The Pastoral Liturgical Changes of Vatican II: The Difference Between History and Conspiracy.

A fellow Catholic, and co-writer on the blog All Along the Watchtower, Scoop had recommended me to read a speech written by an excommunicated Archbishop named LeFebvre. I always find it ironic that many ‘traditionalists’ use the word heretic in regards to reformist such as Luther or Calvin but always praise this excommunicate as their personal hero, one that disobeyed a canonized saint of the Church.

So, a document provided by a priest by the name of Fr Richard Heilman, who publishes books under a press named ‘Deus vult,’ claims to be a primary source document of Lefebvre. A document that explains what occurred during the Vatican II Council especially the liturgical changes. A document that describes the mass, more or less, of being a product of Free Masonry.

Okay, so with my basic historical understanding, I took a look at the document with the eyes and tools of a historian. Every single document, including this one, has a purpose–an agenda. So, in the document, one that largely points to Msg. Bugnini as the source for all the changes of the liturgy, I looked for two names: Cardinal Larraona and Fr. Ferdinando Antonelli, the strange part is that neither one of these names occurs once from Lefebvre.

Examining the First Period of the council in January of 1962, Cardinal Gaetano Cicognani (appears twice in the Lefebvre document) was the prefect of the Congregation of Rites during which time Fr. Annebale Bugnini coordinated a 65 memeber and consultant for a commission on the liturgy. On 2/1/62 the Sacrosanctum was ready for the council after Cardinal Cicognani signed off on it. Yes, let me repeat, as Cardinal Cicognani signed off on it. After which time, Cardinal Cicognani was replaced by Pope St. John XXIII who appointed a new prefect by the name of Cardinal Larraona on 2/22/62.

Cardinal Larranoa aligned with the conservatives in the Vatican, which would no doubt be Lefebvre and company–strange how he would leave his name out of the conversation–in which Larranoa replaced Fr. Bugnini as secretary with Fr. Fernanado Antonelli because Larranoa thought Bugnini too progressive for the position. On October, 22, 1962 Cardinal Larranoa with Fr. Antonelli announced Sacrosanctum Concilium to the Council. The conservative appointee, Fr. Antonelli, explained to the council that the faithful had become “mute spectators,” and reminded them of the liturgical development that had first occurred under Pope Pius X. Therefore, this document was in this same tradition.

The document that had been presented by Cardinal Larranoa and Fr. Antonelli was approved by the Central Preparatory Commission with little changes by the council. What is most telling is that the final vote of the Council Fathers in regard to the first document of Vatican II was that it was a landslide: 2,147 to 4.

Only after the presentation of the document by the conservative camp and the vote did Pope Paul VI name Fr. Bugnini as secretary of the commission to implement Sacrosanctum Concilium. If nothing else, it shows, that those on the more traditional side of the debate hands are just as dirty as they accuse others.


  1. I find myself in fine company:

    Ratzinger on Those Who Appreciate the Latin Mass being Wrongly Treated Like ‘Lepers’
    “For fostering a true consciousness in liturgical matters, it is also important that the proscription against the form of liturgy in valid use up to 1970 [the older Latin Mass] should be lifted. Anyone who nowadays advocates the continuing existence of this liturgy or takes part in it is treated like a leper; all tolerance ends here. There has never been anything like this in history; in doing this we are despising and proscribing the Church’s whole past. How can one trust her at present if things are that way?” (Spirit of the Liturgy, 2000)

