Last week’s report by whistleblower Kyle Seraphin that an analyst within the Richmond Field Office of the FBI released an intelligence product profiling “the increasingly observed interest of racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists (RMVE) in radical-traditionalist Catholic ideology” was sobering but not particularly shocking.
When late last year The New York Times’ Ruth Graham took an especial interest in the flourishing Traditional Latin Mass and the increasing numbers of faithful Catholics attending these services, despite pushback from the pope, I warned something was up. Graham’s slippery references to “a rising right-wing strain within American Christianity” and the so-called “brand of new hard-right rhetoric” attracting Catholics to the Latin Mass didn’t sit well.
The FBI’s persecution of Catholic fathers for their pro-life advocacy is sickening enough. But the monitoring of a tiny subset of Catholics based on their beliefs and mode of worship is an appalling new low. The FBI memorandum has received widespread condemnation, with Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares and now 19 other state attorneys general demanding that the FBI “order agency personnel not to target Americans based on their religious beliefs and practices” and “reveal to the American public the extent to which they have engaged in such activities.”
Significantly, the FBI hasn’t shed light on whether it was tasked to investigate traditional Catholics or whether some lowly partisan ideologue in the hate-speech division got a little carried away.
In any case, one thing seems likely: The memo must have been music to the Vatican’s ears. Certainly, Christ-following, church-attending, Bible-believing, cross-bearing Catholics make poor Democrats, and therefore inevitable targets for President Joe Biden’s Justice Department. But the orthodoxy of these Catholics also puts them out of step with the church of Francis, a body increasingly aligning itself with the globalists, climate extremists, and anti-lifers who have infiltrated the highest echelons of Western political, corporate, and cultural life.
Traditional Latin Mass Catholics — who 60 years ago were known simply as “Catholics” — have been a persistent thorn in Pope Francis’ side. He has tried a couple of tactics to suppress them, notably by undoing Pope Benedict’s good work and placing severe restrictions on the celebration of the Latin Mass. Yet Francis has allowed exceptions to the rules, notably to institutes like the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, whose existence and constitutions are intrinsically linked to the ancient liturgy.
Bear in mind, the liturgy itself is not the problem. This is not about Latin, ad orientem worship, Gregorian chant, altar rails, and vestments. It’s the underlying theology that’s the sticking point.
Francis’ pontificate has been characterized by more doctrinal volatility than probably any other pope in the Catholic Church’s history. He has artfully deviated from core Catholic teaching and promoted prelates like Cardinal Robert McElroy and Cardinal Blaise Cupich, who do not seem to regard the one true God Jesus Christ as “the same yesterday today and tomorrow.” Instead, the Word Incarnate is reduced to a sort of granola mystic who reinvents himself according to the ebbing and flowing cultural tides, and who happily takes a backseat to the individual’s inviolable conscience.
Francis’ church is increasingly and perversely aligning itself with distinctly anti-Catholic voices. The Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Culture’s 2021 conference “exploring the mind, body, and soul” hosted speakers including Chelsea Clinton, Dr. Anthony Fauci, Pfizer Chief Executive Officer Albert Bourla, and Vanderbilt Professor Dr. Ellen Wright Clayton, who after Vanderbilt opened its transgender surgery facility in 2018, threatened staff with “consequences” if they conscientiously objected to participating in operations due to “religious beliefs.” Francis later appointed Columbia professor, abortion advocate, and depopulation junky Jeffrey Sachs to the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences.
In her recent book The St. Gallen Mafia, author Julia Meloni brilliantly explains the method behind the seeming madness of Francis’ papacy. The shift away from doctrinal orthodoxy has been masterfully orchestrated by a clique of wayward cardinals and bishops, according to Meloni. They have been working deviously behind the scenes since the 1960s to undermine church tradition regarding clerical celibacy and the priesthood, and to challenge biblically-based teachings on contraception, adultery, and ultimately marriage and human sexuality. Previous popes, and especially the late Benedict XVI, were never likely to yield on these points. But in Jorge Bergoglio, they found their man.
Francis has pursued the dangerous “primacy of conscience” line on almost every key matter. Not so when it comes to the ancient Latin rite, which until the Second Vatican Council and the introduction in 1969 of the New Mass or Novus Ordo Mass, was the only form of the Mass celebrated throughout the world in every parish for hundreds and hundreds of years, with minor and incremental changes along the way. For Francis, worshiping idols on Vatican grounds, legitimizing same-sex couples, pandering to gender confusion, and offering Holy Communion to notorious abortion cultists like Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi, are all A-OK. But attending the Tridentine liturgy with its emphasis on theological truth, objective morality, and ancient customs is a big no-no.
The doctrinal orthodoxy of traditional Catholics, the priests that minister to them, and the handful of prelates who have their back is the one thing thwarting the Vatican’s pitch to serve as the ecclesiastical wing of an emerging anti-Christic and communistic world order. It’s easier for confused Catholics to sniff out heterodoxy when one can easily point to how things are meant to be, what Catholics should believe, and what the liturgy ought to look like.
But without this crucial point of reference, Francis and his cronies can remold the Catholic Church into whatever they want. It will be done — it is being done — with such stealth that the average attendee of the Novus Ordo doesn’t even realize that the rug is being pulled out from under his feet. On the outside, as the Venerable Fulton Sheen ominously prophesied, it will look like the Catholic Church. But the neo-Marxist, pantheistic, humanist, and relativistic mantra that subverts the Word of God with the will of man will bear no resemblance to the mystical Body of Christ.
This is why sooner or later, the so-called radical traditionalists are going to have to be forced out, frightened off, or set loose on each other. Finagling a way to declare a schism is one possibility. But were a weaponized federal law enforcement agency to exploit bogus accusations of racism, white supremacy, violence, and religious extremism, to bully the rad trads into submission, this could be more efficacious yet.
Caught with their pants down, the FBI did at least rescind last week’s leaked document, apparently conceding that analytical rigor requires more than sourcing trash “research” from publications like Salon, which earlier this month tellingly ridiculed Christians for denouncing the Grammy Awards’ glorification of Satan worship. However, the bureau has remained conspicuously silent on whether it is indeed monitoring Latin Mass communities for “hate speech.”
In its carefully worded email to The Daily Signal’s Tyler O’Neil, the FBI’s national press office clarified that it “will never conduct investigative activities or open an investigation based solely on First Amendment protected activity [my emphasis].” In other words, if the FBI regards some aspect of a church group’s beliefs or practices as “racially or ethnically motivated violent extremism,” this falls outside of “protected activity,” and the feds will happily investigate away.
Now that the communists have sunk their teeth into what they’re venomously maligning as “a patently Catholic form of hate,” they’re unlikely to let go. The New York Times was magnanimous enough to subtly warn Catholics this was coming. The FBI has failed to reassure them it’s going to stop. And over in Rome, the powers that be are gleefully rubbing their hands, and wondering why they didn’t think of it first.
Original story by Carina Benton on The Federalist.
Carina Benton is a dual citizen of Australia and Italy and a permanent resident of the United States. A recent West Coast émigré, she is now helping to repopulate the country’s interior. She holds a master’s degree in education and has taught languages, literature, and writing for many years in Catholic and Christian, as well as secular institutions. She is a practicing Catholic and a mother of two young children.
