An article in the Catholic Herald reminded the less mathematical among us that the Novus Ordo is half a century old. Goodness me, how time does fly when one is enjoying oneself.
The article recounted the prediction of Cardinal Heenan (whom I regard as having been quite a Good Egg) that the New Mass would produce only women and children.
Was he right about the children?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
Only as long as the women can physically carry them or drag them to Mass, does it include the children. And only a small minority of women at that.
I well remember the late Cardinal Heenan when he was Bishop Heenan and I believe that the clergy regarded him as being rather ruthless. He was noted for simply moving priests from their comfortable positions and shifting them to other parishes in order to give them a bit of a shake up. Of course he moved to Liverpool and there he set about shaking up the all too cosy matter of a new Cathedral. The result of that shake up resulted in "Paddy's Wigwam" which I have heard described as the ugliest cathedral in Europe. Outside of clerical circles he was generally well regarded and respected. But not everything which he did has worn well with the passage of time.
Dear Father. One has to give the revolutionary triumphalists their due.
They successfully overturned the existing order and replaced it with their indifferentist anthropocentric ecumenical order and they will never willing surrender what they won.because Ecumenism is the Universal Solvent of Tradition and broken shards of it yet remain.
As for anniversaries and days that will live in ecclesiastical infamy, how about December 7, 1962?
December 7, 1962
Pope John XXIII’s creation of a special commission to study the disputed proposal on the sources of Revelation was “a turning point in the Second Vatican Council,” Father John B. Sheerin, C.S.P., said here.
Father Sheerin, of New York, editor of the Catholic World and a member of the U.S. bishops’ press panel, also told newsmen at the panel’s final meeting (Dec. 7) that the Pope’s act in setting up a special committee to coordinate revisional work during the council’s long recess “means that a counter-reformation theology won’t be able to exert influence on the schemata.”(Pope John ordered [Nov. 21] that a special commission made up of members of the Theology Commission and of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity be set up to revise the proposal on Revelation. This proposal, submitted to the council by the Theology Commission, headed by Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani, was criticized in the council as too rigid and formal.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
What was it about these revolutionaries that made then think that they were uniquely qualified and, thus, the chosen ones to overturn the existing order?
Well, according to Pope Paul VI, the ecclesiastical enginers who assembled the V2 rocket where the holiset and best Catholics ever.
No, seriously...Here is Pope Paul Vl:
++++++++Begin quotes+++++++
Following is the council press office translation of the Latin address delivered Dec. 4 by Pope Paul VI at the closing meeting of the second session of the ecumenical council.
We have now reached the end of the second session of this great ecumenical council….
Let us rejoice, my brothers, for when was the Church ever so aware of herself, so in love with Christ, so blessed, so united, so willing to imitate Him, so ready to fulfill His mission?
+++++++++ end quotes++++
The actions of !962-1965 BCE (BEST CAThOLICS EVDER) were a wonder to behold
That bad old church, with its rigid Dogma, Doctrine, Mass and Sacraments, is no more. It is now a laid back loose-goosey thing and one can not identify a single prelate worthy of being called a successor to the great Roman, Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani who (along with Ruffini) , it ought be noted, was prescient enough to call for an ecumenical council as early as 1948, because he was aware of the many Doctrinal errors then in vogue and gaining strength.
There was a reason the revolutionaries struck first at the Holy Office and the great Ottaviani....
I am over 70 and was an altar boy who knew the Old Mass by heart. It was not perfect. It was often rushed, perfunctory and mechanical, even robotic. While Father Faber’s saccharine hymnody was embarrassing even then, you could still be introduced to transcendant beauty when a parish choir sang Mozart’s “Ave Verum” at a packed High Mass in August, with incense and sweat accompanying. You knew something important was happening.
BUT, at the moment of the Consecration, all that ceased to matter. Here was the True Body & Blood of Christ, worshipped on their knees by the members of His One True Church. This was the glue that held everything together.