    Ratzinger on the Degeneration of Liturgy and ‘Liturgical Fabricators’
    “[W]e have a liturgy which has degenerated so that it has become a show which, with momentary success for the group of liturgical fabricators, strives to render religion interesting in the wake of the frivolities of fashion and seductive moral maxims. Consequently, the trend is the increasingly marked retreat of those who do not look to the liturgy for a spiritual show-master but for the encounter with the living God in whose presence all the ‘doing’ becomes insignificant since only this encounter is able to guarantee us access to the true richness of being.” (Cardinal Ratzinger’s preface to the French translation of Reform of the Roman Liturgy by Monsignor Klaus Gamber, 1992).
    Ratzinger on the ‘Disintegration of the Liturgy’
    “I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing today is, to a large extent, due to the disintegration of the liturgy.” (Milestones: Memoirs 1927-1977)
    Ratzinger against ‘Homemade Liturgy’
    “It is also worth observing here that the ‘creativity’ involved in manufactured liturgies has a very restricted scope. It is poor indeed compared with the wealth of the received liturgy in its hundreds and thousands of years of history. Unfortunately, the originators of homemade liturgies are slower to become aware of this than the participants…” (Feast of Faith p. 67-68)
    Ratzinger on the Latin Mass as the ‘Holiest and Highest Possession’
    “I am of the opinion, to be sure, that the old rite should be granted much more generously to all those who desire it. It’s impossible to see what could be dangerous or unacceptable about that. A community is calling its very being into question when it suddenly declares that what until now was its holiest and highest possession is strictly forbidden and when it makes the longing for it seem downright indecent.” (Ratzinger Salt of the Earth (1997)
    Ratzinger on the Danger of Creative “Presiders” at the Mass
    In reality what happened was that an unprecedented clericalization came on the scene. Now the priest — the “presider”, as they now prefer to call him — becomes the real point of reference for the whole Liturgy. Everything depends on him. We have to see him, to respond to him, to be involved in what he is doing. His creativity sustains the whole thing.
    Ratzinger on the Danger of ‘Creative Planning of the Liturgy’
    Not surprisingly, people try to reduce this newly created role by assigning all kinds of liturgical functions to different individuals and entrusting the “creative” planning of the Liturgy to groups of people who like to, and are supposed to, “make a contribution of their own”. Less and less is God in the picture. More and more important is what is done by the human beings who meet here and do not like to subject themselves to a “pre-determined pattern”. (Spirit of Liturgy, ch. 3)
    Ratzinger on Why the Priest Should Not Face the People During Mass
    The turning of the priest toward the people has turned the community into a self-enclosed circle. In its outward form, it no longer opens out on what lies ahead and above, but is locked into itself. The common turning toward the East was not a “celebration toward the wall”; it did not mean that the priest “had his back to the people”: the priest himself was not regarded as so important. For just as the congregation in the synagogue looked together toward Jerusalem, so in the Christian Liturgy the congregation looked together “toward the Lord”. (Spirit of Liturgy, ch. 3)
    Ratzinger on the Priest and People Facing the Same Direction
    On the other hand, a common turning to the East during the Eucharistic Prayer remains essential. This is not a case of accidentals, but of essentials. Looking at the priest has no importance. What matters is looking together at the Lord. (Spirit of Liturgy, ch. 3)
    Ratzinger on the ‘Absurd Phenomenon’ of Replacing the Crucifix with the Priest
    Moving the altar cross to the side to give an uninterrupted view of the priest is something I regard as one of the truly absurd phenomena of recent decades. Is the cross disruptive during Mass? Is the priest more important than Our Lord? (Spirit of Liturgy, ch. 3)
    Now, I would answer, point by point each of your attacks, Phillip, but it will be much longer than even this tome. But regardless, I will make one remark which should be called out. I have never held Archbishop LeFebvre as my “personal hero” but he was also not a liar about his recollections of the Council.

    Please also note that our last pope lifted his excommunication and that you think that Luther (an arch-heretic as well as the crudest of men) was a “reformer” as well as Calvin and that it is the Church that condemned both as being heretics (regardless of the musings of Bishop Baker – which was an aside at best anyway). You can believe as you like and you will but I’ll side with Dietrich von Hildebrand, Pope Benedict XVI, Klaus Gamber, and St. Padre Pio . . . all of which either disagreedd with the changes at the time or came to that conclusion after they saw the disaster that the New Mass had become.


    1. First off, those who are dead cannot have their excommunication removed in regards to Lefebvre. In regards to a personal hero, the comment isn’t specific towards you but generally made from conversations with other Catholics. In regards to Luther and Calvin, I simply use common language in reference to them, the fact of drawing attention to my use of language is nothing more than a red herring. Again, it has nothing to do with my point that Lefebvre’s account seems to forget big players in reference to the Vatican Councils pastoral changes with SC. Again, this needs to be addressed why Lefebvre simply can’t remember simple facts.

      Now, if you wish to use the argument of authority for your opinion, we can certainly go there. First off, let’s examine what Pope Benedict has most recently said in regards to the Liturgy of the Church:

      “…some people who simply misunderstood the reform, It was certainly not as though there would now be another mass. There are two ways to represent it ritually, but they belong to one fundamental rite. I have always said, and even still say that it was important that something which was previously the most sacred thing in the Church to people should not suddenly be completely forbidden. A society that considers now to be forbidden what it once perceived as the central core—that cannot be.” (The Last Testament, 2016, 201)

      Of course, I have no issue with celebrating the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, I attend it about once a month. However, I do not find as much fault with the ordinary form of the mass as do you and many Trentians. In this regard, my opinion aligns more favorably with Pope Benedict XVI.

      Let’s look at the Pope who is the canonized Saint, John Paul II

      “My opinion is based on faith in the Holy Spirit who guides the Church, and also from careful observation of the acts. The Second Vatican Council was a great gift to the Church, to all those who took part in it, to the entire human family, and to each of us individually…

      We must always refer back to the Council, which is a duty and a challenge for the Church and for the world. We feel the need to speak about the Council in order to interpret it correctly and defend it from tendentious interpretations.” (Crossing the Threshold of Hope, 157)


      1. Depends on the type of excommunication which can get rather technical. But nevertheless, St. Joan of Arc was escommunicated and burnt at the stake and was not made a Saint of the Church until 1909 . . . obviously, excommunication is not always just and can be lifted after death, though it is rare. And you are right, the original excommunication of LeFebvre is still in effect (though I doubt it will stand throughout the ages); it may take a hundred years or more, but it will have no effect on the man anyway. The 4 Bishops that he illicitly made had their excommunications lifted as did the entire order of the SSPX who were his followers. His fate is known to God alone and without him, I doubt that the Traditional form of the Mass would have survived at all. Latin is no longer taught in seminaries . . . though you can learn a host of languages to deal with all the bi-lingual Masses that are so popular these days and are unintelligible to all who attend.