I wish articles like this one would cover one or two key points and not try to cover all the past and future sins in one piece. The headline and the first part of the comment referred to the FBI’s report about “radical” Catholics. They shouldn’t do that. But, to be transparent, too many of us had no problem when the FBI infiltrated the Muslum mosques looking for people who might threaten our way of life. If they should not infiltrate us, and report on our more ardent members, then they should not do it to any other religious groups. The story here isn’t about Pope Francis and the ardent TLMers, but about the FBI. Could we stick to one subject per article?
“Too many of us had no problem when the FBI infiltrated the Muslim mosques looking for people who might threaten our way of life”.
Please name another religion whose adherents have flown planes into buildings and who preach the slaughter of “infidels” and “apostates”. In the case of Islam, the FBI was looking for such people (terrorists or supremacists) who really might be there, because they have appeared there at other times and places in world history. You are correct, of course, that they found few or none.
In the case of Catholics, American history shows that we have been very loyal to this country (and perhaps too blindly so at some points). No Gunpowder Plots here. This was purely a Biden admin attempt to harass what they presume to be strongly conservative voters.
I do not work for the FBI so I am only guessing but I think by radical traditionalist they are talking about the groups that support Bishop Williamson. There may be others but he is the most notorious of those believed to be anti-Semites.
It is still a religious freedom issue, even though they are independent Catholics not part of the Catholic Church.
The apparent anti-semitism of groups like the beloved SSPX is gradually, over the decades, being seeped into the beloved ex-Ecclesia Dei communities. It’s sad.
jon, you are incorrect– the SSPX are not anti-Semitic. They kicked Bishop Williamson out and also may have defrocked him. If you don’t like the Mass– just don’t go.
“Senseless”: My devotion to the TLM has nothing to do with this. The apparent anti-semitism of the beloved SSPX is well-catalogued by groups like the Anti-Defamation League and the Eli Wiesenthal Center. Go to their websites. Examples of their bias include statements by their former superior, Fellay, as recently as 2013: statements that were denounced by the Vatican. So, it is not only Williamson that they need to expunge, but they also need to disown their most recent former superior-general. They should also repudiate their founder, Lefebvre, if they’re truly serious about completely renouncing anti-semitism.
Now, if the beloved SSPX wishes to rehabilitate itself, for starters they should embrace the entirety of Vatican II, especially the document “Nostra Aetate”, which is most friendly and most gracious to our Jewish friends. The fact that the beloved SSPX rejects Vatican II such as “Nostra Aetate” is telling.
Plus, if they are serious about repudiating anti-semitism, they (and the other beloved ex-Ecclesia Dei communities like the FSSP and the Institute) must return to the 1962 Triduum (or better still, to use the Missal of Pope Paul VI). Some of these groups have been going back to the pre-1955 Triduum liturgy since 2018. Now, why would they do something like that? Recall that Pope John XXIII removed the reference to “the perfidious Jews” in his 1962 Missal. And then in 2008 Pope Benedict XVI changed it further to remove other words that can be offensive. But in 2018 a few people from the beloved FSSP gained permission to offer the pre-1955 Triduum (how they got this permission one can only wonder). So for the past several years since 2018, more and more Catholics who go to the beloved SSPX and the other ex-Ecclesia Dei communities are back to hearing about the “perfidious Jews” and their “blindness”. What are these people teaching Catholics who go to their services during the most solemn days in the Church’s calendar?
Jon, the SSPX is certainly NOT an anti-Semitic organization.
The anti-Semitism accusations stem from some articles that have been on their website and in their magazine The Angelus and also some books sold by Angelus Press.
There are now bloggers and solid Catholic YouTubers who are unraveling the errors of the beloved SSPX to a wider group of people. It’s about time because folks like me need assistance. Watch Matt Fred and Michael Lofton; the former having more than an hour’s worth of conversation with John Salza. They are worth watching more rather than watching your Taylor Marshall, people. These people of the beloved SSPX are truly “wolves and sheep’s clothing” and they are truly among those Our Lord spoke of when He said: “He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up another way, the same is a thief and a robber” (John 10:1).
Jon, the SSPX (aka Angelus Press) took out the words perfidious Jews in their 1962 Missal. Nevertheless, it was not talking about all Jews, any more than the New Testament is talking about all Jews when it refers to the faithless ones. Only God can make the final judgement as to who is and who is not faithful in the end.
The beloved SSPX and some of the beloved groups of the former Ecclesia Dei have been returning to the pre-1955 Triduum since 2018. This means that on Good Friday these folks are back to praying about the “perfidious Jews” and their “blindness.” They should return to the 1962 Missal, or better still, to the Missal of Pope Paul VI if they do not want accusations of anti-semitism foisted against them. There’s a reason why Pope John XXIII removed the word. They should abide by that.
This is utterly disrespectful towards the Holy Father. It should not have been published here. I’m done with this trad fake Catholic website.
I hope the TLM is completely abolished by Pope Francis on April 3, as more and more rumors point to. Then the trads will show their true colors by complaining about “Bergoglio” and running away to the SSPX.
Goodbye Trad Catholic Daily.
I am just crushed that you are going to disappear.
Am ordering more Kleenex to dry my copious tears.
I’m not a TLM guy, but the old Mass sure sets some people off. What are they afraid of, I wonder? I wonder if folks like UD are “loyal” to the Faith on the matter of (lets say) the Sixth Commandment? Or does the old Mass remind them of an old morality they’d rather forget?
Just a question.
Sarcasm is the language of the devil.
Humm? There is a time for kindness and gentleness but a time for sarcasm too. The Prophet Elijah poked fun at the prophets of Baal nonstop because of the terrible evil they had done and were advocating, and if the Lord Jesus was so displeased with Elijah, why did he glorify and talk to him at the Transfiguration?
Mean and nasty comments are not from God or Elijah.
I do not like it when people try to defend their bad behavior by using the excuse that someone in the Bible did it.
Really, there are a lot of things that people in the Bible did that Jesus does not want you to do.
No. The current Holy Father is disrespectful to the Catholic Church— and to God. He warns priests now, to never deny Absolution, in the Sacrament of Penance– and to never deny Holy Communion to anyone, at Mass. This is certainly not the Biden/ Pelosi/Bergoglio Church.
You are not understanding the whole subject.
It really was about scruples.
How would a priest know whether someone is sufficiently repentant and whether they really had a firm purpose of amendment?
He was telling seminarians to forgive sins and not worry.
The Confessor is Jesus Christ who died so that sins could be forgiven.
The Pope’s enemies have latched onto this to attack him and God.
Do not be deceived by the devil.
The Pope has not done anything wrong.
And he never said not to deny anyone Holy Communion, either, You are lying.
No. This certainly was NOT about “scruples.” The Pope actually INSULTED good priests and young seminarians, telling them WRONGFULLY– to NEVER DENY ABSOLUTION! The Pope also said that he has NEVER DENIED ABSOLUTION nor HOLY COMMUNION to anyone! This Pope is not practicing the Catholic Faith correctly– and millions of Catholic clergy and laity are sick of it!
