The Lament of Evelyn Waugh

[3DOP]

"Easter used to mean so much to me. Before Pope John and his council - they destroyed the beauty of the liturgy. I have not yet soaked myself in petrol and gone up in flames, but I now cling to the Faith doggedly without joy. Church going is a pure duty parade."

---Evelyn Waugh, last of hundreds of published letters of correspondence from The Letters of Evelyn Waugh, Penguin Books (1982), p. 639, written ten days before he had a fatal heart attack on Easter Sunday, 10 April, 1966

My fellow Catholic, Miserere Nobis, had offered his opinion against an article cited by an LDS observer in a publication which is called Crisis in a thread that had to be closed. The article seemed to be saying that we are currently facing a crisis comparable to any the Catholic Church has ever known. I tend to agree with this. The crisis in the Catholic Church has been leading up to someone like Jorge Bergoglio's election as pope for centuries. Only since the election of Pope Francis has the crisis become very noticeable to interested outside observers. Pope Francis certainly has nothing to do with problems that had already been appearing even before Pope Paul VI promulgated the Novus Ordo Mass in 1969. In 2017, I went to a conference which had speakers commenting on anniversaries of events that took place in 1517, 1717, and 1917, that unnoticed at the time, would have significant negative consequences for the Catholic Church that are being felt in our own day more than ever. The influences that caused the Catholic Church to eventually make such drastic adjustments to the liturgy would require volumes to chronicle. That a sensitive Catholic convert like Evelyn Waugh could be so distraught, that he came to think of Mass attendance, which was once so fulfilling, as a "pure duty parade", seems worth looking at. I am hoping to place the spectacle of so much negative Catholic news and events over the last decades in to a context that might help explain what is happening.

Catholics are not different than any other church goers. Besides the spoken word, we are also taught by music, symbol, gesture, act, and the general atmosphere we encounter at our religious ceremonies. I would argue that Catholics more than others, can be susceptible to temptations against the faith claims of their church. We need everything to bespeak the extraordinary, almost unimaginable truths that the Catholic Church would have us believe. Perhaps chief among these is that bread and wine becomes the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ? Through Holy Communion, we receive Christ in to our souls? Then He changes us in to Himself, and we become...God...in a sense? Waugh's lament foresaw the rapid decline in vocations, Mass attendance, and the faith of Catholics, which followed upon the suppression of the Traditional Latin Mass, and the promulgation of what Cardinal Ratzinger once described as a "banal, on-the-spot product", the Mass of Paul VI.

I have occasionally heard LDS here praise a Novus Ordo Mass that they saw on TV, or at a wedding or funeral. That makes sense to me. The New Mass was not primarily formulated for the purpose of the elevation of Catholics into deeper reflection on the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but rather to reach out ecumenically to have a liturgy accessible AND acceptable to those not of the Catholic faith. There are less destructive means of reaching out to the non-Catholic world than "fixing" the liturgy so that it deemphasizes unique truths of the Catholic faith! Liturgy, until the 20th Century, had always changed organically and gradually over long periods of time. There always will be minor changes going on. It was never abrupt and jarring or jolting to souls as this "on-the spot product" has been. It was a violation of the reverence with which the Church had always understood as being something which originated from the Apostles and then had minor adjustments over centuries by the guidance of the Holy Ghost. What if "liturgy by committee" had been motivated to make the Mass more reverent, orthodox, and more fully expressing that faith in a way that is easier for non-Catholics to understand? That would still be a wrong way to go about it. Besides, there is nothing wrong with shielding certain mysteries to the community of the faithful, that should not be properly shared outside of that community. Perhaps that is partly why LDS don't let just everybody in to their Temples. With, the Traditional Latin Mass, it was still virtually impossible for the uninstructed to follow along. For someone that is uninstructed, the Old Mass could be a "duty parade". To the Catholic, appreciative and instructed in the symbolic beauty of what it replaced, the New Mass is the "duty parade".

At least by hindsight, the Church, if there was no serious crisis in her judgment, should be able to see clearly that there are more effective ways to encourage non-Catholics to come to Mass, than by making it a "duty parade" for Evelyn Waugh. What have we gained by getting people to come to Church at that expense? I don't think it reaches out to non-Catholics anyway. We are converts, my family. Intellectually, I know I found little stimulation in the New Mass which I attended for ten years, often leaving aggravated, even though for the last of those years we drove 40 minutes to the most reverent Mass we could find. When we discovered the Old Mass if we would go another ten minutes, it was irresistible. Its anecdotal, as is Waugh's Lament, but polls and all indications are that Catholics have become less Catholic, rather than non-Catholics becoming more Catholic, since the "duty parade" started. 

I am aware that this is only peripherally LDS, comparing the exclusivity of the Temple experience with a different kind of exclusivity in the Old Mass. I just wanted to say a little bit to some of you who might have a hard time seeing where all the crisis hubbub, and complaining about Francis, in my opinion comes from. I also wanted to flesh out some reasons to Miserere Nobis why I think the current situation in the church will be seen in history to be a crisis comparable with the Arian problems of the 4th Century, and not pin the blame on Francis in the least. He is at worst only the product, not the producer of the crisis. If he is unorthodox after all his years in a Jesuit seminary, the fault is not his. It is the gravest obligation of the Church to train future bishops and popes so that they are not heretics! (Not declaring him a heretic MN...not my job in the Church. heh). But I ask you to consider that when her best children think Mass attendance is a "duty parade", that is a huge problem. I have a lot of other thoughts on how we come out the other side. The Church has taught us on how the pope is infallible. We need to balance that with a council that instructs us on how the pope is fallible! There is much good progress that we can make in these areas after prayerful study of this unique papacy.   

----------

By the way, for Rev Testament, I haven't had time to study that historical stuff you talked about. I don't know if you saw but I had asked you to give me a thumbnail sketch on how Ludwig Pastor dealt with the problem you mentioned. If you would, make your answer in the thread about removal of the President of the Church since it started there.

Edited May 5, 2019 by 3DOP

[RevTestament]

I realize you are baring your soul here 3DOP. It sounds to me like you are echoing some things some of us LDS are saying on this forum, about possible benefits of accepting the fallibility of our Church leaders. 

