Please consider supporting this campaign to support a Seminarian from Toronto at the ICRSS

Please consider supporting this campaign to support a Seminarian from Toronto at the ICRSS
Click on photo for direct link to secure donation page

Tuesday, 12 July 2016

Father Thomas J. Rosica, CSB: What's that you say about Summorum Pontificum?

According to Father John Zuhlsdorf, Thomas J. Rosica, CSB., sent out the following blurb to his newsies:

"Fr Lombardi notes that Pope Francis made this view clear to Cardinal Sarah during a recent audience, stressing that the ‘Ordinary’ form of the celebration of Mass is the one laid down in the Missal promulgated by Paul VI, while the ‘Extraordinary’ form, permitted in certain specific cases by Pope Benedict XVI, should not be seen as replacing the ‘Ordinary’ form."

Summorum Pontificum provides that any priest, anywhere, any day, at any time can offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass according to the Roman MIssal of 1962, without the permission or approval of the bishop. It is not in "certain specific cases."

Whether by ignorance or intent, Father Rosica is wrong.

Father Thomas J. Rosica, changed the words at the Offertory of the Mass, shown below. It was a violation of the Second Vatican Council's Sacrosanctum Concilium as well as Redemptoris Sacramentum. It seemed to be an "exercise in personal preference or taste" as Cardinal "hindu-gods-ad-orientem" Nichols was referring to in his slapdown of any priest who would dare follow Cardinal Sarah's advice and offer the Holy Sacrifice in the posture it was intended to be and was for 1900 years.

Isn't what is good for one priest good for the other, or is there an exception for Thomas J. Rosica?


The word change begins around 5:17 (Nota Bene: This was prior to corrected translation)





What is this hatred for the Church's traditional and timeless liturgy that these men have such a problem with?


I have my theories, what are yours?


Postscript:

Friends, I wrote it yesterday, I will say it again The Novus Ordo liturgy is a dead letter. There is no "reform of the reform." It is dead. Pope Benedict XVI vision has been abrogated. The Missal of Paul VI is an abomination. It is a disgrace. Look at the fruits, look at the culture, look at the faith. Look at your families.


Get out of it. Leave the new rite. Get to the traditional Latin Mass in your diocesan parish, the FSSP, ICK or even the SSPX if you have no other option. Do whatever you need to do to get out of the Novus Ordo and back to the Mass and Faith of your Fathers. Save your soul, S Save your children. Save the Church. Save the liturgy and save the world! There is no hope in Modernism. There is no power to transform and covert in the new bastard rite. It is valid, that is not a debate, it is deficient, it always was and it always will be. 


They destroyed most of the faith through the liturgy, now they wish to finish it off in Amoris Laetitia.


The fish rots from the head first.



O LORD save us. save your people.

16 comments:

Peter Lamb said...

"The Missal of Paul VI is an abomination. It is a disgrace. Look at the fruits ... get out of the Novus Ordo... Save your soul... the new bastard rite... They destroyed the faith through the liturgy..."

Great advice and true, but if Montini was a true Pope, there seems to be a contradiction:

"“The Church is infallible in her general discipline. By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church. Such things would be those which concern either external worship, such as liturgy and rubrics, or the administration of the sacraments.... If she [the Church] were able to prescribe or command or tolerate in her discipline something against faith and morals, or something which tended to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful, she would turn away from her divine mission, which would be impossible.”
(Jean Herrmann, Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae, Vol. 1, 1908, p. 258.)

I. The Catholic Church is infallible. By the assistance of Christ, the Church is infallible in the preservation and exposition of the deposit of revelation. This quality of the Church is expressed in the words of Christ, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it,” and in the words of St. Paul, who called the Church “the pillar and ground of truth.” Neither of these things could be true, however, if the Church could err in her official teaching. Therefore the Church is infallible. Furthermore, if the Church taught error in matters of faith and morals, it would be a society of leading souls to hell, rather than a society of leading souls to heaven.

II. The Catholic Church is indefectible. This quality of the Church means that the Church will endure until the end of time without any essential variation of her constitutive elements, namely unity, holiness, catholicity and apostolicity. This doctrine is based on the same texts and reasoning as the infallibility of the Church. To these we add, “Behold, I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world,” and Our Lord’s promise to the Apostles that the Holy Ghost would remain with them forever. The Vatican Council of 1870 declared: “Moreover what the Chief of pastors and the Great Pastor of sheep, the Lord Jesus, established in the blessed Apostle Peter for the perpetual salvation and perennial good of the Church, this by the same Author must endure always in the Church which was founded upon a rock and will endure firm until the end of the ages.”