All of this seems to stem from one story in the Catholic Herald and I hit a paywall and cannot see it.
But this is on Catholic Answers
A recent news story discusses a talk Pope Francis gave to a group of seminarians in December.
Reportedly, the pope said that priests should not refuse absolution to penitents. However, the same story discusses him saying priests should check with their bishop before denying absolution.
Unfortunately, there are no recordings or transcripts of exactly what was said, so we can’t know.
This story is like a Kraken. All the tentacles stemming from one source.
Kraken were feared because they could take down a ship.
Nothing will sink the barque of Peter.
Be careful that the tentacles down sweep you overboard.
Pope Francis did say to check with the bishops before denying Holy Communion to politicians, but Pope Francis has got to know that Archbishop Gregory of Washington is not going to deny Communion to Bidden because he has said so, and Gregory would probably demote any priest beneath him who did it.
Three points to make here. Firstly, the U.S. government spying on Americans because of their religious beliefs is totally wrong. Secondly, the report says “adherence to anti-Semitic, anti-immigrant, anti-LGBTQ and white supremacist ideology” found among “traditionalist Catholics.” These are not Catholic beliefs, but I have read some anti-semitic, anti-gay and anti-immigrant rhetoric in comments on blogs such as this. It’s always shameful and I call them out. And “violence”? Wasn’t it only recently that a commenter here named “bohemond” alluded to doing something physical to a Catholic priest named Fr. Reese? And he was being encouraged by another commenter named “Jeff John’s”? I had to call them out on that. And wasn’t it recently that commentators here were making fun of Chinese names? Those sorry comments got a lot of thumbs-ups, and I had to ask the editors to remove such bigoted comments. Such hateful actions must be called out and denounced, people. Thirdly and lastly, the writer of this article, Benton, has written awful piece. This article further divides Catholics. She has managed to paint an unjust and unwarranted attack on the Holy Father, using awful rhetoric and insinuations that you can typically read in “traditionalist” blogs and media. As terrible as anti-semitism, anti-gay, anti-immigrant rhetoric are, this article is also just as terrible.
1. “anti-immigrant.” No, not anti-immigrant, but anti-illegal alien, with emphasis on the word “illegal,” meaning law-breaking (not the person but the status). There is a difference. We have laws, you know.
2. “Those sorry comments got a lot of thumbs-ups, and I had to ask the editors to remove such bigoted comments.” Can any commenter, or anybody, ask the editors to remove comments you judged to be bigoted? Or is it just you who are so privileged?
Then let the border-control agents enforce the Nation’s border laws; and let the disciples of Christ enforce His laws: “I was a stranger and you welcomed me.”
the Grammy Awards glorification of Satan?
If you are referring to the singer who put a hat with horns on during the song “Unholy”, it’s a hat.
The song is condemning the adultery of a married man who goes to strip clubs and calling his behavior unholy.
The rap part is supposed to be a sex worker (or something). It is not sexually graphic at all and says she is doing it for money.
If it all it takes to set you off is a hat, when the song is actually condemning immorality, instead of glorifying it, what can I say?
Someone sent it to me protesting it, and I watched just enough to see that one does not condemn immorality with dance moves like that. My stepfather and other fathers of the era disliked Elvis Presley because of his somewhat seductive moves, and it has only gotten seriously worse since then. Until decency comes back to half time and other shows, people will complain and stop watching such deviant behavior. I wish they would not send that stuff even in protest. I have to delete a lot in my inbox without even watching it because the title tells me it is something I do not want to see and am sick of it.
Well, I watched it again to see what dance moves you were talking about.
I think maybe there is a couple dance moves of the back up dancers that were a little naughty.
On the whole, it was a good performance and not dirty.
It is good song.
It had high production values without nudity or butts shaking in your face.
There is so much worse out there.
I suggest you go to the Catholic League website, and read their article, ” Super Bowl Off-the-Field Controversies”. They watched a whole lot more than I did, so as to report on it, and it was absolutely filthy, nothing suitable at all for famil6y entertainment. By the way, they were not the ones who sent a video to my inbox. The devil guy grabbing his crotch with women spread open in suggestive dance routines was bad enough to make me delete it pronto.
Umm…I don’t think those were women.
I watched it again and I did notice that Access Hollywood called the performance racy. I didn’t catch that but on further watching it does seem to have a black mass kind of vibe.
If you know the song, now it makes sense.
The devil is gloating over breaking up a marriage.
I read your suggested article.
I was glad to see a half time show with everybody clothed, but there was that one thing that he pointed out.
One Thing, you are probably right, but it is just as disgusting.
Anne TE, here is another take on that song (not so much the performance). It has been a long time since I have seen any sexual behavior deemed “unholy” or even immoral in the secular culture.
Many Americans are unchurched.
It may be the first time someone has heard that there is anything wrong with going to a strip joint or that married men going to strip joints is a form of adultery.
Baby steps. It would be nice if everybody behaved morally but some people have never even been exposed to the 10 Commandments.
I’ve been wondering why are horns associated with the devil? It is not Scriptural.
I have found that nobody really knows but it is from the 19th century.
Possibly from the Gospel passage about “separating the sheep from the goats”. The image is older than the 19th century, since Scots poets like Burns refer to the devil as “Auld Hornie”, which means it must have been a long-standing image then. I believe there are Renaissance paintings with the devil-goat image also. Might have something to do with Pan and the Celtic “horned god” of fertility cults: alway lascivious and often ending in violence.
Yes, what a great headline! We were Roman Catholic 60 years ago, what they are now I have no idea! As the saying goes, if we were right, then we are right now! Altar, girls, giant puppets, clowns, Eucharistic, ministers, Lay lectors,women in the sanctuary , drums, bongos, guitars, piano, felt banners, a dinner table instead of an altar of sacrifice,handholding, kiss of peace, improper dress, holy communion in the hand, while standing folk, music, rock music, mariachi music the list goes on and on. 60 years ago they would’ve thought this was some something from outer space.
The Sacrifice of Calvary renewed, then and now.
As bad as this litany of liturgical abuses are, which “Romulus Augusts” does not tire of cataloguing for us repeatedly: what does “Romulus Augustus” say about the change in the Good Friday liturgy made by Pope John XXIII when he removed the reference to the Jewish people as “perfidious”? That uncharitable reference to the Jewish people, who indeed have faith (albeit not in Our Lord), is just as bad if not worse than your giant puppets and clowns.
Jon, some of the Jewish rabbis removed some insults and slanders in some of their books and liturgies in reference to Jesus Christ and Christians also. Some of their books have such slanders still in them. The insults were on both sides. Some Jewish people persecuted Christians in the past also. No religion can claim all their people were totally innocent of such behavior.
“Anne TE’s” point is basically another version of “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,” a way of living condemned by Our Lord. Just because “some religions” have objectionable things in their books” doesn’t justify anything
Nonsense, Jon, I am glad that they took the word perfidious out of the newer texts, but, on the other hand, if one were to take everything that is offensive to someone out of the Catholic liturgy and books, there would be nothing left.