With Vatican II, that center of gravity was abandoned, with glee and with enthusiasm, (including by me back then) and the Church, now “the People of God” (what a vapid phrase), went running after “the modern world.” Instead of confronting, it started flirting and pleading. And its “cultured despisers” promptly exchanged their attitude of respectful distance for contemptuous jeering. And now, inside a single lifetime, the churches are empty in the old Christian lands of the north, as they are being invaded by millions of savages from the Third World, including Mohammed’s slave army. With Lord Bergoglio of the UN cheering them on. Kissed feet for them, scolding for us.
What my years tell me is that human beings are attracted to confidence, unapologetic confidence. No matter what they tell you about “sensitivity” and “caring”. Like women, what they say is a screen, to see if you have the, well, the stuffing, to stand up to them.
The Roman Church gave all that away for a mess of bloviage, like the whole self-dismantling Western culture of which it is only a symptomatic part. Unless it does a full 180 degree reversal and recovers itself as, unapologetically, the One True Religion, it will fade into deserved dust before the Muslims and the savages, not a martyred saint, but an incomprehensibly tragic suicide.
Dear Father, May I clarify the words spoken by Cardinal Heenan concerning the New Mass 'producing' only women and children'? What he actually said was this: "If we were to offer them the kind of ceremony we saw yesterday in the Sistine Chapel we would soon be left with a congregation of women and children." (Michael Davies: Pope Paul's New Mass). The implication is that the New Mass was only suitable for children, and of course women,whom many people in those days regarded as a kind of child. The Cardinal's reaction will recall for ex-Anglicans the popular reaction to Cranmer's English "Mass" as being nothing more than "a Christmas game." Cardinal Heenan was at one time Archbishop of Liverpool (my native city), and I can vouch for the fact that he was a very Good Egg indeed.
While females vastly outnumber males when it comes to the incessant comings and goings of lay people to and from the sanctuary (if you can call it that – altar space might be more appropriate) at a Sunday Mass in my local parish church there are quite a lot of men in the congregation. The children’s choir is almost entirely female, the adult choir is almost entirely female and the cantors are almost entirely female. The majority of altar servers are probably female. The groups most noticeably missing are teenagers and people in their twenties of both sexes.
Evelyn Waugh believed that Heenan eventually ceased offering any required resistance to the NO zeitgeist. While the good Cardinal may not have been a "Rotten Egg", neither was he a "Good Egg".
I heard an anecdote of one child who professed her disdain for the old Mass.
She didn't the sappy music or the guitars and preferred the new Mass with chant and Latin.
Some time ago, Fr Ray Blake discussed Cardinal Heenan's remark on his blog. Fr Ray asserts that, in context, the meaning is rather different. The Cardinal had attended a Mass with sung responsorial psalm, etc. as a demonstration of the new rite. His concern was with the length of the rite and its discouraging effect on men accustomed, as were most English RCs at that time, to attending low Mass.
Father, if I recall accurately, the remark was made after a solemn demo of the 'new Mass' which had been exhaustively full-length, with extensive extra readings and probably a daunting laundry-list of prayers for every single area of famine, civil war, dictatorship or poverty in every village of the globe; there was now to be no distinction between High and Low Mass, and the good Cardinal was thinking of Catholic working-class men who had traditionally popped in for 30 minutes to 'hear Mass' during their daily lunch-hour or after work: a largely mute, 'short and sweet' Low Mass, in which they might either follow the liturgy or pray silently; they weren't expected to constantly bob up and down in strenuous Swedish exercises, or to be forced to listen to (and themselves partly supply) reams of chatter in pseudo-English.
So Heenan was just objecting to the actual length - which was in fact then subsequently curtailed. Possibly he was also appalled by the new rite's sententious tediousness, and wanted to drop a helpful hint about that too? Alas, if so, he did not persist, and let the great waves of modernism crash over the E&W Church with no further quibble.