III. It is impossible that he who is the Roman Pontiff could officially teach doctrines contrary to Catholic faith and morals, or could approve or even permit a false liturgy or evil disciplines for the whole Church. This doctrine is merely a conclusion of the two foregoing doctrines, since the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ, is the one who enjoys the assistance from Christ, whereby the Church cannot err or defect. Pope Gregory XVI declared: “Is it possible that the Church, which is the pillar and ground of truth and which is continually receiving from the Holy Spirit the teaching of all truth, could ordain, grant, permit what would turn to the detriment of the soul’s salvation, to the contempt and harm of a sacrament instituted by Christ?” (Matt. XVI: 18, I Tim. III: 15, Matt. XXVIII: 20,John XIV: 16,Denz. 1824.)

Peter Lamb said...

Come to think of it, if Jorge is also a true Pope,it might behove us go easy on him:

"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
(Pope Boniface VIII, Bull Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302.)

"Refusal of submission to the Pope, however, constitutes schism, and, if it is denied that a Catholic must submit to the Pope, then it is heresy as well. (Denz. 1831.)

"Union with the Roman See of Peter is ... always the public criterion of a Catholic…. “You are not to be looked upon as holding the true Catholic faith if you do not teach that the faith of Rome is to be held”.
(Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Satis Cognitum, n. 13)

For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles. Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this see of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Saviour to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren [Lk 22:32].
This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this see so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell."
(Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus, Ch.4)

To the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct; on the faithful was imposed the duty of following their teaching, of submitting with docility to their judgment, and of allowing themselves to be governed, corrected, and guided by them in the way of salvation. Thus, it is an absolute necessity for the simple faithful to submit in mind and heart to their own pastors, and for the latter to submit with them to the Head and Supreme Pastor.
(Pope Leo XIII, Letter Epistola Tua to Cardinal Guibert, June 17, 1885; excerpted in Papal Teachings: The Church, p. 263.)

Anonymous said...

About your question: "What is this hatred for the Church's traditional and timeless liturgy?" It seems to stem from multiple causes. The two most innocent ones are:

#1. FORCE OF HABIT.—Lots of people just like the Mass in English; it's just what they are used to. This demographic probably includes most people under 50, that being the maximum age of people too young to ever have experienced anything else. It also includes many older people who may still remember Mass in Latin, but are not particularly interested in the fine points of liturgy and hence just appreciate not needing a book to follow along.

#2. ALLERGIC REACTIONS.—They see traditionalism as a wholly fake thing. A very solid trad friend once warned me to keep an eye out for people who like the Latin Mass only because they really like wearing lace! If, say, an ignorant but otherwise well-disposed person from the force-of-habit inertial group above were to encounter such a lace-lover as their one and only exposure to Catholic tradition, they would probably get a rash.

But people affected by either #1 or #2 are not the ones dripping venom. That would be caused by:

#3. FEAR OF MISSING ECUMENICAL BOAT.—The main rationale for re-jigging the Mass was (ostensibly) to make it more palatable to our separated Protestant brethren. Those who really believe this, and those clergy who have made whole careers out of this, probably feel that Christian unity is right around the corner if we just try a little bit harder! So anything with even a faint odour of the older way of doing things will actively damage delicate ecumenical relations.

#4. FEAR OF MISSING THE RENEWAL.— Imagine reading a traffic engineering report that kept emphasizing the importance of everyone driving on the right, over and over, all through the text. Without actually saying so, you would get the impression that some investigation had found that there was a huge problem with people driving on the left and that this report was recommending urgently needed corrective actions. And so it is with Sacrosanctum Concilium and its emphasis on "understanding" and "active participation." Without actually saying so, it leaves one with the impression that at the time it was written there was a huge problem with the Mass; people were passively watching priests perform random actions no one really understood. Hence, another rationale for hating Tradition is “everything was awful before.” Many of the older clergy staked their whole adult lives on this, and the reaction to the idea that they have been wrong all these years is that they lash out ferociously at the suggestion.