It is not for Catholics to be identifying deficiencies in other religions’ prayers. Please. When the topic of the conversation is on anti-semitism and the objectionable wording in the pre-1962 Good Friday liturgy against the Jews, it can be seen that “Anne TE’s” bringing-up (unrelatedly) of “slanders” and “insults” in Jewish texts as a valid example of “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.” Again, it is not for Catholics to be identifying deficiencies in other religions’ prayers. Have more sensitivity. Please.
Jon, just like everyone else there are decent Jewish people who are trying to do what is right, and there are those like Bernie Madoff, who stole from his own people; the notorious Jeffrey Epstein and Harvey Milk. Harvey Milk, who was of Jewish descent, and taking money for his union and probably any porn shop in which he had invested, from the notorious “Rev” Jim Jones.
I find it very distasteful that “Anne TE” persists in bringing up the deficiencies of the Jewish people either in their prayers or in their members, rather than using the occasion of this article to focus on the bigotry of some Catholics, namely the radial traditionalists.
I do not think Anne’s words qualify as bigotry toward Jews; but supposing for the purpose of illustration that they do; from your reply (“to focus on the bigotry of some Catholics, namely the radical traditionalists.”) It would seem Anne’s only sin was bigotry toward the wrong group, if you catch my drift.
The important point is that nothing that RA complains about (and some of them are non-existant) invalidates the Mass or makes the Mass illicit.
RA post is blasphemy. If he receives communion anywhere, it is an act of sacrilege.
Schism is heresy. They are mortal sins.
Obey the Roman Catechism, the Catechism of Trent.
Romulus’ comment is 100% correct. Liturgical abuses of the past 60 years have driven many Catholics away from the Church. Liturgical abuses are shameful to the Catholic Church. These shameful liturgical abuses are also against Canon Law. You are really mixed up, “Schism is heresy.”
People leave because they don’t have the faith to live the Faith.
Actually, people leave the Catholic Faith for many different reasons. Too many problems in today’s Church– plus, poor catechesis. And much more!
Actually, people leave the Catholic Faith for many different reasons. Too many problems in today’s Church– plus, poor catechesis. And much more! Some people leave BECAUSE THEY DO HAVE DEEP FAITH– and they worry about their kids, in a Church they can no longer trust– with evil clerics everywhere, like Theodore McCarrick, and the Vatican clergy that protected him and lied about his filthy sins. Maybe that is why many Latin Americans are now trying out the Pentecostal or Charismatic non-denominational Protestant churches.
Not always. Everyone who leaves the Faith has a different story. Some leave because of the many sins and scandals of the clergy– and they do not feel that their family is safe. Former VP Mike Pence left the Church and later had a conversion to Christ, and joined a Protestant church. He is doing a lot better than fake “Catholic” President Joe Biden.
Stop making excuses for mortal sin.
According to Catholic teaching, there are 9 ways of being an accessory to another’s sin.
By praise or flattery.
By defense of the ill done.
Deuteronomy 8:2-3 Remember how for these forty years the Lord, your God, has directed all your journeying in the wilderness, so as to test you by affliction, to know what was in your heart: to keep his commandments, or not.
He therefore let you be afflicted with hunger, and then fed you with manna, a food unknown to you and your ancestors, so you might know that it is not by bread alone* that people live, but by all that comes forth from the mouth of the LORD.
although now for a little while you may have to suffer through various trials,
so that the genuineness of your faith, more precious than gold that is perishable even though tested by fire, may prove to be for praise, glory, and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ
None of you have a good knowledge of the Catholic Faith and how to practice it. All you know how to do, is take a couple of sentences from the Catechism, Canon Law, or the Bible, and hurl it at your neighbor., like a weapon. A good priest listens to a troubled Catholic parishioner, prays with them, and tries to make helpful suggestions. I have known priests who also have made reports to their Bishops, regarding terrible liturgical abuses at churches, driving Catholic families away. And the Bishops took serious actions, to end these terrible abuses, in these cases– and punish wayward priests. In a few cases I heard of, the priests were really bad– and left the Catholic Church, to start LGBT-type, or “creative hippie”-type churches. And in a few other cases, a couple of the wayward priests got laicized and kicked out, for sexual crimes and embezzlement. Liturgical abuses may also go along with sinful clerical behaviors.
We use the Bible, Catechism, Canon law or longstanding Church teaching to correct errors or admonish the sinner. It is meant as an act of mercy.
The Word of God is a two-edged sword.
Is it OK for a man to have an affair if his wife is in a coma?
Romulus, none of the things you list – altar girls, etc. has anything to do with the Catholic faith. It only has to do with “rituals.” Faith is all about our personal relationship with God.
Bob One, poor Romulus is expressing his discouragement at the many sick liturgical abuses of the Mass, that have occurred, since Vatican II. And the abuses go on and on. Many Catholics gave up and stopped going to Mass because of the many sickening abuses. Many Catholics like you, do not seem to care.
People who stop going to Church because of liturgical abuse are not victims. They are sinners.
No. They are not “sinners.” Liturgical abuse is a sin against God.
Not going to Mass is a mortal sin.
You should only go to a Mass where God is respected.
You should go to Mass. Do not attend any chapel that is not legitimately erected by the diocesan bishop.
RA, if it was right to smoke cigarettes 60 years ago, is it right, now?
Historians have characterized anti-Catholic prejudice as the deepest bias in the history of the American people. Many Protestants claimed that Catholicism was incompatible with democracy, and that Catholic schools encouraged separatism, and kept Catholics from being loyal Americans. Many Protestants feared that Catholic laymen and their clerical leaders, were only loyal to the Pope. Catholic immigrants to America faced lots of persecution. Many Protestant groups very strongly opposed them. There were states that passed laws in which Catholic schools, churches, convents and hospitals could be “inspected” freely by police, at any time– perhaps to search for Protestant women presumably “kidnapped” by Catholics. It was only in the mid-20th century, that Catholics began to have greater acceptance in America, and more prosperity. It was really hard for them, and for their immigrant groups. The KKK, which began in 1865 by angry Confederate vets, threatened to annihilate Jews and Catholics, as well as Blacks, during the Reconstruction Era, in the South. A well-educated Irish Catholic priest, Fr. James Coyle, the Rector of the Birmingham, Alabama, Cathedral, was shot and killed in 1921, by a Methodist minister and KKK member– Edwin Stephenson– right after performing an inter-racial marriage of a former employee of the minister, a Puerto Rican, to his daughter, who had secretly converted to Catholicism. The man was so enraged about his daughter’s conversion, that he desired to kill her, too! Fr. Coyle knew that the KKK had long wanted to kill him, for being an outspoken defender of Catholics, of all immigrants, and of all the poor, of all races and backgrounds– including Blacks. Stephenson immediately turned himself into police, after the murder. Witnesses also notified the police. At his trial, Stephenson was acquitted by the jury, for “temporary insanity.” The judge defended the murderer, based on racist beliefs. Most of the jury were KKK members. In 1960, many Protestants feared the election of JFK, the first Catholic president, because of fears of a Catholic president being disloyal to America, and being manipulated by the Pope. Anti-Catholic bias has a long history, in America.