I did attend a Jesuit school for 4 years, but I admit to being mostly ignorant of the Catholic liturgy. Being raised primarily Baptist I had essentially no experience with a liturgy. The closest I came to it was in the Presbyterian Church. I do have to say though from my experience the Latin Liturgy added little to any appreciation for the Catholic liturgy. Having had little to no experience with the old liturgy, I feel unqualified to speak about Catholic feelings comparing it to a "duty parade" of the new liturgy. i would say the things which I most appreciate about Catholicism come from friendships formed with Catholics. Although Jesuit theology classes did provoke some reflective thought on my part, and I did see some things eye to eye with the Catholic viewpoint, I never felt like I wanted to become a Catholic. Maybe that is because by that time I was immersed in LDS social life, and had theologically rejected the doctrine of the trinity. So, I would say at least in my case, no mass did not help me appreciate any mysteries in Catholicism. You would think that after 4 years of intense exposure to it, that I would have benefited, if that was going to happen. 

On the LDS side of the picture, my first temple experience was quite intense. But, I had already mentally prepared myself for what I expected it would be. However, I will say my experience was no universal so there is that - not everyone believes the Lord has spoken to them.

Sorry I can't answer your question now. I will attempt to do so later. 

[USU78]

This breaks my heart.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, 3DOP said:

............................. polls and all indications are that Catholics have become less Catholic, rather than non-Catholics becoming more Catholic, since the "duty parade" started. 

I am aware that this is only peripherally LDS, comparing the exclusivity of the Temple experience with a different kind of exclusivity in the Old Mass. .................................

I can't say whether the changes and simplification of LDS temple liturgy have turned some people off, but the adoption of vernacular liturgy in Jewish American Reform and Conservative congregations did nothing to retain members.  The only Jewish congregations which continue to grow are the Orthodox and ultra-orthodox (Chabad), who use Hebrew and Aramaic liturgy exclusively.

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I can't say whether the changes and simplification of LDS temple liturgy have turned some people off, but the adoption of vernacular liturgy in Jewish American Reform and Conservative congregations did nothing to retain members.  The only Jewish congregations which continue to grow are the Orthodox and ultra-orthodox (Chabad), who use Hebrew and Aramaic liturgy exclusively.

It also seems the more conservative groups within Islam are the ones that are growing. 

In the US we see a push to liberalize many Christian churches - they aren't growing and neither are the conservative ones. I see Christianity being rejected by the people within the US and on the world stage it is quietly persecuted and its trials ignored by the media. 

My comments are a derail and now let's return to Rory's initial post. 

Edited May 5, 2019 by Storm Rider

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

It also seems the more conservative groups within Islam are the ones that are growing. 

In the US we see a push to liberalize many Christian churches - they aren't growing and neither are the conservative ones. I see Christianity being rejected by the people within the US and on the world stage it is quietly persecuted and its trials ignored by the media. .................................

This certainly reflects on a similar possible calamity for the RC Church.

[Spammer]

23 hours ago, 3DOP said:

"Easter used to mean so much to me. Before Pope John and his council - they destroyed the beauty of the liturgy. I have not yet soaked myself in petrol and gone up in flames, but I now cling to the Faith doggedly without joy. Church going is a pure duty parade."

---Evelyn Waugh, last of hundreds of published letters of correspondence from The Letters of Evelyn Waugh, Penguin Books (1982), p. 639, written ten days before he had a fatal heart attack on Easter Sunday, 10 April, 1966

My fellow Catholic, Miserere Nobis, had offered his opinion against an article cited by an LDS observer in a publication which is called Crisis in a thread that had to be closed. The article seemed to be saying that we are currently facing a crisis comparable to any the Catholic Church has ever known. I tend to agree with this. The crisis in the Catholic Church has been leading up to someone like Jorge Bergoglio's election as pope for centuries. Only since the election of Pope Francis has the crisis become very noticeable to interested outside observers. Pope Francis certainly has nothing to do with problems that had already been appearing even before Pope Paul VI promulgated the Novus Ordo Mass in 1969. In 2017, I went to a conference which had speakers commenting on anniversaries of events that took place in 1517, 1717, and 1917, that unnoticed at the time, would have significant negative consequences for the Catholic Church that are being felt in our own day more than ever. The influences that caused the Catholic Church to eventually make such drastic adjustments to the liturgy would require volumes to chronicle. That a sensitive Catholic convert like Evelyn Waugh could be so distraught, that he came to think of Mass attendance, which was once so fulfilling, as a "pure duty parade", seems worth looking at. I am hoping to place the spectacle of so much negative Catholic news and events over the last decades in to a context that might help explain what is happening.

Catholics are not different than any other church goers. Besides the spoken word, we are also taught by music, symbol, gesture, act, and the general atmosphere we encounter at our religious ceremonies. I would argue that Catholics more than others, can be susceptible to temptations against the faith claims of their church. We need everything to bespeak the extraordinary, almost unimaginable truths that the Catholic Church would have us believe. Perhaps chief among these is that bread and wine becomes the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ? Through Holy Communion, we receive Christ in to our souls? Then He changes us in to Himself, and we become...God...in a sense? Waugh's lament foresaw the rapid decline in vocations, Mass attendance, and the faith of Catholics, which followed upon the suppression of the Traditional Latin Mass, and the promulgation of what Cardinal Ratzinger once described as a "banal, on-the-spot product", the Mass of Paul VI.

I have occasionally heard LDS here praise a Novus Ordo Mass that they saw on TV, or at a wedding or funeral. That makes sense to me. The New Mass was not primarily formulated for the purpose of the elevation of Catholics into deeper reflection on the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but rather to reach out ecumenically to have a liturgy accessible AND acceptable to those not of the Catholic faith. There are less destructive means of reaching out to the non-Catholic world than "fixing" the liturgy so that it deemphasizes unique truths of the Catholic faith! Liturgy, until the 20th Century, had always changed organically and gradually over long periods of time. There always will be minor changes going on. It was never abrupt and jarring or jolting to souls as this "on-the spot product" has been. It was a violation of the reverence with which the Church had always understood as being something which originated from the Apostles and then had minor adjustments over centuries by the guidance of the Holy Ghost. What if "liturgy by committee" had been motivated to make the Mass more reverent, orthodox, and more fully expressing that faith in a way that is easier for non-Catholics to understand? That would still be a wrong way to go about it. Besides, there is nothing wrong with shielding certain mysteries to the community of the faithful, that should not be properly shared outside of that community. Perhaps that is partly why LDS don't let just everybody in to their Temples. With, the Traditional Latin Mass, it was still virtually impossible for the uninstructed to follow along. For someone that is uninstructed, the Old Mass could be a "duty parade". To the Catholic, appreciative and instructed in the symbolic beauty of what it replaced, the New Mass is the "duty parade".