        The “red herring.” if there is one, is your bringing up known heretics of the Church in a positive light. I think, since LeFebvre accepted all the teachings of the Church and the Pope, that I would be more likely to think in positive terms of the man than I would the “reformers” of the protestant revolt whch held to neither . . . even to the point of disbelieving in some of the Sacraments of the Church.

        You blame LeFebvre for not mentionins some things in a conference in Montreal that was focused on a particular theme and I am sure if asked he could have addressed such things. It also seem that you can’t remember or dismiss the simple facts about the influence of previously disreputable theologians and a whole host of the Liberal German wing which virtually took control of the proceedings.

        Now Pope Benedict, who left for fear of the wolves, is still speaking the ‘middle way’ which is quite Romanesque . . . but the point of your quote seems to me to be addressing the bishops who had and still are effectively barring the Traditional Mass in their dioceses and further don’t provide the means (like Latin) in their seminaries.

        Since you find nothing wrong in the Novus Ordo then you don’t seem to mind the general disobedience to the original rubrics which are followed almost nowhere. Do you care if the crumbs of the Eucharist fall to the ground and are stepped on or do you care that people with unconsecrated hands have the same rights as a priest. Even the vessels that touch the Holy Species has been consecrated. I wonder why? Its a joke in the Novus Ordo Church.

        And again to St. JPII’s quote it is questionable, since it was expressed as his personal opinion, as to what was a tendentious interpretation: clown masses, LGBT masses, tango Masses and the lovely puppet mass. How about the masses where everyone could go up to the altar (table) and take a consecrated host from a clear glass bowl and commune themselves? I saw that once in Florida during a visit. Now if this is the kind of disrespect and lack of reverence that Christ deserves then we are living in two alternate universes. Please go over to my website and read about the last months of postings though at this point it seems that you have slid down the slope. In fact I have one over there that gives some very interesting thoughts of Fulton Sheen from the 1940’s. They seem almost prophetic.


    2. Of course, not to mention that one of the great American intellectual Bishops of the 20th century, Fulton Sheen, had some exceptional words in regards to Vatican II, albeit Cardinal Ottaviani claimed him to be a ‘progressive.” Notwithstanding, again, if we’re to judge just purely on his words, we’ll find them to be quite accurate:

      “The Vatican Council approved the updating of the Liturgy and amongst the changes were those recommended for the Mass. The changes made by Pope Paul VI were not doctrinal changes, they merely changed from Latin to the vernacular. There have been many changes in the Mass down through the centuries.

      The Lord never said Mass in Latin; He used the language of the time. Moreover, the change in translation does not alter the meaning of the text. I am always looking for translations that make the Scriptures more understandable and clear.” (Letters, The Angelus, November 1978)


    3. You also mentioned Dietrich von Hildebrand, who wrote, and I am in agreement, “And I emphatically do not wish to be understood as regretting that the Constitution has permitted the vernacular to complement the Latin. What I deplore is that the new Mass is replacing the Latin Mass,”

      This, again, is the crux of my argument in regards to Liturgy; Hildebrand agrees with me.

      My other strong opinion is the having communion under both kinds. Of course, during the Latin Liturgy, the cup is withheld from the Body of Christ, under the precepts that under Trent, Christ is fully present in either kind. Okay fine. I’ll submit to the Church in this edict. However, it doesn’t negate the historical fact that the practice was birthed from hierarchal clericalism of the Middle Ages because the practice of both kinds was practiced in the Early Church. Of course, this debate led to the wrongful execution of Hus.

      Sacrosanctum Concilium was right on:

      The dogmatic principles which were laid down by the Council of Trent remaining intact, Communion under both kinds may be granted when the bishops think fit, not only to clerics and religious, but also to the laity, in cases to be determined by the Apostolic See. . .


      1. You quote a private letter from Fulton Sheen to a housewife who was going to Mass at an SSPX Chapel. Here was a response that is very interesting in form of a letter that was sent to Abp. Sheen:

        September 30, 1978

        Most Reverend Fulton J. Sheen
        Titular Archbishop of Newport

        Your Excellency:

        Enclosed find your letter recently received by a housewife in this area. I respond because of your sweeping condemnation of the Society of St. Pius X and by inference, its founder, Archbishop Lefebvre. Also, your letter has been copied and distributed by its recipient. I will show that you have affixed your name to a litany of false and misleading statements. If I had not seen this letter I would not have believed that the famous Fulton Sheen could author it. Charity compels me to ask whether in fact the author was some untrained underling? I speak to your letter.