“The KKK, which began in 1865 by angry Confederate vets, threatened to annihilate Jews and Catholics, as well as Blacks, during the Reconstruction Era, in the South.”….what are your sources for anti-Semitic and anti-Catholic violence by the Klan during Reconstruction in the South?
Very shocking– but there were laws, at different times, in different colonies, in the history of early America, that forbade Catholic settlers and their clergy, forbade Catholic churches and schools, forbade Catholics to own land or participate in political life, and forced heavy taxes on Catholics. At one time or another, in Early America, almost all of the British colonies had strict prohibitions on Catholic settlers. Historians state that anti-Catholic prejudice is the deepest bias in the history of the American people.
It is interesting that there may be intentional misleading of Latin Mass Catholics.
I could tell that the ideas of the schismatics were infiltrating some Latin Mass Communities.
I thought it was people going online and not knowing the faith well enough to discern the lies of the schismatics.
(And this is one of them-60 years ago they were called Catholics. and What we are you once were…)
But the idea that schismatics are intentionally going to a licit Latin Mass to mislead and recruit, I did not think of.
This article is excellent, written by a very good, highly intelligent, and talented young Catholic journalist.
This article is not excellent at all, but perpetuates unjust uncharitableness towards the Catholic Pope and further divides Catholics along political lines and liturgical preferences. It is a terrible piece. The most egregious attack on the Pope and the Church is the suggestion that the FBI’s targeting of “traditional Catholics” is “music to the Vatican” and “pleasing to the Pope.” And the rest of the article basically attempts to support that appalling insinuation of hers. This is very wrong, unCatholic, and un-Christian.
Jon, the Pope’s latest, highly-destructive, extremely heretical– and dangerous– error– is to insult excellent priests, and wrongfully demand that they never deny Absolution, in the Sacrament of Confession. Fr. Gerald Murray, an outstanding NYC pastor and Canon Lawyer, wrote an excellent article sbout this, entitled, “Pope Francis Must Stop the Madness” in the online Feb. 18th edition of “The Catholic Thing.” You need to view the current papacy from a properly-trained, well-informed, well-educated, objective viewpoint. This papacy will not be worth all of your waste-of-time, defensive diatribes, after it is gone and forgotten. Vatican Journalist Sandro Magister, and many truly fine, authentically Catholic clerical leaders, know the truth. They are also very worried about the extremely wayward, highly destructive, heretical aspects of the worthless Synod on Synodality.
It will be better for “Reply” to think deeply about what the Pope, as shepherd of souls, is saying here in this Q&A to priests and seminarians (which is not an exercise of his ordinary magisterium, people), rather than relying on the spin of journalists and lawyers and television commentators (even though they may be priests).
Did you bother to click the links?
You need to obey Christ, not people on the Internet.
What did Jesus say?
jon, the above article, written by an outstanding young Catholic journalist– is excellent and truthful. Period. Regardless of whatever you may think. You are unwilling to face the truth about the corruption in our Church today. The Catholic Church has had corrupt popes and clerics all through the ages, at various times.
This is sad. I don’t know what more to say.
I hope this is all the same person and not a lot of different people that fall for this stuff.
I study the Church’s history and know the troubles, challenges, and corruption she has had to deal with. But these bad things are not resolved by dredging up those past and present challenges in blogs like this without positive purpose. The negative purpose for which people in this site have brought up these corruptions is to denigrate the Church, the Pope, Vatican II, the Ordinary Form. Notice how you and others here deflect the bigotry of so-called “traditionalist Catholics.” You’d rather, again, unjustly attack the Pope rather than apologize for bigotry and hatred towards him and other people.
How many years have we been batting our heads against a brick wall.
I really thought they were just poorly catechized people.
They don’t care.
And some of them are misleading others intentionally.
That to me was a shock.
Jon, you are certainly not a trained, ordained priest, with a Doctorate-level degree in Canon Law, like Fr. Gerald Murray, and many others– including fine Catholic bishops– who have written on the same subject. Better to read what these fine experts write on these matters, and respect them. These matters are not for laymen to solve. The top clerics in the Catholic Church have to judge these matters and figure out how to solve them. Another serious matter for the top clerics in the Vatican to solve, is the “trial of the century,”– the historic finance scandal– going on right now, in the Vatican. Yes, there is corruption in the Vatican. And it is highly important to expose it and to solve these serious problems. You cannot do anything about these problems. No use attacking your neighbors over it. Just be honest– corruption does exist– and always will, in human history, on earth. Christ was betrayed to his killers by one of His own chosen Apostles. That’s pretty bad. But in Heaven, far beyond earth– all will be well. That is what we strive for.
Corruption has always been present in the Church, but there is no use deflecting the issue of bigotry, anti-semitism, and anti-immigrants. The attempt to deflect these issues is astonishing.
One thousand thumbs-up for your comment.
Harming someone’s reputation is sinful. It is injustice. In Catholicism, it is considered worse than theft and worse than sins of the flesh.
In the words of our Lady of Fatima: Stop sinning. You are offending my Son.
I’m worried about her soul.
I wish the FBI would continue to investigate these Rad Trad Catholic groups. My wife and I were traveling through Idaho last summer and stopped at a Catholic Church which happened to offer the TLM. As we were leaving the Church after Mass several parishioners made racist remarks to us (we are Hispanic), asked if we were in the country illegally and told us not to come back. I noticed several of the men were showing Nazi and White Power tattoos. These Rad Trad types are not real Catholics.
What a horrifying experience! Such people are certainly not Christians! Fortunately, your terrible experience had nothing to do with the 1500+ years-old Latin Mass. Unfortunately, it has been reported that Idaho has had some radical, extremist groups– KKK, Nazis, Mormon extremists, a few other religious extremists– and now, the group you are reporting. All of these radical, extremist groups ought to be investigated.
Hector– you should inform the Pastor of that church in Idaho, about the abominable mistreatment which you and your wife suffered, when attending Mass at his parish. And also, send a copy of your letter to the Bishop. That behavior is absolutely inexcusable, and something should be done about it. These terrible, “bad Catholic” parishioners may have also harmed other good Catholics– or may have done great harms in their community. Any of them who belong to dangerous, extremist “hate” groups– like the KKK, Nazis, or any other evil “hate” group– need to be reported to authorities. And the priest and Bishop should have a big talk with them– and warn them to immediately sever their ties to any dangerous, extremist “hate” groups– and go to Confession, and change their lives– or else face excommunication. The form of the Mass does not matter– it is the evil people who chose to attend that Mass, that need to be disciplined. You never know, who might attend a Jewish synagogue service, a Protestant worship service, a Catholic Mass, a Muslim mosque service– etc. etc. There are lots of sick and dangerous people in today’s Culture of Death society, unfortunately.
“Any of them who belong to dangerous, extremist ‘hate’ groups– like the KKK, Nazis, or any other evil ‘hate’ group– need to be reported to authorities. And the priest and Bishop should have a big talk with them– and warn them to immediately sever their ties to any dangerous, extremist ‘hate’ groups– and go to Confession, and change their lives– or else face excommunication.”……where does the list of groups come from? And who else is on it?