At least by hindsight, the Church, if there was no serious crisis in her judgment, should be able to see clearly that there are more effective ways to encourage non-Catholics to come to Mass, than by making it a "duty parade" for Evelyn Waugh. What have we gained by getting people to come to Church at that expense? I don't think it reaches out to non-Catholics anyway. We are converts, my family. Intellectually, I know I found little stimulation in the New Mass which I attended for ten years, often leaving aggravated, even though for the last of those years we drove 40 minutes to the most reverent Mass we could find. When we discovered the Old Mass if we would go another ten minutes, it was irresistible. Its anecdotal, as is Waugh's Lament, but polls and all indications are that Catholics have become less Catholic, rather than non-Catholics becoming more Catholic, since the "duty parade" started. 

I am aware that this is only peripherally LDS, comparing the exclusivity of the Temple experience with a different kind of exclusivity in the Old Mass. I just wanted to say a little bit to some of you who might have a hard time seeing where all the crisis hubbub, and complaining about Francis, in my opinion comes from. I also wanted to flesh out some reasons to Miserere Nobis why I think the current situation in the church will be seen in history to be a crisis comparable with the Arian problems of the 4th Century, and not pin the blame on Francis in the least. He is at worst only the product, not the producer of the crisis. If he is unorthodox after all his years in a Jesuit seminary, the fault is not his. It is the gravest obligation of the Church to train future bishops and popes so that they are not heretics! (Not declaring him a heretic MN...not my job in the Church. heh). But I ask you to consider that when her best children think Mass attendance is a "duty parade", that is a huge problem. I have a lot of other thoughts on how we come out the other side. The Church has taught us on how the pope is infallible. We need to balance that with a council that instructs us on how the pope is fallible! There is much good progress that we can make in these areas after prayerful study of this unique papacy.   

----------

By the way, for Rev Testament, I haven't had time to study that historical stuff you talked about. I don't know if you saw but I had asked you to give me a thumbnail sketch on how Ludwig Pastor dealt with the problem you mentioned. If you would, make your answer in the thread about removal of the President of the Church since it started there.

Hi 3DOP,

This is a very interesting and timely topic. As someone who loves the beauty and symbolic richness of the Byzantine and Tridentine liturgies, I totally get where you’re coming from.

I wonder how the Catholics whose older liturgies were suppressed by the Church and replaced by the Roman rite felt. Did those who worshipped using the Sarum, Mozarabic, Milanese (Ambrosian), and Beneventan rites experience the new (to them) Roman rite as a ‘duty parade?’  

I wonder how those Catholics whose churches have special permission to continue to celebrate those ancient rites (Ordinariate of St Peter, Church of Milan, Church of Benevento, six parishes in Toledo) would feel if tomorrow they were required to only use the Tridentine Rite? 

I haven’t ever attended a Sarum, Milanese, Mozarabic or Beneventan mass to compare their rubrics and symbolism with the Tridentine, and don’t know anyone who goes to mass in one of those churches, so have no way of knowing whether those Catholics might have felt or would feel like Evelyn Waugh, that the change to the Roman Mass made attending mass a ‘duty parade’ and reduced their ability to reflect on the meaning and mystery of the Liturgy and Eucharist. I do wonder what they would say, if asked. 

A corollary is whether the more ancient, suppressed liturgies are more similar to the Tridentine or Novus Ordo liturgies. I haven’t conducted a comparative analysis, so I don’t know the answer to that question, either.

Edited May 6, 2019 by Spammer

[MiserereNobis]

Thanks @3DOP. From my time spent with the SSPX I have heard the argument that this is the Arian crisis of our time. I'm not sure I agree, but I suppose the extent of any crisis can only be truly determined after the crisis is past. I do not deny there is a crisis, though.

For those reading this, there is a spectrum of traditional Catholics. On one side you have those who prefer the Latin sacraments, from there maybe it goes to those who think they are superior, to those who think the new sacraments are not valid, to those who believe because of the changes in the Catholic Church that there is currently no pope (sedevacantists). I am with those who believe that the traditional sacraments are superior to the new sacraments, but that both are valid and legitimate. 

I do want to note that the new sacraments offer the priest great leeway as to how to celebrate them. For example, the new mass could be sung in Latin with all the attending incense and bells and candles and Gregorian chant with elaborate vestments and the priest facing the altar. There is nothing that forbids this. However, other options are given and those are the options the priests under the direction of their bishops choose, often and almost invariably leading to a banal experience that does not really edify or instruct.

It would be interesting to compare this to the LDS temple rites, though of course we can't because we can't discuss them. I imagine from his postings that @JLHPROF is in a similar place as I. He (correct me if I'm wrong) believes that the changes to the temple rites are legitimate and the rite itself is valid but the changes are inferior to what came before. I suppose those who believe the changes are illegitimate are those who would form a schism or be excommunicated.

An interesting thought experiment for you LDS. What would it be like if there were two versions of the temple rites? One prior to major changes and the current one and someone going to the temple could choose which one they wanted. That's the situation in the Latin Rite now: we have two forms of the sacraments, both licit and valid, and Catholics can choose which one they want.

Edited May 6, 2019 by MiserereNobis

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, Spammer said:

Hi 3DOP,

This is a very interesting and timely topic. As someone who loves the beauty and symbolic richness of the Byzantine and Tridentine liturgies, I totally get where you’re coming from.

I wonder how the Catholics whose older liturgies were suppressed by the Church and replaced by the Roman rite felt. Did those who worshipped using the Sarum, Mozarabic, Milanese (Ambrosian), and Beneventan rites experience the new (to them) Roman rite as a ‘duty parade?’  

I wonder how those Catholics whose churches have special permission to continue to celebrate those ancient rites (Ordinariate of St Peter, Church of Milan, Church of Benevento, six parishes in Toledo) would feel if tomorrow they were required to only use the Tridentine Rite? 

I haven’t ever attended a Sarum, Milanese, Mozarabic or Beneventan mass to compare their rubrics and symbolism with the Tridentine, and don’t know anyone who goes to mass in one of those churches, so have no way of knowing whether those Catholics might have felt or would feel like Evelyn Waugh, that the change to the Roman Mass made attending mass a ‘duty parade’ and reduced their ability to reflect on the meaning and mystery of the Liturgy and Eucharist. I do wonder what they would say, if asked. 

 

Interesting thought experiment, too.

The Carthusian Order has their own liturgy since they pre-dated the abrogation of liturgies demanded by the Council of Trent.

[Spammer]

39 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Interesting thought experiment, too.

The Carthusian Order has their own liturgy since they pre-dated the abrogation of liturgies demanded by the Council of Trent.

Good point about the monastic liturgies. The same question applies to the Eastern liturgies, Byzantine, Syriac or Armenian. Which would feel more like an impoverishment for Eastern Catholics: switching to the Tridentine or to NO use?