Well, I am aware of Cardinal Heenan's comment and, whether it referred to the length, or to the sappy, seemingly denial of the divinity of Christ atmosphere, I am old enough that I attended the Mass before, during, and after the council. There were far more men present at the Traditional Latin pre-conciliar Mass than there are at the Novus Ordo Mass.
I note, “DrAndroSF”, that you have used the word savages twice in your comment of 24 April (“millions of savages from the Third World” and “the Muslims and the savages”). Could I ask you to clarify to whom you are referring when you use this word, and why you chose to describe them as savages? You might also wish to confirm that your striking use of this word is compatible with Summi Pontificatus, which states that we should “contemplate the human race in the unity of its origin in God”, and talks of “the law of human solidarity and charity, dictated and imposed both by our common origin and by the equality in rational nature of all men, whatever nation they belong to.”
Of course many people might be taken aback by the unchallenged use, in a comment on a blog written by a Catholic priest, of the word ‘savages’ to refer to our human brothers and sisters. But I assure you that I was not taken aback.
Terry Loane
Father Hunwicke, despite my sometimes trenchant comments, I am not lacking in courtesy and therefore do not intend to try using your blog as a platform for a conflict between commenters. Terry Loane and I clearly come from quite incompatible standpoints. I am neither an egalitarian nor a humanitarian, regarding both these now-ascendant Enlightenment ideologies as central to the Vatican II “mess of bloviage” I spoke of, so any back-and-forth would be a waste of energy and a misuse of your cyberspace.
His Eminence WAS correct. The problem is, those children are now between ages 60 and 70, give or take.
Dear Fr Hunwicke
I was somewhat puzzled that DrAndroSF was unwilling (or perhaps unable) to answer my quite straightforward questions about his use of the word ‘savages’ in a comment on your blog earlier this week. I was further puzzled by the fact that he suggested that he and I “clearly come from quite incompatible standpoints”. I fail to see how he could have reached this conclusion, given that my post consisted of little more than two questions and a quotation from a papal encyclical. I did not indicate any “standpoint” at all. But perhaps he did not read my post with the care with which I sought to write it.
So I decided to investigate further. And the first thing I discovered is that this was not the first comment by DrAndroSF on your blog in which he refers to “third world savages”. He has used the same phrase on at least three occasions (in July 2015 and June 2016 as well as this week) and you have chosen not to challenge the use of this term on any of these three occasions. This brought to my mind the maxim “Qui tacet consentire videtur, ubi loqui debuit ac potuit”. (I know you like a bit of Latin, Father!) In other words you, the owner and moderator of the blog, clearly find nothing objectionable in the use of the term “savages” when referring in general terms to (at least some) of those who hail from poorer part of the world.
So I decided to investigate yet further, and I discovered this, a comment by DrAndroSF on a different blog:
“We need to see them [by which he means “blacks”, to whom he referred in the previous sentence] as the alien, hostile and incompatible group that they are, cease wasting more of our already wasted moral energy, resources and blood on them, and cease believing the foolish lie that the racial problem can be "solved" within the current system.”
Now this is the language we expect to hear from white supremacist racists, who are also the most likely people to refer to “third world savages”.
I am, of course, not at all implying that either you, Fr Hunwicke, or DrAndroSF is a white supremacist racist. But I do think that many people would be scandalised that a blog written by a Catholic priest should contain unchallenged phrases like “third world savages” contributed by someone who regards “black” as aliens. I feel that it might be in everyone’s best interest for you to publish some words of clarification of your view, Father.