Lol sounds like a totally made up story brother. Nazis are anti Catholic and so is white power beliefs.
Hector, can you name a few existing white power beliefs?
a little more than micro-aggression
There have been people sympathetic to dictatorships (like Peron, Franco, Mussolini, even Hitler) who have been drawn to Catholic radical traditionalism. Met a gentleman last year who was a supporter of Peron and is a TLM devotee.
Actually, I think the TLM (strongly associated with white, monarchical Europe of the past) is a touchstone for these so-called Catholics who hold racist and authoritarian beliefs. They associate the TLM with the “good old days” when racism, misogyny and patriarchy were dominant.
“They associate the TLM with the “good old days” when racism, misogyny and patriarchy were dominant.” Given what seems to be your strong feminist beliefs, I would ask 1. if your perspective on Catholicism in the good old days is skewed? And 2. do you, Auntie, have personal experience enough with these people to verify your claim of racism, misogyny and patriarchy?
No, Auntie– the opposite. The white Northern Europeans rebelled during the Reformation– and became Protestants. They were wealthier. The Southern Europeans– typically of darker skin– were much poorer, and remained Catholic. Poor countries in Latin America and elsewhere remained Catholic. Skin color nakes no difference anyway. Italian popes all through history probably had darker skin— and who cares?
Auntie has a point in terms of a “strong association with white, monarchical Europe” among some TLM groups. Not too long ago I came across this fancy, procession on Youtube before one of the TLM Masses in Europe with Cardinal Burke leading. Maybe it was fancy because Cardinal Burke was there, but the atmosphere is like royalty processing in. The background music is from George Frederik Handel’s “Music For The Royal Fireworks.” A clip of this royal fancy procession is below. Is this the kind of image we want as the Catholic Church?
We are monarchist, worshipping Christ the King, the Sovereign High Priest, the High King of Heaven, as the Irish put it. Give me the German, French, English, African, Japanese, Mexican, Chinese worshipers of Christ the King — the Cardinals Zen, Burke, Arinze, Sarah and Bishops Schneider, Gracida, Strickland, and Archbishop Cordileone, Chaput and many more. They might not be in that video, but they are all in the royal court, doing God’s work elsewhere. The detractors fool no one.
You fail to understand– this is perfect music for a church procession! The organist/music director made a good choice. He is probably the one who arranged the sacred music for this Holy Mass. A good director of music always must choose the highest and best music for worship of our Royal King— Jesus Christ– for Holy Mass. Handel was Protestant, a German Lutheran, originally. He also played for Calvinist services. Then, when he immigrated to England, he had to join the Church of England. He wrote very beautiful sacred music, for the Glory of God. Try listening to Handel’s beautiful “Messiah”— it will uplift your soul, to adore our Royal King, Our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ.
You may sometime hear the organist at your church play an organ arrangement of Handel’s “Music For the Royal Fireworks” — enjoy it! Perhaps you might even proudly be in the Procession!
This is ridiculous. This is so camp. Who is that guy in white stockings and hat with ostrich feathers? A priesthood and clergy pretending to be aristocrats and royalty is not the image of the servant leader that the Church has been emphasizing to its priests and seminarians. This is clericalism glorified. Looks like they are kow-towing to Cardinal Burke, not worshipping God. And that train! This is ridiculous. Do they want to bring back the French monarchy? Auntie is right. The TLM attracts people who are bedazzled with royalty and who are monarchists. Lay people who aspire to the upper classes but have no hope to become one of them would attach themselves to these people. Processions like this may pass in continental Europe, but not in rural Nebraska.
The Catholic Church has for centuries been known for its great treasures of the works of the greatest artistic geniuses– artists, painters, sculpters, architects, writers, poets, composers, musicians, etc. A great many of these artistic giants have been perhaps darker-skinned, of Italy, and of other Southern European, Mediterranean-area countries.
Handel’s “Music For The Royal Fireworks” is secular music. Handel wrote it for the King of England, not for God. It is only marginally acceptable for Church music. This music does not evoke worship of God, but worship of man.
In my comment of Feb. 20 at 3:26pm, I capitalized “Director of Music”– but the editor changed it, unfortunately. The Director of Music position at a church or cathedral, is a highly respected position.
Is this a Mass for the Order of Malta?
Campy, Cardinal Burke is outstanding. Of course, you are free to attend the Mass of your choice. Aside from that– Cardinal Burke deserves our respect– not senseless ridicule.
I agree with Campy. This is garishness and pomposity that has nothing to do with the worship of God whose favorites are the poor and lowly. The music is beautiful but it was not originally composed to give glory to God. In this clip it’s giving glory to the Cardinal as he walks in. I admire the Cardinal but shows like this send the wrong optics. The affectations, the stuffiness, the gaudiness do not inspire admiration but ridicule.
You do not understand. This is not the typical Processioanl music for Mass, with a hymn. It was probably chosen as music for a different function. For example– the organist may play a Bach Prelude before Mass. This is standard practice, in sacred music. I know you may have heard the organist play many fine works, before or after a Mass, that are not specifically sacred, but very suitable for the occasion. Your church bulletin will probably list information about the name of the pieces played by the organist, and composers.
For an example: A recent bulletin at a nearby church, listed two organ pieces, for a recent, typical Novus Ordo Sunday Mass. The Prelude, before Mass, was the famous “Air on a G String” by J.S. Bach, and the Postlude, after Mass, was “In Dulci Jubilo” BWV #608, by J.S. Bach. Easily-recognizable pieces, just right for church. The organist may mix some dignified, appropriate, non-religious instrumental organ pieces, with religious instrumental organ works, as needed, in church. All hymns, however, and all choral works and vocal solos, in the Mass– must be religious, in accordance with Catholic teaching. Of course, in most churches, even without a choir, and with just a Cantor– the Ordinary of the Mass is often sung– except for the Credo, or Nicene Creed, which is usually spoken. If there is no choir, and no cantor, for example, the organist may quietly play a beautiful Catholic hymn, like “Adoro Te Devote,” etc., appropriate for Communion, or other beautiful Catholic liturgical organ pieces, during Communion.
Is this the kind of spectacle that rad trads are drawn to? Where is the praise and glory to God? Medieval signs of servitude and groveling have no place in today’s Church where bishops and priests have to be accountable to the faithful.
Much is being said about the music. The music in this YouTube clip is in fact secular, not sacred music. This was popular music during Handel’s time. Handel wrote this to earn money not to praise God. It would have been liturgically wrong to hear this music during Handel’s time in a Catholic Mass. It’s like listening to today’s popular tunes during Mass.
Some people here who love this stuff are blinded by the pageantry. Pope Francis is right to warn about clericalism. This procession shows it.
To “One Thing” and “Campy”, the men wearing the Jerusalem Crosses belong to the Papal Order of the Holy Sepulcher. The vestments are very heavy and hot in most cases, so the lace on some is practical for a cooling effect. This is not meant for all Catholics, of course, but for those who understand it and enjoy being a part of it or watching it. The Ordinary Masses have their processions, and some get pretty fancy also. Many non-Catholics complain yet belong to lodges that have just as much pomp. To each his own.