Speaking only for myself and my own experience, I find the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (the main Byzantine rite for the non-Catholics here) to be more meaningful and spiritually potent than the Tridentine. I find the  Novus Ordo Mass to be the least symbolically rich and meaningful of the three. I wonder if Syriac or Armenian Catholics would prefer the Tridentine or NO, if required to choose one?

Edited May 6, 2019 by Spammer

[3DOP]

21 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I can't say whether the changes and simplification of LDS temple liturgy have turned some people off, but the adoption of vernacular liturgy in Jewish American Reform and Conservative congregations did nothing to retain members.  The only Jewish congregations which continue to grow are the Orthodox and ultra-orthodox (Chabad), who use Hebrew and Aramaic liturgy exclusively.

I find that very interesting. Thanks.

It isn't that the liturgy has to be Latin. The Latin Mass uses Greek as well. It doesn't even HAVE to be foreign. But it needs to be elevated. Apart from the meaning of the words, a foreign tongue, used exclusively for religious ceremony helps to convey the message that this is something far above the ordinary conversation of every day life. There is a very common exchange in both Masses with which you are probably familiar. V: Dominus Vobiscum R: Et cum spiritu tuo. ("And with thy spirit" would be pretty good). They actually translate Et cum spiritu tuo as "And also with you" in the English! You don't have to be a Latin scholar to see that they take pains to make sure the translated vernacular doesn't sound too religious.

The Catholics that came of age Robert when we were kids, were excited about the possibility of a Catholic in the White House. They were tired of being the weirdoes for whom the school cafeteria made special food on Fridays. I think that they wanted to convey that we Catholics are a lot like everybody else in most good ways. I can understand that. I really can.  I just wish they would have found a better way of doing that without making the Mass seem more like lunch time than the Unbloody Sacrifice of Calvary which it is supposed to be

Rory.

 

[MiserereNobis]

12 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

There is a very common exchange in both Masses with which you are probably familiar. V: Dominus Vobiscum R: Et cum spiritu tuo. ("And with thy spirit" would be pretty good). They actually translate Et cum spiritu tuo as "And also with you" in the English! You don't have to be a Latin scholar to see that they take pains to make sure the translated vernacular doesn't sound too religious.

I can tell you haven't been to an English NO Mass in a while  Under Pope Benedict, the English translation was updated to more accurately reflect the Latin, so now the response is "And with thy spirit." There is also all 3 mea culpas.

I'm not contradicting your main point at all -- the Novus Ordo, and the way it is celebrated, is very watered down. The Tridentine sacraments are superior in every way.

Edited May 6, 2019 by MiserereNobis

[3DOP]

1 hour ago, Spammer said:

Hi 3DOP,

This is a very interesting and timely topic. As someone who loves the beauty and symbolic richness of the Byzantine and Tridentine liturgies, I totally get where you’re coming from.

I wonder how the Catholics whose older liturgies were suppressed by the Church and replaced by the Roman rite felt. Did those who worshipped using the Sarum, Mozarabic, Milanese (Ambrosian), and Beneventan rites experience the new (to them) Roman rite as a ‘duty parade?’  

I wonder how those Catholics whose churches have special permission to continue to celebrate those ancient rites (Ordinariate of St Peter, Church of Milan, Church of Benevento, six parishes in Toledo) would feel if tomorrow they were required to only use the Tridentine Rite? 

I haven’t ever attended a Sarum, Milanese, Mozarabic or Beneventan mass to compare their rubrics and symbolism with the Tridentine, and don’t know anyone who goes to mass in one of those churches, so have no way of knowing whether those Catholics might have felt or would feel like Evelyn Waugh, that the change to the Roman Mass made attending mass a ‘duty parade’ and reduced their ability to reflect on the meaning and mystery of the Liturgy and Eucharist. I do wonder what they would say, if asked. 

A corollary is whether the more ancient, suppressed liturgies are more similar to the Tridentine or Novus Ordo liturgies. I haven’t conducted a comparative analysis, so I don’t know the answer to that question, either.

Liturgies that had a pedigree of 200 years had never been suppressed by the reforms of Pope Pius V. In the 90's I attended a Dominican parish with a very reverent Novus Ordo, AND the Dominican Rite Mass. Their position on the Tridentine Mass was that it was suppressed by Paul VI. But they didn't think that Paul VI intended to suppress those liturgies that were allowed to continue under the umbrella of Latin Rite by the Tridentine Mass.

My son-in-law is from the Archdiocese of Milan. They have not retained the Ambrosian Rite since the New Mass came. At least not for normal occasions. I do not know if there was resistance. Paul VI had been Archbishop of Milan. That might have helped ease the transition for those folks being proud of "their" pope? I thought the Mozarabic had the 200 years but I think they went Novus Ordo too. Sarum did not have the 200 years. Not familiar with the Beneventan. I know the Dominican Rite is very similar to the Mass of Pius V. t have read that the others are as well. I think the Tridentine Mass would have had a familiar feel to those who had experienced these other local liturgies.

Edited May 6, 2019 by 3DOP

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

......................................

It isn't that the liturgy has to be Latin. The Latin Mass uses Greek as well. It doesn't even HAVE to be foreign. But it needs to be elevated. Apart from the meaning of the words, a foreign tongue, used exclusively for religious ceremony helps to convey the message that this is something far above the ordinary conversation of every day life. There is a very common exchange in both Masses with which you are probably familiar. V: Dominus Vobiscum R: Et cum spiritu tuo. ("And with thy spirit" would be pretty good). They actually translate Et cum spiritu tuo as "And also with you" in the English! You don't have to be a Latin scholar to see that they take pains to make sure the translated vernacular doesn't sound too religious.

The Catholics that came of age Robert when we were kids, were excited about the possibility of a Catholic in the White House. They were tired of being the weirdoes for whom the school cafeteria made special food on Fridays. I think that they wanted to convey that we Catholics are a lot like everybody else in most good ways. I can understand that. I really can.  I just wish they would have found a better way of doing that without making the Mass seem more like lunch time than the Unbloody Sacrifice of Calvary which it is supposed to be.............

When I was in regular, secular Jr High and High School in Southern California, I thought of the uniformed kids who went to Catholic parochial school as very strange, and there were lots of them, and they were taught by nuns in habits.  Another culture from another planet.  I studied Classical Latin in high school,  and I sang Adeste Fideles Classical style, not in Church Latin.  You know, regum angelorum rather than rejum anjelorum.

Only as an adult did I ever set foot in an RC Church, meet Roman Catholics in various walks of life, and actually room with one (who became a priest).  Heck, I almost married one.  Anyhow, I came to have a very high regard for your coreligionists, Rory, and have been to Roman Catholic services many times (funerals, mass).  I have yet to hear a bad homily from a priest.  Loved the music too.