        1. (“THE VATICAN COUNCIL APPROVED THE UPDATING OF THE LITURGY AND AMONGST THE CHANGES WERE THOSE RECOMMENDED FOR THE MASS.”) The Vatican Council never hinted at what has become a revolution. The Council never intended that Latin should be removed from the Mass. The Fathers (were you there?) allowed the option of the vernacular for some opening prayers. They never hinted at the possibility of altering the Canon nor especially the Consecration. As you know, Article 36 of the Constitution on the Liturgy reads: “The use of the Latin language shall be maintained (servetur) in the Latin rites.”

        Why do you continue to violate this law? There is not a line in the Constitution on replacing our altars with tables; not a suggestion that the priest should face the congregation. The late English Cardinal Heenan testified that when the Fathers voted for the Constitution they did not foresee “that Latin would virtually disappear from Catholic Churches.”

        The late Archbishop Dwyer writing of the euphoric spirit of the Fathers on the day they voted in favor of the Constitution by 2,147 to 4, comments with the sadness and wisdom of hindsight: “Who dreamed on that day that within a few years, far less than a decade, the Latin past of the Church would be all but expunged, that it would be reduced to a memory. The thought of it would have horrified us, but it seemed for far beyond the realm of the possible as to be ridiculous. We laughed it off.”

        One prelate, who fulfilled important functions during the Council, expressed himself strongly on this matter in 1969: “I regret having voted in favor of the Council Constitution in whose name (but in what a manner) this heretical pseudo-reform has been carried out, a triumph of arrogance and ignorance. If it were possible, I would take back my vote, and attest before a magistrate that my assent had been obtained through trickery” (Mgr. Domenico Celada).

        Finally, the Council took for granted the Bull Quo Primum which guarantees “in perpetuity” the right of any priest to say the Immemorial Mass (Tridentine) and the right of the laity to hear the same. It never even hinted at replacing the old Mass with the Novus Ordo—how could it—the Council closed in 1965. The Novus Ordo was not promulgated until 1969! Why do you then illegally refuse the priests and laity of your diocese the right to this Mass? Please don’t reply like most diocesan papers that the Constitution Missale Romanun issued by Paul VI to institute the Novus Ordo rescinds Quo Primum and thus the Tridentine Mass—that is a lie!

        If you have read the original Latin document you found it doesn’t even mention Quo Primum but is merely a “permission” to say the Novus Ordo. The liberals try to make of this “permission” a binding law by “mistranslation” when going from the Latin to English, French, Italian and German. How does it happen, your Excellency, that these “experts” all made the same linguistic error on the fourth from last line of the document Missale Romanum? You haven’t read it? Like the bishops of the nation you took the word of the liberal peritus Yves Congar for this?

        2. (“THE CHANGES MADE BY POPE PAUL VI WERE NOT DOCTRINAL CHANGES, THEY MERELY CHANGED FROM LATIN TO THE VERNACULAR.”) This statement, and from a Bishop, is so unreal as to leave the reader stupefied. We know that Pope Paul did not actually author all the radical liturgical changes which bear his name, but to say that this revolution was essentially linguistic in character, well, this is to ask not to be taken seriously.

        According to Dietrich Von Hildebrand, Pope Paul’s Novus Ordo “merely changed” 70 percent of the Tridentine Mass. A grand total of thirty-five prayers have been replaced or discarded. The contrast from the old Roman Missal which you compiled, to the new Missalettes, is so stark as to defy comparison. If your above statement were even partly true Catholics could go right on attending the new Mass and use their old missals by just reading the English section. Try it, Bishop Sheen. It would be like going to see the Yankees play with a program from the Bolshoi Ballet as a guide.

        3. (“THERE HAVE BEEN MANY CHANGES IN THE MASS DOWN THROUGH THE CENTURIES.”) No informed critic of the new Mass has ever suggested that the Missal of St. Pius V was untouchable or that Quo Primum precluded any reform of the Missal by subsequent Pontiffs. Archbishop Lefebvre has made no such claims. The historical evidence is there to show that up to 1969 when the Novus Ordo was imposed, the changes in the Mass for 1500 years were conducted with the utmost reverence and caution. Pope John XXIII’s “reform” is typical of the changes which appeared only rarely. After much research and discussion that Pope allowed the Last Gospel to be dropped on occasion, altered the calendar slightly and timidly inserted the name of St. Joseph into the Canon. You surely know that numerous scholars of late have demonstrated that there is no possible comparison with what Pope Paul VI has permitted and the revisions of the Popes who went before him.

        The following lines are from a 1952 edition of a book entitled This Is the Mass: “The Mass became set much as we now know it, insofar as concerns its broad structure, at about the close of the third century. Although this or that part may show some growth or diminution in importance, the general plan of the ceremony is even now just as it was then.”

        Those lines—that book was written by two experts on the Mass; their names: Henri Daniel-Rops and Fulton J. Sheen.

        You chide us for turning to the Society of St. Pius X for our Immemorial Mass because only these priests of Archbishop Lefebvre have the courage to bring to us what you and the nation’s bishops should be providing.

