And what is the point? Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI did what they could. And one might say: Well, things are not perfect now, or perhaps, It took too long. It is worth noting the sometimes paralyzing fear expressed by a few over Pope Francis over the Amazon synod. Breathless waiting, hoping, desperately, that the other shoe would not drop, plunging the Church into schism. Popes, Cardinals, Bishops and so on have felt the oppressive breath of their critics, especially in the last 50 years.

Celibacy in 1967? Yes, those same voices yelling at the Church. 'We live in "modern" times. Celibacy just won't do. Not anymore.' Pope Paul VI had to issue an encyclical then when the Church in the West was in far better shape.

And the Sexual Revolution. Pope Paul VI had to issue an encyclical in 1968. But within 24 hours of publication, some Catholic theologians, going far beyond their authority, took out a full page ad in the New York Times to what? Correct the Pope? But there it was: Confuse people - everyone reading - especially the faithful. This at a time when the faithful were, generally, more faithful. The oppressive atmosphere created by critics of the Church had to become more oppressive, especially in 1968. For their 'contraception is good, don't listen to the Church,' message to succeed, they had to turn up the volume. Adult Bookstores in the West in the 1970s, perverse TV shows as well, and finally, the US Supreme Court legalizes abortion in 1973. The poison was being slowly injected into the veins of the people. For anyone who said 'no' to the appearance of outlets for graphic pornography in our neighborhoods, lawyers would appear to say 'yes' on their behalf.

But what is actually happening today outside of the wall of sound created by the critics? The Traditional Latin Mass is bearing good fruit.

https://liturgyguy.com/2019/02/24/natio ... attendees/

Catholic Churches are restoring what was taken away from them in the 1960s by persons who obviously objected to what they represented.