Many of you who seem to despise the beauty of Catholic Tradition, and what you call mistakenly, “clerical pagentry,” may have little sensitivity to the tremendous Divine Beauty and Goodness of God, as reflected in these ancient and beautiful traditions. No doubt, you also tragically lack an education in our Sacred Traditions, in the great historical developments of our Church in sacred liturgical art, architecture, literature, and music, created for the Glory of God, to uplift and draw souls to Him. I suppose these types of people would go on a tour of a beautiful cathedral, such as Notre Dame, in Paris, before the the tragic fire– or St. Peter’s Basilica, in the Vatican– and ignorantly mock and ridicule every detail. With a little openness and curiosity, however, you could be introduced to the most beautiful and exquisite side of our Faith, deeply enriching, tremendously healing, uplifting your souls to God and to Heaven. Maybe someday, some of you will give it a try.
This doesn’t look like a Mass for the Order of Malta though I see some knights in the procession. This looks like a Mass at San Gaetano in Florence, Italy which is a church run by the Institute of Christ the King, the same group that Cardinal Cupich dismissed from his Archdiocese of Chicago. But the Archdiocese says they dismissed themselves for refusing to obey Cupich. Depends on who you talk to. You see a lot of the Institute clerics in the procession wearing blue.
I agree with the posters who say this is way overboard. Way opulent, and not for God. Opulent is ok, if done for God which this isn’t. St. Paul writes in the Letter to the Romans “do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly.” This procession associates Cardinal Burke and the Institute of Christ the King with the high and mighty. Wrong message.
To the poster who wrote that we have little sensitivity to Divine Beauty and the Goodness of God. We have a lot of sensitivity. But this procession is not about Divine Beauty and God’s Goodness. It’s about the glory of Cardinal Burke and the priests processing with him.
The poster also said something about being introduced to the ‘beautiful and exquisite side of our Faith’ which can be healing, enriching, and uplifting. This kind of decadent procession is not the way to do that. This procession is a materialistic and shallow way to appreciate the beauty of the Faith. However, suffering with the oppressed, feeding the poor, and self-sacrifice are better ways to bring healing and to be enriched by the beauty of the Catholic Faith and the goodness of God.
No, you totally misunderstand! You are probably a young American, of limited exposure to our Catholic religion and other cultures– who perhaps (for now) likes only plain, modernistic things, or things of the current-day culture that you know about. Italians are very different! They are a more artistic people, with a historic past extending back thousands of years, with a great love, respect and appreciation of all forms of great religious art, glorifying God! You ought to learn about this– expand your horizons! You would be so glad you did! The Institute of Christ the King, Sovereign Priest, is very fine! An American Catholic boy who aspires to become an ICKSP priest, will need to be fluent in French, to enter their seminary, near Florence, Italy– as all instruction is in French– plus, he will need to learn Italian. How very proud you would be, to be the parent of a son who aspired to become an ICKSP priest! They serve in many Dioceses in the U.S., and worldwide– — many fine Bishops are happy to have them! Including Bishop Barber, of the Oakland Diocese– a very fine Bishop! (Forget worthless, heretical Cupich.) And Cardinal Burke, a very fine prelate– assists the ICKSP seminary, and helps with Ordinations– they have many fine new priests, each year! Do try to understand– deeply religious Catholic artists of all types (art, sculpture, music, poetry, architecture, etc.) are inspired by God to create beautiful religious art, dedicated to the great Glory of God! They love Him very deeply! Their inspired art works are created to help draw souls to Him! All for the Glory of God! Go and learn about this– see if you find yourself drawn closer to God, even your heart filled with tears– by the discovery of great and wondrous, Divinely-inspired beauty, of various types of Catholic art works, of Catholic artistic geniuses, inspired by God!
The Sister Adorers of the Royal Heart of Jesus Christ, Sovereign Priest, the ICKSP religious order of nuns, is highly trained and skilled at making sacred priestly vestments and liturgical items– a part of their work for the ICKSP. These nuns are highly gifted! They should be praised for their fine work! Never mock or ridicule these sacred vestments and liturgical items of our great Church! Anyone (or your fine Catholic daughter) interested in a religious vocation to this fine religious order of nuns?
This kind of procession and pomposity had its place in 18th and 19th century Europe. You bring this to the Church now and the message sent will not translate well because this kind of artificial grandeur communicates snobbery, wealth, worldly power. In the Church all power and wealth is spiritual and in heaven not on earth.
Juxtapose this image of Cardinal Burke walking in with grandeur with the image of the limping Pope Francis in a more humble and simpler procession, despised, but who talks about the poor and those in the margins. People outside the Church will be more touched with the image of the Pope than with the Cardinal.
Juxtapose, our Church always– and will always– have many fine religious ceremonies, Masses, etc. Want to attend a beautiful Mass at Easter? Or a beautiful Mass for a special celebration, perhaps with your Bishop, at your Diocesan Cathedral? There you might find beautiful, sacred worship of God. Divine Beauty is an attribute of God! Italy is a foreign country for all Catholics to treasure, for their beautiful religious heritage and sacred art. This seminary of the ICKSP which Cardinal Burke assists at, is located near one of the great capitals of Italian artistic and religious genius– Florence. Home of geniuses like the great Michaelangelo– I am sure you have heard of him.
Many people do not realize that not everyone who takes part in these processions are rich, and some who are, give a great deal to the poor or provide jobs, and these processions seem to be rare. Another thing, according to some reports, it took a lot of money for Pope Francis to supposedly live more simply in Rome. An example is more security has to be provided if he walks himself to pay a bill. Think! Things are not always what they seem.
Artistic geniuses of all types, though they sometimes have wealthy patrons, who commission great works– are not rich people. Many artistic geniuses, all through history, have been poor. Those in the clergy, or nuns, have no money. And many great artisans who built great cathedrals, also donated their good works, for the Glory of God. Great artistic genius has nothing at all to do with wealth. It is just a great gift of God.
I agree with the posters who say this procession is gaudy. I am from Europe. To us this is not what we think of as beautiful or artistic. To us this makes an awkward statement. It’s not what the Church is today. When we Europeans see something like this we think of the age of kings and monarchies, our colonial past, slavery, and the large gap between rich and poor. And we laugh to ourselves that perhaps at least the Americans appreciate this.
I get it now. This talk of royalty confused me. I thought it was a drone followed by the queen bee followed by the worker bees.
Of course– great artistic geniuses varied in terms of money. Some were “starving artists,” while others were not. Mozart lived beyond his means, and died tragically, in poverty, with many unpaid debts. Michaelangelo amassed a huge bank account, but never spent any of it, and was said to be miserly. He lived, and passed himself off, as a poor man. Maybe he loved art more than money. Palestrina did not make much money as a Choirmaster in church jobs, just barely enough to support a wife and family. After his first wife died, he considered becoming a priest. However, instead— he married a wealthy widow, which was greatly helpful to him, enabling Palestrina to spend more time in composing his great works for the Church. Baroque composer, J.S. Bach, like many church organists, choir directors, singers and composers of any era, made a modest but steady income– and could support his wife and children. He was not wealthy. The Italian Rensissance painter, Raphael, was born into a wealthy family. His father was also a painter, with a high-ranking position as a painter for the Duke of Urbino. Actually, many famous, highly gifted Renaissance painters for the Church and secular patrons, received lots of commissions, money, gifts, and etc., had wealthy patrons thrilled with their artworks — and many of these famous, gifted artists of the Renaissance, grew wealthy. Anyway, regardless of an artist’s wealth or poverty– artistic gifts are Divine gifts of God.