Best wishes
Terry Loane
To observe savage behavior and call it so is neither an affront to human dignity or a lack of charity. It is called being truthful, or what the Blessed Savior enjoins us to do when he says "Let your yea be yea, and your no no." To observe what is real and true---making sure it is so---is in itself a high form of charity in a world that revels in double-speak and lies. "Equality in rational nature of all men"?! Tell that canard to the families of the recent Catholic martyrs in Sri Lanka, or to the millions affected by Nazi and Communist/Socialist horror in the twentieth century alone. Kudos to DrAndroSF for speaking the truth without sentimentality and with the manly courage and straightforward virtue exemplified by That Rabbi from Nazareth who called the Pharisees "brood of vipers" and "whitened sepulchers" to their faces and physically forced, with a whip, the money changers from the Temple. Perhaps those pharisees and desecrators of the holy temple of God did not enjoy that precious and universal "equality in rational nature of all men."
Kudos to DrAndroSF for speaking the truth manfully in an age that revels in half-truths and lies. To call observable savage behavior---by indidviduals or by groups---by its name is neither lack of charity nor a violation of anyone's humanity. It is merely to comply with what the Lord commands: "Let your yea be yea, and your no no." Tell the family and friends of the recent Catholic martyrs in Sri Lanka or of the millions sacrificed at the pagan altars of Nazism, Socialism and Communism in the 20th century alone about "the equality in rational nature of all men." Tell that, moreover, to the Rabbi from Nazareth who called the Pharisees "brood of vipers" and "whitened sepulchers" and who forced, with a whip, the money changers from the temple. Did these butchers, hypocrites and desecrators not fully participate of the universal and precious "equality in rational nature of all men"?
I think it possible that DrAndroSF has failed to detect a soupcon of sarcasm on the part of Terry Loane.
mary tim crowley co cork ireland
our holy Thursday mass included a sermon delighting in the fifty years since the priest stopped turning his back to the people. a novus ordo parish which i avoid when i can by attending a Mass said by our beloved "retired" priest of 87 or is it 88. who intersperses latin with the vernacular, albeit quietly.
Thank you for your comment 'Ed the Roman', but I should point out that there was no sarcasm (not even a soupçon:-) in my comment dated 26 April. Sarcasm, properly so called, involves a combination of irony (saying the opposite of what one means) and mockery. My comment consisted, in effect, of two questions and a statement, all of which were intended to be taken at face value. Interestingly, "DrAndroSF" would not – or perhaps could not – answer either question.
To further help us to understand DrAndroSF’s views, here is an exact quotation from something he wrote elsewhere on the World Wide Web in January this year:
"BLACK LIVES MATTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!…….Uh, but, why? Particularly? To whom and for why?"
Terry Loane
Thank you for your comment, 'coradcorloquitur'. Let me be clear. I unequivocally denounce all acts of savagery (i.e. violence) wherever or by whomsoever they are committed. I certainly have no time for half-truths and lies.
But I have only ever seen the phrase “third world savages” used in contexts that appear to be promoting white supremacist racism. For example, a Ku Klux Klan recruitment flier last year included the words "Wake up and stop letting these third world savages walk all over your people."
That is why I find it so concerning that this phrase should have appeared, unchallenged, in more than one comment on this blog, particularly as these comments were submitted by someone who has elsewhere referred to "blacks" as "the alien, hostile and incompatible group that they are".
Dear Mr Loane
I dislike censorship; however, it has been represented to me that those who operate blogs are, to a degree, responsible for what appears on them.
The contextual information you give me makes me immensely uneasy about the phrases you particularly cite. I therefore deplore their existence on my blog; although I must make clear that I do not have the research facilities available to me to research everything hat is written to me.
I do have mixed-race members of my own family, and anything that even appeared prima facie to be insulting to such people would be strongly repudiated and rebutted by me. Indeed, my reaction to such language is quite visceral!
"Black Lives Matter" is itself a racist slogan and sentiment, as ALL lives matter---including those in the womb that the Left so obsessed with racism under every bed treats as if it were less that what it is: a baby. The savages in our post-Christian society are not only in the Third World, as the decadent contracepting societies of Western Europe or the USA amply show; but the fact remains that there is terrible savagery in third world countries, and saying so is neither false nor racist. If there is a great danger in our world today it is not from the much-touted "white supremacists" but from the "globalist sumpremacists," who seem to find a few acolytes even in this blog. Wake up and know your real enemy.