#5. MODERNISTIC SJW-ISM.—Modernists are all atheists when you scratch the surface; they see religion as, at best, a sort of window dressing on social-justice-ism. So they actually WANT the focus of worship to be on Man, not God—all horizontal, no vertical. To their minds, it is a superstitious distraction to focus on the Lord and His redeeming sacrifice. They feel that we ought to "sing a new Church into being" through "active participation" as this will bring us into an era of human equality, justice, and peace. The EF Mass and all the associated traditional practices runs are strongly anti-modernist so they see these practices as actually supporting inequality, injustice, and war.

#6. SATAN.—Inspiring aspects of all of the above.

Vox Cantoris said...

I'm not into lace.

John Proctor said...

*Even* SSPX? You wouldn't be urging Catholics to run to Tradition had it not been preserved so faithfully by Archbishop Lefebvre and his spiritual sons. And I worship in a diocesan Mass.

Vox Cantoris said...

John, You are absolutely correct. My point "even the SSPX" is a sign of support for them to those who would hesitate. I have great love for Archbishop Lefebvre. One day, the Church will exonerate him by declaring him Venerable and maybe even Saint! In my opinion, the Holy Spirit was acting through him to save the Mass because it would have been gone, gone, gone without him. In Canada at the time of the "illicit" consecrations, the traditional Mass was said by about three priests and except for one in Ottawa, were harassed and persecuted. We have the SSPX in Toronto, I have often assisted there in Schola when they were in need and I was between formal assignments.

Yes, "even the SSPX" because they are CATHOLIC!

Mark Thomas said...

Vox said..."...Archbishop Lefebvre. One day, the Church will exonerate him by declaring him Venerable and maybe even Saint! In my opinion, the Holy Spirit was acting through him to save the Mass because it would have been gone, gone, gone without him."

Vox, long before Archbishop Lefebvre involved himself in the situation in question, Father Gommar DePauw preserved and promoted the TLM in major fashion. Through Bishop Antônio de Castro Mayer Castro Mayer, tens of thousands of Catholics worshipped God via the TLM.

Throughout the world, without Archbishop Lefebvre's assistance, tens of thousands of Catholics held fast to the TLM courtesy of priests who had preserved and promoted the TLM. Therefore, we need not exaggerate the role that Archbishop Lefebvre played in the holy battle to preserve and promote the TLM.

Interestingly, the TLM would have been altered dramatically decades ago via the following radical liturgical reform that he favored: Archbishop Lefebvre supported the heavy incorporation of the vernacular into the Mass of the Catechumens.

The funny thing is that someday, via the "mutual enrichment" of the "two forms" of the Roman Rite that Rome favors, the TLM will be imbued with the Vernacular.

Therefore, Archbishop Lefebvre's desire to vernacularize the TLM, in particular, the Mass of the Catechumens, will be realized.

In fact, during his recent address at the Sacra Liturgia conference, Cardinal Sarah made it clear that the use of the vernacular in the Roman Liturgy is an absolute given. There isn't any turning back on that.

Cardinal Sarah said that it's "true that the vernacular has a positive place in the liturgy. We must obtain the right balance between the vernacular languages and the use of Latin in the liturgy. The Council never intended that the Roman rite be exclusively celebrated in the vernacular. But it did intend to allow its increased use, particularly for the readings."

How many Traditionalists support Cardinal Sarah's, not to mention Archbishop Lefebvre's (Requiescat in pace), determination to offer parts of the Mass in the vernacular?

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Peter Lamb said...

This past May 22nd marked the fiftieth anniversary of the first Traditionalist Bishop to take a stand against the Modernist Vatican II sect. The name will be a surprise to many. It's not the name Lefebvre (he didn't come onto the scene until 1969), it's not Thuc (unheard of until the mid-1970s), it's not Mendez (he wouldn't be around until the late 1980s), and it's not de Castro Mayer (he fought to keep the Faith only in his diocese of Campos and would not do more until the 1980s). It was Bishop Blaise Kurz, a bishop of Faith and courage rarely ever seen, especially since the world-wide Deformation that was Vatican II.
He was the only bishop from the Rhineland who was staunchly Catholic and refused to be won over by the likes of arch-Modernists Joseph Frings, and Bernard Alfrink.
Blaise Kurz was born on the feast of St. Blaise, of a pious German Catholic family in the town of Sontheim in 1894.

Fr. Kurz was ordained a Franciscan, and as a loyal son of St. Francis, he spent the next 20 years of his life as a missionary priest in China, converting the pagans to the One True Church of Christ. On July 11, 1939, the 45 year old missionary was informed that the newly elected and crowned Pope Pius XII had chosen him to be consecrated as a bishop; with the pope himself as his principal consecrator. So it was that on the feast of Christ the King, October 29, 1939, Fr. Kurz was raised to the episcopacy by His Holiness with Archbishops Celso Constantini and Henri Streicher as co-consecrators at the main altar of St. Peter's Basilica.