        You know better than I that this Novus Ordo which you defend is shockingly similar to the heretical rite devised by the heretic Thomas Cranmer during Henry VIII’s time. You know that Cramer successfully devised a three-pronged attack to destroy the Mass and the Faith in England. First, he replaced the altars with tables, “Altars for that odious sacrifice, tables for memorial meals.” Second, he replaced “abominable Latin” with vernacular so that later he could gradually mutilate the prayers. Third, came communion in the hand; thus in time the idea of the Real Presence, which he hated would be diluted.

        In exactly twenty years Cranmer crushed the Faith in England. In the last ten years you and the Bishops of America have reduced Mass attendance by one half!

        Is the pattern similar?

        Who is leading whom into “schism and even heresy”?

        A few years ago an American Bishop wrote these lines in the preface to his Sunday Missal of the Tridentine Mass. These words sum up the case made by Archbishop Lefebvre and his men:

        “There is no communion rail without an altar, For only a Sacrifice leads to a Sacrament.”

        by Fulton J. Sheen

        Be careful great, great Bishop of the television screen, that your sharp pen does not become your scourge, for you may learn one day, like Paul of Tarsus, that in pummeling the elderly French Archbishop you had, in fact, struck the naked body of the Saviour.

        Dr. Eugene F. McKenzie


      2. As to Hildebrand and the new Mass you should search his name at my site and read a number of good articles written by him about what was going on and what was not good about the Mass. Together with his book The Trojan Hose in City of God and the Devasted Vineyard you can get a better understanding as to his thought.

        You really have no understanding as to the abuses that were taking place in the middle ages concerning receiving under both kinds, do you? Are you not aware that the people were passing around jugs of wind and pouring in on themselves as well as drinking it? That people started treating the Holy Species as a magic potion rather than the Sacrament that it was? And what has been the outcome of our receiving under both kinds? That we have now a perceived need for Extraordinary Ministers (foolishly called Eucharistic Ministers) who can, and usually are, any person in the crowd. I’ve seen EM’s in shorts, mini-skirts and see-through dresses and we wonder why people don’t believe in the real presence anymore . . . it has dropped every year since the polls began back in the late 70’s or early 80’s . . . and not simply for them but among our priests as well who fell under the sway of the popular theologians who were teaching trans signification and trans finalization as opposed to transsubstantiation. Appalling!

        You seem to forget that the bishops of the Council thoroughly defeated in their vote the idea of recieving in the hand . . . that was Paul VI’s doing. As for revceiving under both kinds the document stated that it was a ‘fuller symbol’ but that we should not believe that we are not getting the whole Christ in the one species.

        The mass, of course, is finalized when the priest drinks the Precious Blood. That we share in the Bread of Life after the sacrifice has been offered is enough. What is worse is what nobody really though of: that we would be taking hold of the Sacred Chalice ourselves and Communing ourselves which is far from the way that the Church had come to value these things. It once was said that “we receive Communion, we do not take Communion” for none of us has that right.

        Many are OK with it . . . and obviously you are as well. However, as you say the Vatican II documents made it seem as though much of what is now commonplace would never have occured . . . the horrid music, the liturgical dance, the bilingual Mass, the taliking and irreverence, the altar girls, women lectors, extraordinary eucharists etc. Not too long ago I counted 8 females, between altar servers and ET’s and just the one male priest. Perhaps that will change too under this Pope and we will have a Feminist’s dream . . . an all female liturgy.

        I am tiring of this so much at this point that if the American Bishops give us another translation that is as banal or more banal than we had before the recent changes I may just quit qoing except once a year for Confession and to go to the compulsory Easter time Mass.

        If you haven’t gotten the drift, this Pope has made me rethink how bad things have gotten and I have been lazy in not fighting these abominations and I am either going to go down swinging or simply stay home and pray for our Church during the biggest crisis this Church has ever faced; for our enemy is within now and not simply without or amongst some small minority of heretics and apostates . . . they seem to be getting the upper hand and the votes in the synods to do whatever they want. These roaches who were once hiding under their rocks and/or pretending to be what they were not have now got the nerve and the encouragement to come out into the open. So many heretics, so many Marxists, so many homosexuals, so many non-believers . . . so many, so many. It is overwhelming.


      3. Scoop, I would fight with you more than against you in regards to the Liturgy. You may think otherwise, but I fully understand that the refused both kinds due to protecting against heresy; however, that doesn’t negate the fact that also during the middle ages there was rampant clericalism.

        I really think whether liturgy is in vernacular or Latin is a non-issue. I agree with Sheen with this simply because having studied language to me the only reason to defend the Latin is antiquarianism.

        Missouri-Synod Lutherans have a communion rail where the two pastors on both sides of the aisle give both bread and wine to the assembly. I agree there is little need for extraordinary ministers, but, that doesn’t provide a good reason not to give two kinds when it was the original practice, as well as decreed by Christ.

        Yes, Yes, there are some things I detest. I detest there terrible music, I detest announcements during the Liturgy, the poorly dressed extraordinary minsters, my diocese requires two priests distributing communion now.

        However, I have little concern over crumbs on the ground. The wafer hosts, unless broke, have little to zero sign of crumbs. Furthermore, when Christ broke bread, I am sure crumbs were everywhere, he didn’t say, “And make sure to pick up my body from the table!”