I am even old enough to remember the Index Librorum Prohibitorum (books kept in locked cases) at the University of San Francisco.

[3DOP]

5 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Thanks @3DOP. From my time spent with the SSPX I have heard the argument that this is the Arian crises of our time. I'm not sure I agree, but I suppose the extent of any crises can only be truly determined after the crises is past. I do not deny there is crises, though.

For those reading this, there is a spectrum of traditional Catholics. On one side you have those who prefer the Latin sacraments, from there maybe it goes to those who think they are superior, to those who think the new sacraments are not valid, to those who believe because of the changes in the Catholic Church that there is currently no pope (sedevacantists). I am with those who believe that the traditional sacraments are superior to the new sacraments, but that both are valid and legitimate. 

I do want to note that the new sacraments offer the priest great leeway as to how to celebrate them. For example, the new mass could be sung in Latin with all the attending incense and bells and candles and Gregorian chant with elaborate vestments and the priest facing the altar. There is nothing that forbids this. However, other options are given and those are the options the priests under the direction of their bishops choose, often and almost invariable leading to a banal experience that does not really edify or instruct.

It would be interesting to compare this to the LDS temple rites, though of course we can't because we can't discuss them. I imagine from his postings that @JLHPROF is in a similar place as I. He (correct me if I'm wrong) believes that the changes to the temple rites are legitimate and the rite itself is valid but the changes are inferior to what came before. I suppose those who believe the changes are illegitimate are those who would form a schism or be excommunicated.

An interesting thought experiment for you LDS. What would it be like if there were two versions of the temple rites? One prior to major changes and the current one and someone going to the temple could choose which one they wanted. That's the situation in the Latin Rite now: we have two forms of the sacraments, both licit and valid, and Catholics can choose which one they want.

I "liked" your post MN for pointing out that the New Mass doesn't necessarily have to be a lounge act or a hootenanny. Guys like you and I have to be careful not to overemphasize the really over-the-top stupid, juvenile stuff, as well as the sacrilege that sometimes takes place. There ARE options. There just aren't very many priests that exercise the better options. You said there is nothing that forbids the priest facing ad orientam. Back in around 2000 or 2001, our Dominican pastor announced that on a particular Sunday, that the Sung Mass on Sunday at 11, would be a Novus Ordo, with the priest facing the altar. Alas, somebody tattled to the bishop. Legally, the bishop had no authority to forbid a Dominican priest to do what is allowed in the Novus Ordo rubrics.

But the practical reality is that there haven't been many priests, and only two bishops who have really exercised their legitimate privileged rights as members of the Latin Rite priesthood. Most have been cowed by authority that is over-reaching its grasp. In that book where Cardinal Ratzinger (in the forward to the French edition only, which he probably regrets saying) calls the N.O a "banal, on-the-spot product the German author, argues that the pope himself has no authority to abrogate the Traditional Latin Mass. Cardinal Ratzinger was a part of a panel of nine cardinals who were commissioned by John Paul II to answer this question. You might be aware of this. They affirmed what Abp. Lefebvre, Bp. DeCastro Meyer, and all the good priests who said Masses in hotel rooms and basements of houses through the dark days of the 70's and 80's without whom we would not have real churches for Tradition. Of course, Pope Benedict, through his bull, Summorum Pontificum, said the same thing in 2007, and it forbids any bishop from prohibiting a priest from saying the Traditional Mass. The faith that those brave men trusted, who lived out their priestly ministries ostracized, suspended, and vilified has been affirmed to be correct. I wasn't there, but they are heroes to me. Abp. Lefebvre, of course, but many, many others endured ridicule for refusing to give up the Mass of their ordination. It is still not practically observed that it has been conceded by Rome that no priest, no bishop, and no pope has the authority to require that a priest give up the Mass of his ordination. 

Like you, I am also convinced that with the correct intention and matter, the Novus Ordo form (words) is valid. Any doubt would have to do with matter or intention.      

Edited May 6, 2019 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

5 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I can tell you haven't been to an English NO Mass in a while  Under Pope Benedict, the English translation was updated to more accurately reflect the Latin, so now the response is "And with thy spirit." There is also all 3 mea culpas.

I'm not contradicting your main point at all -- the Novus Ordo, and the way it is celebrated, is very watered down. The Tridentine sacraments are superior in every way.

You're right I haven't. I really don't know the answer to my next question. Modernist disobedience has often been rewarded for the last fifty years with concessions, not censures. Do you have any reason to think that this directive has been followed to any great degree? (For our LDS friends...Obedience is mandatory for traditionalists who cite canon law for their ecclesiastical right to disobey an unlawful command. The modernists didn't get censured when they diosobeyed the Holy See when it required communion on the tongue. Instead the Holy See obeyed the rebels and changed the law to suit them.)

I knew about it. I figured it just went out the window with Francis...if it ever gained traction anyway. My Mom was going to a reverent Novus Ordo, with a fine priest who began saying the TLM with the promulgation of Summorum Pontificum. I used to go to Mom's for breakfast on Saturdays back in those days. She thought I would be interested in their bulletin announcing the reason for changing that preposterous "and also with you". I did know that Benedict tried. I would be pleased, but quite surprised if it really was widely implemented. I would rather they do something about the Nobis quoque peccatoribus. Surely you have noticed how the English translates peccatoribus (sinners) from the TLM? But in the Novus Ordo English, instead of making an invocation to God "for us sinners, your servants", the English Novus Ordo translates it as "for us,... your servants"! It doesn't even translate their own Latin when it says peccatoribus! It just omits peccatoribus. How dishonest can they get?

A big part of the problem with the Novus Ordo mentality is that it wants to deemphasize our sinfulness. It is terribly important for us to be good Christians that we have an awareness of how undeserving we all are. I am sure Benedict tried to restore three mea culpas. I didn't know but God bless him for trying. Why did they get rid of them for almost fifty years? (For LDS: Three Mea culpas refer to "my fault, my fault, my most grievous fault"). The N.O. is a defective Mass not just because it waters down the sacrifice and other unique Catholic distinctives, but it tends to make us think more highly of ourselves than we should. There is so much else.

Lex orendi, lex credendi, the law of prayer is the law of faith. The Church has been praying this rot for almost fifty years and it has to have its effect. It would not make sense if the Novus Ordo produced lions for the faith. This is why I suggest that by this time, from Pope Francis on, who was the first pope ordained in the Novus Ordo, we can not expect anything better even from sincere souls who were reared and formed in a Mass that is formally valid as we both say, (because several dozen words have been translated properly enough to make the Sacrament valid), while so much of the rest is defective in properly teaching the faithful who we are and who God is.      