The young bishop was assigned by the pope to the Diocese of Kokstad, South Africa. Kokstad is a small town on the slopes of the Drakensberg Mountains, in the province of KwaZulu-Natal, overlooking South Africa’s southern coast.
The bishop spent the next eight years living in a large institute for the deaf and mute. While there, he met a Franciscan missionary priest from the Belgian Congo, who came there when an inner ear infection threatened to make him deaf. This priest was Fr. Adhemar DePauw, the older brother of Fr. Gommar DePauw who would found the Catholic Traditionalist Movement in 1964.
After the war, in 1948, Pope Pius XII appointed Bp. Kurz as the Ordinary of the newly created Diocese of Yungchow, China--putting him back in the country he loved and where he made many converts to the Faith.

Peter Lamb said...

In 1949, Bp. Kurz was invited by Francis Cardinal Spellman to take up residence in his Archdiocese of NYC - the Cardinal was virulently anti-Communist and thought the good bishop would like the United States. That same year, Fr. Gommar DePauw immigrated to the U.S. and was incardinated into the Archdiocese of NYC. His brother flew in from Belgium to introduce them - two anti-Communist, anti-Modernists taking up residence in the USA.

In 1959, Angelo Roncalli ("Pope" John XXIII) called for an ecumenical council. This would be the beginning of the Great Apostasy. Bp. Kurz was entitled to attend. His Excellency called on Fr. DePauw to be his peritus (i.e., "theological expert") at the council. Father was now a canon lawyer, having obtained his doctorate in canon law (JCD) from Catholic University, Washington DC in 1955. He had been incardinated into the Archdiocese of Baltimore, where he was in charge of admissions, as well as professor of Canon Law, Moral Theology, and Latin at Mount St. Mary's Seminary.

Bp. Kurz fought along side Cardinal Ottaviani and the other anti-Modernists with Fr. DePauw at his side. The bishop was told by Arch-Modernist Frings to "fall in line" with the Rhineland bishops and their heretical novelties, to which he replied he would never abandon the Catholic Faith.

On December 31, 1964, Fr. DePauw sent his Catholic Traditionalist Manifesto to every single Catholic bishop in the world, asking them to join him in preserving the Traditional Mass and "That, while truly respecting all non-Catholics who follow their conscience into what in candid honesty we must continue to call objective errors or partial truths, our bishops, priests, religious and laity alike renew their truly ecumenical efforts to proclaim the full unadulterated doctrine of Christ's Catholic Church in a world that desperately needs it." ---a slap at heretical ecumenism!
Of the nearly 2,000 bishops, only Cardinals Ottaviani, Bacci, and Bishop Kurz publicly supported it and the newly founded "Catholic Traditionalist Movement" (aka "CTM").

When Fr. DePauw was ordered by Shehan to disband the Catholic Traditionalist Movement, Bishop Kurz intervened. With the help of Cardinal Ottaviani, Shehan signed the excardination papers for Fr. DePauw, and he was incardinated into the Diocese of Tivoli, Italy. The bishop of Tivoli then allowed Father to be incardinated under the direct episcopal jurisdiction of Bp. Kurz, who immediately ordered Fr. DePauw to continue his work with the CTM.

Peter Lamb said...

Then on May 22, 1966 at the Garden City Hotel in Long Island, NY, Bishop Kurz made the following historical step at a press conference when he stated to the world: "I recommend the Catholic Traditionalist Movement to all Catholics willing to defend our Church. While the active leadership of the Catholic Traditionalist Movement will remain with Father De Pauw, I have today accepted the position offered me by that Movement's Board of Directors, and will henceforth publicly function as Bishop-Moderator of the Catholic Traditionalist Movement."

He returned to West Germany, where he was despised by the German Modernists. They sought to have his faculties removed by their Satanic leader, Montini ("Pope" Paul VI). That never happened, as Montini did not want to make a martyr out of a brave missionary bishop, now in his 70s.
Bp. Kurz refused to say the Novus Bogus, and publicly offered only the True Mass and Sacraments for small groups of German Traditionalists. When the good bishop asked Abp. Lefebvre, who started the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) in 1970, to fill in for him and Confirm at the Ave Maria Chapel, the Archbishop responded in a letter to Fr. DePauw: "As far as Confirmation is concerned, it is clear that this is a very delicate thing for me to do…I have to be very prudent in this area." He ultimately declined to help a bishop who fought by his side at Vatican II.
While I respect all the Archbishop has done, please remember this when the SSPX harps on how fearless Lefebvre was and how cowardly were all other bishops.