        I also don’t have any issue with receiving in the hand. In fact, it is the most ancient practice. As mentioned by St. Cyril, I believe one of the Eastern liturgies receives by hand, they purify their hands by smoke.


      4. You know its interesting but there was a post I put up today concerning Lating that makes some interesting points. It was part of what was our culture; like the Jews who use Hebrew as their liturgical language and the other sects who use Greek or another ancient tongue. It was who we are. Before VII liturgical language, rites, feasts and disciplines (like fish on Fridays) created a culture that has now been destroyed. Each element has systematically made us give up our culture for the popular cultere of protestants. Anyway, the article I put up is here:


      5. “Our prayers are for God. God is the audience in a Mass. We attend Mass not to be served, nor to celebrate ourselves.”

        And God can transcend language as he proves on Pentecost. We’re not materialist, but nonetheless, we are of the body so we are more than spiritual, this idea of high language that normal language cannot transcend is Neo-Gnosticism. And I like Lord of The Rings but Tolkien’s creation is opinion. Again, technically speaking, the Language of God was Aramaic.


      6. So we were like the Jews: with a sacred language like Hebrew – few speak Hebrew as a day to day language. The Greek Church has kept its sacred language as well. What we and they had in common until VII was that we were bonded by these languages into a singular societal identity: a Catholic Culture if you will. They retained theirs and we lost ours. We gave up not only the language of the Church but the duties to be performed during the week and throughout the year. We changed our practices such that we are like any protestant church that sits about and is preached to by a leader (we call him the presider these days) and we are the audience. I am only suggesting that this article makes alot of sense if you look at it as a cultural bond . . . that which set us as people apart from others. We have lost just about everything that gave us our character as Catholics.


      7. I just find it silly comments like this on one peter five:

        “And yet for the irony is that it is most proper to say prayers in Latin, not fancy English. It is not that hard to learn and it is a lot more Catholic.”

        …’proper’ and ‘it is a lot more Catholic’…

        Give me a break. I’ll go ahead and say my prayers in my intimate native tongue.


      8. I don’t think the author was really saying anything different. But from the growth of the Roman Church and the Vatican state as the See of Peter we had a single unifying tongue that developed that eventually became a great part of who we are as Catholics. Our writings and teachings were, if not already in Latin, were codified in Latin. Even our Catechism today was written first in French but was not official text until it had been translated into Latin. Yet, even our priests of today, are never taught their “mother’s” tongue (the official language of the Church) and we are far poorer for it. Even if they did not understand what they were reading they should still be capable of pronouncing and learning what the words mean for the solemn rite of Mass . . . not much different than Jewish boys who read the Torah as a rite of passage for their bar mitzvah. My priest won’t even try and yet has no problem mixing spanish and english in a single Mass which becomes so distracting that one’s attention is placed on the ‘human moment’ and the eternal is never even more than a fleeting thought. There is no transcendence of this world in what one witnesses at Mass even when he says it all in English for the distractions are far too numerous to count. Our tradition suffers and our Catholic Culture has almost been lost to the past. Will we ever regain this tie to our father’s . . . I don’t know? But the absence of a distinct character to Mass is a great obstacle if we are to ever regain any kind of Catholic Character in our lives. We have more in common with our Protestant friends today that we do with our forefathers in this regard; the unity of the faith has broken down just as it did withing protestantism over the years.


      9. “But the absence of a distinct character to Mass is a great obstacle if we are to ever regain any kind of Catholic Character in our lives.”

        Honestly, I do not have this disconnect from Catholicism. Now, my wife is Protestant, so it would be far easier for me and my family for me to become Catholic. However, I believe in the Doctrines of the Catholic Church, I believe in their truth, otherwise, why would I struggle within my own family for truth every single day. At the same time, growing up in a family of Methodist and Catholics, as a cradle Catholic, I don’t have a disdain for Protestantism, I just don’t. In many ways, they succeed where Catholics naturally fail. They study the Bible far more traditionally, which is a good. A Catholic friend just told me that he was in a little fender bender that resulted in little to no damage. The person who he hit was a Protestant and noticed a crucifix in his car and said to him, “Let us not waste this opportunity to pray with one another.” My friend was blown away by the genuine experience, and said, “This is where many Catholics simply lack and our Protestant brothers and sisters in Christ succeed.”

        Overall, it has nothing to with language of liturgy, but the Grace of Faith and the response toward God. And the truth of the matter, secularism has been able to put up a better argument to choose hedonism over order. It’s largely because the tenants of our faith lead with “no” rather than a “Yes, this is why God is the true goodness.”

        Take Baseball for example, In the game of Baseball with Kids, you develop the love of the Game by showing the positives of the game–the hitting, base stealing, the pitchings etc. You don’t put a bat in a kids hand and start with “No, No, Your form is wrong, it’s all wrong.” If that was the case, which some parents do this, the Kid will say forget this and naturally find something that’s not of the parents’ interest.