Edited May 7, 2019 by 3DOP

[JLHPROF]

6 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

It would be interesting to compare this to the LDS temple rites, though of course we can't because we can't discuss them. I imagine from his postings that @JLHPROF is in a similar place as I. He (correct me if I'm wrong) believes that the changes to the temple rites are legitimate and the rite itself is valid but the changes are inferior to what came before. I suppose those who believe the changes are illegitimate are those who would form a schism or be excommunicated.

No, actually I consider the changes illegitimate but temporary. So I feel no need to form/join a schism.  God will fix men's foolish errors.

Quote

An interesting thought experiment for you LDS. What would it be like if there were two versions of the temple rites? One prior to major changes and the current one and someone going to the temple could choose which one they wanted. That's the situation in the Latin Rite now: we have two forms of the sacraments, both licit and valid, and Catholics can choose which one they want.

The Church did that for many years with the temple garment.

[MiserereNobis]

18 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

The Church did that for many years with the temple garment.

Is this something that you can explain or not? Thanks.

[The Nehor]

Just now, MiserereNobis said:

Is this something that you can explain or not? Thanks.

The garment used to go to the wrists and ankles. When they made the change you were allowed to wear either.

[3DOP]

On 5/5/2019 at 2:08 PM, RevTestament said:

I realize you are baring your soul here 3DOP. It sounds to me like you are echoing some things some of us LDS are saying on this forum, about possible benefits of accepting the fallibility of our Church leaders. 

I did attend a Jesuit school for 4 years, but I admit to being mostly ignorant of the Catholic liturgy. Being raised primarily Baptist I had essentially no experience with a liturgy. The closest I came to it was in the Presbyterian Church. I do have to say though from my experience the Latin Liturgy added little to any appreciation for the Catholic liturgy. Having had little to no experience with the old liturgy, I feel unqualified to speak about Catholic feelings comparing it to a "duty parade" of the new liturgy. i would say the things which I most appreciate about Catholicism come from friendships formed with Catholics. Although Jesuit theology classes did provoke some reflective thought on my part, and I did see some things eye to eye with the Catholic viewpoint, I never felt like I wanted to become a Catholic. Maybe that is because by that time I was immersed in LDS social life, and had theologically rejected the doctrine of the trinity. So, I would say at least in my case, no mass did not help me appreciate any mysteries in Catholicism. You would think that after 4 years of intense exposure to it, that I would have benefited, if that was going to happen. 

On the LDS side of the picture, my first temple experience was quite intense. But, I had already mentally prepared myself for what I expected it would be. However, I will say my experience was no universal so there is that - not everyone believes the Lord has spoken to them.

Sorry I can't answer your question now. I will attempt to do so later. 

Hi again Rev.

I have not been "baring my soul" so far. Now I will try, and it might not speak the best of me, but it is the truth. When Evelyn Waugh died I was an unbaptized ten year old with a potty mouth and no religion. I never experienced his loss. I came to the Catholic faith 29 years after Waugh passed away...on Easter! I wasn't aware of what Waugh had missed. On Easter 1995, I wouldn't have understood Waugh. The New Mass has never been an emotional upset for me. Personally, I never lost the Old Mass. I gained the Old Mass in 2005! I have lived my mature years in a time when things have loosened up to where, if you live in a Metropolitan area, you can find the Old Mass, and usually, in a real church setting. What is going on today in the Catholic Church did not happen overnight. One week ago some of you learned that Catholics are asking the pope to explain how he is not a heretic. This has been brewing for a long time...and going back further than Evelyn Waugh.

I have found it not unenjoyable to be able to finally feel the freedom to more fully explain myself here at MDDB. I started here while John Paul II was still pope in 2004. I was silent about my dissent for a long time, merely identifying myself as Catholic. One should never air the dirty family laundry in public. It hasn't been that long ago that I was compelled to say that I was associated with the Society of St. Pius X, which hopefully means I have been lovingly critical, and publically as quiet as possible about my family (the Church) differences since about 1960 when Pope John decided that an ecumenical council was a better way to deal with communism than the advice given to the children of Fatima by the Mother of God. A few here got the significance of my identification with SSPX, but I am pretty certain it went over the heads of most. Poptart could have easily started the same thread three or four years ago when four cardinals, following canonical guidelines, issued a very respectable dubia to the Holy Father, asking him to explain how they were to understand certain writings in his controversial encyclical, Amoris Laetitia. If the Holy Father had answered, there would have been some drama that might have been heard by you guys. You all don't even know about it. This one seems anti-climactic. Those of us who have been watching know that Pope Francis will not even acknowledge this letter, and no bishop will utter a peep.

However, since the knowledge that many Catholics are having doubts about the leadership of their papa in 2019 has made its way to my LDS friends, I felt the freedom to try to put our family problems in a context for you that would be honest and forthcoming. If you can't tell, this thread has not been painful to me. Perhaps I should be ashamed, but now I bare my soul in saying this has NOT been painfuI. I have been biting my tongue for years, but I knew it was wrong to be a family member who griped about family problems to non-family members who should be allowed to never know our problems if possible. But now you know our divisions, the best approach seem to be to try to explain what has been happening. Sister Lucia of Fatima said that Our Lady told her that if the pope would not do what she asked, that a diabolical disorientation would wreak havoc and confusion in the Church. Pope John read the letter explaining this in 1960, and opted to ignore Our Lady's advice saying, "This is not for our times." 

How can I be discouraged when I see modern day prophecy fulfilled before my eyes? I would not wish to have lived in any other, than these our days, when we happy souls who have retained the faith of our fathers have confidence that God will bare His mighty arm in his own timing, to His own glory, and to confound the enemies of Jesus Christ His Son. I am grateful, and undeserving of the grace, when so many others have fallen away, that my faith is unshaken. What a gift.

3DOP   

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, 3DOP said:

I was silent about my dissent for a long time, merely identifying myself as Catholic. One should never air the dirty family laundry in public.

I wish our critics had that viewpoint.

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Sister Lucia of Fatima said that Our Lady told her that if the pope would not do what she asked, that a diabolical disorientation would wreak havoc and confusion in the Church. Pope John read the letter explaining this in 1960, and opted to ignore Our Lady's advice saying, "This is not for our times." 

I apologize for being not up to speed on what Our Lady taught, but as you know I have not been fully up to speed on things Catholic for quite some time now.

Could you please give a brief summary or a link to a site that would have the information?

[RevTestament]

4 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Hi again Rev.