Bp. Kurz died in West Germany on December 13, 1973, at the age of 79.
He was placed in a grave with some 20 other Franciscan missionaries bearing the simple epitaph of "Missionary Bishop of China." No mention of his 54 years of service and suffering for the Church, and no mention of his defense of the True Faith and Church as Moderator of the CTM.(What else could be expected?) It's been said the truly great ones are the truly humble ones, so I guess it's only fitting that he was laid to rest as humbly as he lived his life, in imitation of Our Lord.

He rejected the errors of Vatican II, and was proud of the fact that he NEVER (not even once) said the Novus Bogus bread and wine service. He offered the True Mass his whole life exclusively. He remarked that "the greatest thing I ever did was what I didn't do" - say the invalid abomination that was called a "mass" and produced by Vatican II.
Father and the good bishop led the way for Lefebvre, Thuc, Mendez, and the others to follow. They were the first to sound the alarm and fight the good fight.

Fr. DePauw - and even to a greater degree, Bp. Kurz - get ignored for their rightful role in keeping the True Faith alive in the wake of Vatican II. However, all the heroic good deeds they did are remembered by God. In the end, isn't that all that really matters for any of us?
(http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.co.za/ 27 June, 2016.)

Lynne said...

"Father Gommar DePauw preserved and promoted the TLM in major fashion. Through Bishop Antônio de Castro Mayer, tens of thousands of Catholics worshipped God via the TLM."

After Father DePauw and Bp Mayer passed away, how were the laity going to worship via the TLM? Did either of them start a seminary to continue training young men to say the Mass of Ages?

Yes, we have much to thank Abp Lefebvre for and he will be declared a saint some day.

"Archbishop Lefebvre supported the heavy incorporation of the vernacular into the Mass of the Catechumens."

Then why didn't he celebrate it that way?



Vox Cantoris said...

Hold on Mark.

Archbishop Lefebvre would have supported the modest vernacular use of the 1965 Missal. That consisted of the Mass of the Catechumens but after the Offertory, it was all Latin. That is quite different from what was forced in 1967 with the "permission" and thus, elimination of Latin and then the destruction that followed in 1969 with the Missa Normative.

Lynne is also correct; only Msgr. Lefebvre trained priests; only he, had the seminary. It would have died in Canada along with Father Mole and the persecuted Father Normandin. The only others were the SSPX in hotel rooms.

We would not have it today without the SSPX, that is clear.

John Proctor said...

As soon as Archbishop Lefebvre ordained his first dozen priests in 1976, Paul VI had him suspended a divinis. Those twelve are now 600 forty years later. This is not including those ordained by SSPX Bishops who left the priestly society but are still serving the Church. These are the fruits of an indisputable Apostolic character. I agree that Fr. DePauw and Bishop Kurz deserve much more glory; but not at the expense of Marcel Lefebvre.

Mark Thomas said...

Vox, I disagree with you about the TLM's existence having depended upon Archbishop Lefebvre. The TLM, in such places as Campos, was alive and prospering without any input from Archbishop Lefebvre.

Also, Vox...when you say the "modest use" of the vernacular...

Archbishop Lefebvre supported the radical reform that would have rendered virtually the entire Mass of the Catechumens into the vernacular. That is more than a "modest" use of the vernacular.

Anyway, along with critical mistakes that he made, he obviously did much that was good for us.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

Bishop Kurz and Father DePauw should not receive "glory" at the expense of Archbishop Lefebvre. Conversely, as many people do, Archbishop Lefebvre should not receive "glory" at the expense of those insist he is the only reason as to why the TLM is with us.

He simply is not the main reason as to why we are blessed today with the TLM.

All that said, it is unseemly when we (I as well) play the "who deserves all the credit for having preserved the TLM" game. God preserved the TLM. He blessed us with the TLM's preservation.

Many Catholics, used as vessels by God, sacrificed in anonymity to preserve God's great gift to us — His TLM. We are simply His stewards.

As always, all glory goes to God.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Karl Rahner Jr. said...

Rosica doesn't deserve all this free attention.