I have no idea, "coradcorloquitur" what you mean by "globalist supremacists" (assuming "sumpremacists" was a typo:-). The term does not appear to be in very common use, and when it is used, it seems to mean different things to different people, although often in the context of conspiracy theories. Are you able to clarify what you do mean by "globalist supremacists", and also perhaps to confirm that they are one and the same as the "real enemy" to whom you refer in your final sentence?
Of course, we all succumb sometimes to what I call "labellism". By this I mean the intellectual laziness whereby we avoid engaging in real discussion about a particular issue, but instead merely attach a label – often derogatory and ill-defined - to people whose attitudes we dislike. For example, rather than saying “I disagree with proposition X for the following reasons…” there is a temptation to say, in effect, “You only believe in proposition X because you are a modernist/traditionalist/leftie/reactionary/"adolescent youth with testosterone oozing from your pimples"/"globalist supremacist" – or whatever lazy label we choose to pull out of the dustbin and throw at a presumed opponent.
Terry Loane
Terry, if you do not know what "globalist supremacists" means---as in the cabals of various stripes that aim for the eradication of national character and customs, borders, and the immemorial traditions of various people with the purpose of control and punishment through entities like the United Nations, the European Union, the Open Society subversive outfits funded and fueled by George Soros, the various population-control NGOs(read contraception/abortion cultural imperialists bent on imposing their immoral programs on traditional societies with the cooperation of much of the leftist media)---then there is no point in talking any more, particularly since you seem by your latest comment to be veering into personal invective. Funny, isn't it, that the person in this discussion who first introduced the "lazy label" of "white supremacist racists" (the epithet preferred these days by leftists who in their much-touted "tolerance" aim to shut everyone else up) should be pontificating about "lazy labels" and epithets. But, then again, it is classic leftist policy: to accuse others, without basis, of what they themselves are doing. You may write all you want---and use whatever "lazy labels" you wish, but from now on I am neither reading nor responding to your comments. I learned long ago that dialogue with liberals (yes, a label indeed, and a very apt one that describes a world view) is a futile waste of time.
In normal circumstances I would start this comment with "Thank you for your response 'coradcorloquitur' and for seeking to explain the meaning of 'globalist supremacist'". But coradcorloquitur has declared his intention of "neither reading nor responding to [my] comments" so I feel it would be disrespectful for me to address him directly. I will instead show my respect for his wishes (and for English grammar!) by referring to him in the third person. Here goes:
I take this opportunity to thank "coradcorloquitur" for his response and for seeking to explain the meaning of the term global supremacist. I am disappointed, though, that he should have interpreted my message as "pontificating" and as accusing others of what I myself am doing. I went out of my way to say “WE ALL succumb sometimes to what I call "labellism" [emphasis added]. So I was certainly not excluding myself from such lapses of rigour. Having said that, though, I should also point out that when I introduced the term 'white supremacist racist' – in my comment dated 27 April – I specifically took care not to attach the label to any individuals, when I wrote "I am, of course, not at all implying that either you, Fr Hunwicke, or DrAndroSF is a white supremacist racist." I do try to do my best to resist the temptation to chuck labels at people, even labels with very precise agreed meanings.
Coradcorloquitur also suggested that my previous comment was "veering into personal invective". Again I am disappointed that he should have interpreted what I wrote in such a way, as I always seek to avoid personal insult. Actually I have no idea to what he is referring, and as he will be "neither reading nor responding to" this comment, I suppose I will never find out – which is a shame, as I am with Francis of Assisi in trying to replace discord with union.
My sincere good wishes to all who read and contribute to Fr Hunwicke’s blog.
Terry Loane
Post a Comment