I have not been "baring my soul" so far. Now I will try, and it might not speak the best of me, but it is the truth. When Evelyn Waugh died I was an unbaptized ten year old with a potty mouth and no religion. I never experienced his loss. I came to the Catholic faith 29 years after Waugh passed away...on Easter! I wasn't aware of what Waugh had missed. On Easter 1995, I wouldn't have understood Waugh. The New Mass has never been an emotional upset for me. Personally, I never lost the Old Mass. I gained the Old Mass in 2005! I have lived my mature years in a time when things have loosened up to where, if you live in a Metropolitan area, you can find the Old Mass, and usually, in a real church setting. What is going on today in the Catholic Church did not happen overnight. One week ago some of you learned that Catholics are asking the pope to explain how he is not a heretic. This has been brewing for a long time...and going back further than Evelyn Waugh.

I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying you felt John Paul was a heretic? Or did you just feel somewhat critical of his changes? Not that it really matters to me, but it seems to matter to you. I kinda liked John Paul  As far as I am concerned Francis is OK too, but then I don't really have a dog in that fight. As far as I am concerned the Catholic Church strayed from the truth long ago. I am not saying that it doesn't do good. I am not saying it was not good for you as a young 10 year old. I was beginning to contemplate the nature of God. I was beginning to open to the scriptures. 

Quote

I have found it not unenjoyable to be able to finally feel the freedom to more fully explain myself here at MDDB. I started here while John Paul II was still pope in 2004. I was silent about my dissent for a long time, merely identifying myself as Catholic. One should never air the dirty family laundry in public. It hasn't been that long ago that I was compelled to say that I was associated with the Society of St. Pius X, which hopefully means I have been lovingly critical, and publically as quiet as possible about my family (the Church) differences since about 1960 when Pope John decided that an ecumenical council was a better way to deal with communism than the advice given to the children of Fatima by the Mother of God. A few here got the significance of my identification with SSPX, but I am pretty certain it went over the heads of most. Poptart could have easily started the same thread three or four years ago when four cardinals, following canonical guidelines, issued a very respectable dubia to the Holy Father, asking him to explain how they were to understand certain writings in his controversial encyclical, Amoris Laetitia. If the Holy Father had answered, there would have been some drama that might have been heard by you guys. You all don't even know about it. This one seems anti-climactic. Those of us who have been watching know that Pope Francis will not even acknowledge this letter, and no bishop will utter a peep.

I am glad you feel comfortable on this board. I don't think you would be human if you didn't have a few criticisms of an institution which has been around for more than a millennia and a half. I'm sure you are aware from reading my posts that I air criticisms. I am almost an equal opportunity criticizer. I try not to be too critical of my Church because I would like others to find truth. However, it is an important part of my own testimony to not hold Church leaders as perfect. I mean no harm to the Church, and no offense, but it is important to me to acknowledge some faults. I believe it inevitable if one honestly studies the Church that they will find some cracks. If we try to portray an image of perfection, that can spell trouble for new testimonies. I think it better just to acknowledge some faults up front partially for this reason. 

Quote

However, since the knowledge that many Catholics are having doubts about the leadership of their papa in 2019 has made its way to my LDS friends, I felt the freedom to try to put our family problems in a context for you that would be honest and forthcoming. If you can't tell, this thread has not been painful to me. Perhaps I should be ashamed, but now I bare my soul in saying this has NOT been painfuI. I have been biting my tongue for years, but I knew it was wrong to be a family member who griped about family problems to non-family members who should be allowed to never know our problems if possible. But now you know our divisions, the best approach seem to be to try to explain what has been happening. Sister Lucia of Fatima said that Our Lady told her that if the pope would not do what she asked, that a diabolical disorientation would wreak havoc and confusion in the Church. Pope John read the letter explaining this in 1960, and opted to ignore Our Lady's advice saying, "This is not for our times." 

How can I be discouraged when I see modern day prophecy fulfilled before my eyes? I would not wish to have lived in any other, than these our days, when we happy souls who have retained the faith of our fathers have confidence that God will bare His mighty arm in his own timing, to His own glory, and to confound the enemies of Jesus Christ His Son. I am grateful, and undeserving of the grace, when so many others have fallen away, that my faith is unshaken. What a gift.

3DOP   

I am not particularly in favor of airing dirty laundry, but sometimes criticism brings about change that is needed. I am not one to air dirty laundry for the sake of drawing attention or tying to draw people away. I know you believe that your Church is still living prophecy. Personally, I know your Church faces a lot of change. I would not blame Francis for that. As you imply he is just the trailing edge of that change. We are living at the time when the Father shall perform His strange work as He calls to gather Israel back in. We are all living prophecy 3DOP. You are fortunate to live in this time when the truth shall be made bare.

God bless.

[3DOP]

On 5/7/2019 at 9:07 PM, mfbukowski said:

I apologize for being not up to speed on what Our Lady taught, but as you know I have not been fully up to speed on things Catholic for quite some time now.

Could you please give a brief summary or a link to a site that would have the information?

Hi Mark,

Three shepherd children, cousins, began to draw the attention of the people in the surrounding neighborhoods of Fatima, Portugal, when, beginning on May 13, 1917, and every month thereafter until Oct. 13 of that year, they manifested what appeared to be some form of spiritual vision. The children's explanations of what they saw and heard corresponded with what faithful Catholics understood to be visits from the Blessed Virgin Mary. Attention increased each 13th of the month, with crowds gathering on the hillside to see what was happening for themselves. Finally, in October the news of these three children at Fatima had reached the capital, Lisbon. I think the children indicated that this would be the last visit of the Lady. She had certainly promised a great miracle, so that even though onlookers, who usually could not see the vision or hear the words exchanged, would understand that the children were not performing a hoax of some sort.

On that day, skeptics and faithful alike gathered in a pouring rain on that hillside, to see this "phenomenon" exposed as a farce or explained as having a heavenly message. There were reporters from many local news journals among the estimated 70,000 people. What happened next is now identified by faithful as the Miracle of the Sun. When an opening appeared in the storm clouds, onlookers described a sun that one could look at, appearing to change colors and "dance" in the sky for a few minutes perhaps. After this it looked as though the sun was getting bigger, and some feared that the sun was actually coming rapidly towards them. After the sun receded, and meteorological conditions seemed normal again, the grounds were perfectly dry, and everyone's soaking wet clothes had not any dampness in them. Whether it changed minds about the authenticity of the visions, I do not know, but the secular papers admitted that the event was singular and difficult to explain.