        So it’s counter-productive to tell Catholics, “No, No, your form of liturgy and prayer is wrong.” It would be far better to reach out and first love God and experience the process without any such condemnation.

        I believe, after reading several One Peter Five articles, their format is simply a losing one because it draws on nothing but the negativity of the faith. I hope that someday, if you don’t, realize the trouble with such a mission statement of evangelization.


      10. You must have been praying because I have changed my mind on reception in the hand. After all, I had already moved for months to a different location in our Parish to only receive directly from a Priest. However, I am still ardently and maybe obstinately in support of communion in both forms, although not necessary, it is fitting by Christ own words at the Last Supper.

        Although depending on the communion line and height of ministers among other things, I may still have to use my hand on a needs basis. However, I am in favor of a total change of practice.

        In regards to the argument of consecration, the chalice is consecrated, so even by the hands of an extraordinary minister, it doesn’t touch anything but the cup to the mouth.

        Liked by 1 person

      11. Sad thing, I’m in a fairly liberal parish in a more conservative diocese in the country. It seems they merely tolerate those who are more pious. In fact, the local news interviewed a parish in a neighboring community who wouldn’t give a couple the Eucharist for remarriage, they said on air they go to my parish instead! I thought, oh when Paprocki catches wind of this…

        Naturally, In Francis’ pontificate, I don’t think my Bishop is being promoted anytime soon.

        Of course, the temperament of the diocese is set by the Bishop. The fortunate thing is that Paprocki, it seems, has made it if your parish has more than one priest then at least two have to distribute communion at mass.

        Today, I went to a Latin Mass of a Parish that has been set aside to do so in the diocese, but that may last only as long as the Bishop is here.


      12. More than likely I’m afraid. I’ve had 2 fairly orthodox bishops after the calamitous +Thompson retired. But even then they did not make waves with the priests and they continued on in their own ways and few turn them in for correction and those who did are usually ignored. No priest that I know about was ever corrected for their many abuses. And the people fall further and further away from the true understanding of the Mass and the Eucharist. It is all tied together with the prophecies of Fatima, Our Lady of Good Success and Akita. We are simply living the times which they prophesized about.


      13. BTW: the bell on your toolbar is not working for me anymore nor does it work on my website. The only way I can answer you is by going to AATW and using their widget. I don’t know if it is an incompatibility with my WordPress privately owned site or if it is your site. Funny that I can still use the bell icon on AATW though.


      14. Its funny . . . it works at AATW but in the comments stream of AATW the icons of the commentors do not appear anymore. Strange stuff. Its almost like the directories on the servers has become corrupted . . . though I clean my own every month or so. Weird!


  2. Philip and Scoop,

    I would just like to let the two of you know how bad things have gotten in my area by these stories. Though there are many more.

    A Catholic Church about an hour away from me took those in RCIA, and the teacher was “casting out demons” in them. Those people in RCIA had no idea of what was happening, why it was happening, or that it is only a Priest is supposed to do this, with some well training and instruction. The teacher had someone at the door of the Church watching for the Priest so he would not catch them. A deacon did. Guess what happened? The deacon of course became unwound, and they got rid of the deacon! Of course they tried to sweep it under the rug, which they succeeded at to a point. The way I found out about it, was a friend of mine went to that Church. She of course barged into the Bishop’s office about it.

    My sister is going to nursing school and had to change Churches while she is in school. The Mass is done in the “Charismatic.” Both of us being from the Assemblies of God want no part of that form of worship anymore. For one thing most Catholics do not even know how that all got started. Another they do not know or understand what that is going to lead to for the Church and those in it. Anyways, she cannot find “one” Catholic Church that remotely resembles any kind of traditional Mass in the entire area. Be in Vatican 1 or 11. So she has since quit even going to Church until she can get back home. To me that is pitiful! Like she said, “If this is what I wanted, I would have stayed where I was at.”

    Another, they tried to bring all of this into my Church. I watched as the elderly completed fumbled around during Mass as they had no idea what was going on. I went on a “one woman band wagon,” to get it stopped in my Church. Mass went from what it was to guitars, clapping etc…. I fought our Bishop and Priest on this and I won.

    All this was being done bc we needed a “youth Mass.” I explained Mass was not just for our youth but for everyone. I also told them if they were going to do this, then they had to have one for every single age group in the Church.

    I explained the history of this movement to them. The suicides I have seen one being a close and personal friend. The adultery I had seen. People dying believing “God had healed them,” and would not go to the doctor. Bankruptcy bc they gave away what they had as God was going to make them “rich.” You name it, I have seen it and lived it.

    If the Church keeps this up as well as some of the things the two of you have spoken of, she is headed for disaster and so are we.

    I have to say this. I watch those who were Vatican 1 people. There reverence for Jesus, the Liturgy of the Mass, the Rosary etc… Vatican 11 people have nothing to me which even compares to it. Many in the Church, (and I have heard this more than once) want to make “Mass more attractive.” To which my question always is, “Why is not Jesus attractive enough for us?”