It could be argued that the apparent miracle of this event resulted in the overthrow of the hostile anti-Catholic government which had been persecuting the Church in Portugal. I am not familiar with how the change of government took place, but President Salazar was soon the nation's leader, and had taken steps towards making the state of Portugal officially acknowledge the Catholic Church, and to enact laws in her favor. I mention this because it represented a return towards a relationship between church and state which was not necessarily appreciated in most of the world, and even among Catholics who should have known better. Because of this, as well as the messages that came from the visions to the children, the Message of our Lady of Fatima has always been received lukewarmly in some Catholic circles, especially among prelates, and even popes who while never failing to acknowledge their beliefs in the events described in 1917, have seemed uninclined to share the full message.

Many, like me, fear that this reticence regarding the "Third Secret of Fatima", as it has come to be called, is compounded by a request made of the popes by Jesus and/or Mary, according to further visions of Sister Lucia. After all the hubbub of 1917 had subsided, Lucia dos Santos had entered a convent, while her cousins, with a calm and earnest sincerity beyond their tender years, and with courageous faith, died as they had expected. I believe they both died in a great flu epidemic that struck the world in 1918 or 1919. During one of the visions they had asked the Lady if they would go to heaven. They were assured that they would come to heaven very soon, and little Francisco and Jacinta were made to understand that they must pray and do penance for poor sinners in the short time that was left to them. But their older cousin, who was 13 at the time of the visions, would need to stay behind for much longer. 

I have not found my book. It was authored by a French priest of the Society of St. Pius X who had been assigned to an apostolate in this part of Portugal. During his time there, he had the opportunity to meet aged family members of the three children, who were familiar of course, with the events 1917. He was one of the speakers at this conference that I attended in 2017 that I mention above. My memory is probably imperfect regarding some details, but I do not think anyone could dispute the essential facts as presented. 

Next, if time and interest allows...we can talk about the content and interpretations of the messages of 1917, along with further visions of Sister Lucia, and how these have been received by Fatima followers, as well as popes and prelates. You may not know, but it is not a sin against the faith for a Catholic to ignore approved, but private revelation, as this has been categorized. The Church eventually granted permission under the authority of Pope Pius XI in the early 30's, for Catholics who were so inclined, to express devotion to our Lady of Fatima, and to propagate belief in her messages for our times. Ever since then, churches have been constructed under the patronage of Our Lady of Fatima, and "Fatima followers" as I have called them, have tried to help bring about the "Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary" in the world, through the simple means which we believe she gave to us. As I say, more about that if there is interest.

Rory               

[3DOP]

On 5/7/2019 at 9:59 PM, RevTestament said:

I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying you felt John Paul was a heretic? Or did you just feel somewhat critical of his changes? Not that it really matters to me, but it seems to matter to you. I kinda liked John Paul  As far as I am concerned Francis is OK too, but then I don't really have a dog in that fight. As far as I am concerned the Catholic Church strayed from the truth long ago. I am not saying that it doesn't do good. I am not saying it was not good for you as a young 10 year old. I was beginning to contemplate the nature of God. I was beginning to open to the scriptures. 

I am glad you feel comfortable on this board. I don't think you would be human if you didn't have a few criticisms of an institution which has been around for more than a millennia and a half. I'm sure you are aware from reading my posts that I air criticisms. I am almost an equal opportunity criticizer. I try not to be too critical of my Church because I would like others to find truth. However, it is an important part of my own testimony to not hold Church leaders as perfect. I mean no harm to the Church, and no offense, but it is important to me to acknowledge some faults. I believe it inevitable if one honestly studies the Church that they will find some cracks. If we try to portray an image of perfection, that can spell trouble for new testimonies. I think it better just to acknowledge some faults up front partially for this reason. 

I am not particularly in favor of airing dirty laundry, but sometimes criticism brings about change that is needed. I am not one to air dirty laundry for the sake of drawing attention or tying to draw people away. I know you believe that your Church is still living prophecy. Personally, I know your Church faces a lot of change. I would not blame Francis for that. As you imply he is just the trailing edge of that change. We are living at the time when the Father shall perform His strange work as He calls to gather Israel back in. We are all living prophecy 3DOP. You are fortunate to live in this time when the truth shall be made bare.

God bless.

John Paul II was mostly orthodox. But he was too optimistic about the dubious benefits of new policies and practices in the Church deriving from the Second Vatican Council. There are three main difficulties which most self-identified Traditionalists have with Vatican II.

1) The declaration on religious liberty seems to be in direct contradiction to what the Church had always taught about error having no rights. The Church does not insist on persecution of non-Catholics, but has taught that it is also wrong for the state to treat all religions the same. The state has an obligation to acknowledge the "social reign of Christ the King". 

2) The declaration on ecumenism seems to allow for an understanding of the "Church" as being unidentifiable as the Roman Catholic Church specifically.

3) The declaration on collegiality of the bishops erodes an individual bishop's authority in his own diocese, and the pope's universal authority in the church, in favor of a more democratic model of governance which is hard to reconcile with Catholic tradition.

John Paul II proclaims in the first lines of his first encyclical, his confidence in the eventual benefits of following through with the initiatives that were decided upon at the Council, and let the world know that this would be his primary focus. He was very true to these words, and he never faltered through a long papacy in expressing his conviction that by following the blueprint of Vatican II a great renewal, a "Springtime for the Church" was around the corner. He was a devout man, even a great man, in some ways. But this was, in my opinion, folly. Because of his focus, he tended to allow serious problems to fester in the Church assuming the Springtime of Evangelization would take care of all the evils that were ripping the Church apart before his eyes. Sadly, he was the author of some of these evils. It was after his prayer meeting of all religions for world peace in Assisi (Church of St. Francis of Assisi) in 1985 that probably led Abp. Lefebvre to seriously consider the possibility of consecrating a bishop(s) to succeed himself. John Paul's fiasco at Assisi demonstrated the folly of implementing the declaration on religious liberty as representatives of all religions, including even those arguably thought to be demonic, were encouraged access to the church with the placing of their religious articles, books, and lucky charms on the altar which was consecrated to the Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

Interestingly, one of the promises of the message of our Lady of Fatima is for a great period of world peace if the pope does exactly what she asks. He is asked to consecrate, with the participation of all bishops in the world, the nation of Russia, to Mary's Immaculate Heart. It might take ten minutes. If they will try this, Russia will be converted and a great of world peace would follow! If not, the errors of Russia would spread, nations will be annihilated, and the church herself will be afflicted with a diabolical disorientation. But Vatican II says that there is another way to world peace. At Assisi, John Paul II tried the Vatican II way, not the message of Fatima way. From the first beginnings of the Council, it was about reaching the same goals as our Lady of Fatima. The Church wanted the right things at Vatican II. I do not deny that. I suggest that they wished to do the right things the wrong way.