    Just some FYI as to what is happening in my area. God Bless, SR


      1. As to your previous comment: there is no more spots available to reply to them: I would only say that our development of the Mass, the idea of Reverence and Communion has grown far beyond what it was in the early Church. And God did not worry about crumbs . . . He was the Lamb of God that would be Sacrificed the next day. But do you think that He was unaware of how what He had left us would grow like a seed and that our understanding of what He was doing and why He became incarnate would blossom in time? It is outrageous that our blossoming has been pruned back to some form of ancient form of liturgy which has not grown organically from what came before but was created. Some of it was stolen from the old Mass, but look at what they stripped out and what was lost. Look at our posture and our lack of reverence etc. The Hildebrand piece that I posted is excellent if you find time to read it.


    1. I know how bad it can get and believe me, since I became a convert I though I had left this kind of protestantism behind. But alas during the last 20 year I have seen us go from something which might be construed to be Catholic to many Masses that are more protestant than some of the protestant churches of my youth. It truly is the development as Fulton Sheen described where the anti-Church and the real Church are trying to occupy the same space and that the anti-Church is going to fool even the elect. Pray like you never prayed before SR. Read these:

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Hey Scoop,

        I pray all the time and ask Jesus, “Jesus what are they doing to Your Church?” I also tell Him, “Jesus, they have no idea as to what they are doing?/Please do not let this happen?”

        Scoop, I told my Priest and Bishop, “I will worship Jesus under a tree before I ever let you drag me back into this again!”

        Thanks for the links. Will read. God Bless, SR


  3. Hey Philip,

    It started in the 1700’s by a man named John Wesley, known as the “Holy Movement.” This was the beginning of the Pentecostal Movement. Then Charles Finney added the “Baptism of the Holy Spirit,” which included “Speaking in Tongues.” Then in 1948 Oral Roberts began the “healing crusades.” In 1951 Demos Shakarian began the “Full Gospel Movement and established the “Full Gospel Businessman’s Fellowship Int’l.” This was to further the spread of the Pentecostal message of tongues and healings.

    In 1960-1982 the second wave began. Father Dennis Bennett, An Episcopal Priest in Van Nuys, Ca. stated, “He had personally spoken in tongues.”

    In 1966 the Charismatic Renewal Movement came into the Roman Catholic Church via Vatican 11, as “new ideas on Church renewal.”

    1982- present “The Signs and Wonders Movement” wave came. This included healing the sick, and casting out demons called “Spiritual Warfare.” This was accompanied with signs and gifts. Signs and gifts were accompanied with the beliefs that the gifts of prophecy, tongues, healings, and miracles continue today.

    The Signs and Wonders Movement came with these teachings:

    All Christians can be demon possessed. Experience rather than doctrine draws people to the movement. For Evangelism to be truly effective it must be accompanied by signs and wonders. (I came into it in the “Signs and Wonders.)

    This history plus all I had seen during my years in it, was what I fought it with in my Church. From the Bishop on down. I told them, “Our Church is full of doctrine so does this mean we need to ignore Church doctrine and follow our own “personal experience instead?” That is when they stopped it!

    Just to give you some info on how it was actually started. God Bless, SR


    1. The charismatics that I know seem to suffer from what I can only describe as spiritual pride . . . as they have received these gifts of tongues or prophecy or what-have-you. There is a great temptation to get swept up into an almost voodoo like mass hypnosis. I went to one of their meetings out of curiosity and I was aghast at the goings-on. It sounded like a bunch of demons chattering nonsense and people wailing and crying and laughing and yelling out their prophecies. It was simply weird , , , and it certainly wasn’t what I joined the Catholic Church for.


      1. I think he listened bc I told him, “I would leave and never be back and there were others ready to follow.” I also told him, “It is the elderly and the rest of us who keep the Church going financially not the youth, and I would not give one more dime to this!/I would give it “all” to the poor.” I mean Scoop, I was hot! I did not back down nor let it go.

        Since this happened this month they announced they were “getting rid of those teaching our youth, bc the parents are wanting to control the teaching of their kids.” They realized all of this was leading their kids down a path of no return, and the parents themselves begin to rebel. Of course it took them two years to see this.

        I have seen people slithering like snakes, barking like dogs, laughing, (as the spirit of laughter is there when this happens) women’s dresses flying over their heads, their shoes flying off, people falling all over the floor, (being slain in the spirit) people saying, “The cloud of the Holy Spirit was there” (I never saw it.) People screaming in agony as they are “demon possessed.” (Until after about 10 minutes of laying on of hands and prayer freed them.) You name it I have seen it.

        Catholics have no idea of what they are leading themselves into, nor their kids. I also told the Bishop about all of this, and asked him, “When a woman is in Church and her dress is over her head, are you prepared to cover her underwear up?”

        The “wailing” is because when the Holy Sprit prays for us “He wails.” If you do not “hear the wailing then it is not the Holy Spirit, but he devil or yourself.” He also “moans.” So that is why they “wail” and “moan” when giving prophecy or speaking in tongues. God Bless, SR

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s