Speaking of great Catholic artists– the great Catholic composer, Palestrina, worked for the Church as a choir singer, organist, choirmaster, and composer. But as a composer, he focused on Masses, motels, and other liturgical a capella works.
It’s camp. Perfect word to deceive this.
We don’t want the image of royalty on our priests and bishops. It’s not a good message for the Church. The ICKSP should re-evaluate its branding. The image of royalty these days is Harry and Meghan. Not good.
The ICKSP has a brand? Are their clerics little kinglets?
Looks like many commenters here may be ignorant, troubled juveniles seeking negative attention. Looking for a beautiful Catholic church to set fire to, or a beautiful Catholic statue of Mary to savagely attack.
I am glad you wrote kinglets, and not princesses.
No. I love reading about the royals. I like looking at the styles of dress of the royal ladies, latest news about them. It’s fascinating, maybe because in America we do not have royalty. Many Americans are facinated by them. So reading about them transports me to a fantasy world. Maybe that’s what will bring more people to Church, having more royalty fashions like this, in a Catholic sense, plus grand music. My auntie loves this too.
What might Pope Francis say off-the-cuff if he sees this? Whatever it may be, I’d love to hear it.
I have always loved the excellent fashion sense of many ladies in the Royal family, too. It is important for them to dress nicely, because they are leaders of their Nation, and have many important things to do, publicly. Many of our First Ladies have had good fashion sense, too (like Jaqueline Kennedy) and have dressed well, as national leaders. I loved Jaqueline Kennedy’s fashion style, and enjoyed wearing similar clothes— at modest prices– and a similar, well-coiffed (but inexpensive) hairstyle, too. Many ladies loved her fashion style! And also loved the styles of many other First Ladies, too. Good clothing and good hair styles follow principles of art and design, which you can learn in either a high school class, or even from your mother. Fashion design schools and beauty colleges teach students these principles, too. The good fashion styles of some of the women who are in national leadership roles, are not necessarily expensive. You can find the same styles for reasonable, or modest prices, in many good stores. Sadly, today, too many stores cater to absurd, ugly, radically-extreme (and expensive!) politically-related fads of the sick post-1960s era. But not many women actually like this junk. Good fashions help you to look and feel your best. Nice to dress well, and “wear your Sunday best,” modestly, respectfully, in church! Queen Elizabeth II, a devout Anglican, regularly attended Sunday church services. Her “gently used” clothes were always donated anonymously to charity. She was my very favorite, in the British Royal family! Loved her annual Christmas addresses, too, on the BBC!
Oh, I got part of my last post wrong. Queen Elizabeth II used to donate her clothing to her dressers– with all labels removed– and the dressers could then either wear the items, sell them, or give them to someone, anonymously– but no one was to know that the clothing came from the Queen.
Whatever one thinks of the cappa magna, it is worn to mock the more worldly Pharisees in the New Testament whom Christ castigated. The bishop or archbishop is stripped of the finery and given more humble garments in this rare ritual to serve at the altar. Read “Why the Cappa Magna Makes People See Red” online. The material is usually passed on to others to use in ritual, or hopefully made into smaller vestments or garments for poorer priests or laity. No priest wants to drag about such a heavy train.
Let me put that a better way, it is worn to remind them not to be like some of the Pharisees in the New Testament.
Anne TE, I see nothing anywhere about it being worn to mock the Pharisees. The other thing I see in a letter to an editor and find no verification for.
You are looking at the wrong articles, in the Catholic Herald and other articles it explains that the ritual is used to remind some bishops at their consecrations not to be like the Pharisees who enlarged their phylacteries to be seen by men, and the passage, Matthew 23:5, is read at the Gospel right after the bishop to be anointed drags the heavy train down the aisle. Penitents, who had committed very serious sins (crimes), also had to drag shorter black trains behind them before they could be admitted back into the Church.
To the poster called “Nothing Anywhere”, I am not referring to the article on this website, but to other articles that come up on the internet when one puts in “cappa magna or meaning of the Cappa Magna”. Many people here have misinterpreted its meaning as being pompous through lack of understanding. The Lord Jesus Christ is King of the Universe, that makes those who believe in and follow him the sons and daughters of a king down to the poorest. That is all I am going to say.
I am so sorry that you had that experience. Heartbreaking.
Here is an excellent article for jon and others to read:
Another red-herring. Another unjust accusation about the Pope. Another unjust, irrelevant deflection of the topic of this article.
Jon, every man is prone to sin. What if Theodore McCarrick was pope? Follow only Christ, pray for bad popes.
The Pope is given infallibility on matters of faith and morals. He is not given impeccability.
A priest should not be writing something that erodes people’s confidence in the Pope.
And what is wrong with forgiving sins in confession? That is what they are supposed to do.
There is no doctrinal error.
“And what is wrong with forgiving sins in confession? That is what they are supposed to do.
There is no doctrinal error.” and “people who are weak in faith and charity are mis-interpreting an off-the -cuff remark made by the Pope ”
If Pope Francis’ words mean that absolution is to be given with or without contrition for sin, then it is right (and a duty) for Fr. Murray to point this out. His own words:
‘Penitents who, for whatever reason, refuse to repent of the sins they may accuse themselves of in confession cannot be absolved. It would have seemed unthinkable that Pope Francis would say they should be absolved anyway. But he did..’
If later the pope qualified his comments to avoid misinterpretation, and I am in no position to know this, then it would have been incumbent upon Fr. Murray to include this in the article. If anyone is aware of any such qualification, let him/her contribute to the discussion. Otherwise absent qualifications, I see no merit in accusations against Fr Murray “(His sin is worse than sodomy. Learn the Catholic Faith”; “weak in faith and charity”.) for reporting the pope’s words and commenting on them. More from Fr. Murray:
“What is the logic of absolving someone who clings to his sins? The unholy farce of attempting to absolve an unrepentant sinner who intends to keep sinning is a grave violation of the priest’s duty to guide the faithful in Christ’s path of virtue and grace, not the destructive path of sin and spiritual death. Yet that is what Pope Francis told priests they should do.”
If anyone wishes to fault Fr. Murray, then fault either his understanding of Pope Francis (as referenced above) or his understanding of the sacrament of penance by showing in either case where he is misinformed, uninformed, or illogical.
If you cannot do this, either suspend judgement or agree with him, and in any case pray for Francis.
“If Pope Francis’ words mean that absolution is to be given without contrition for sin”
No. His words do not mean that.
Of course they do not.
He does not have to clarify his comments.
He was talking to seminarians about not having scruples.
“He was talking to seminarians about not having scruples.” Very well, if this is true, please give evidence that this is the case. That would satisfy the canons of criticism that Fr. Murray does not understand Pope Francis, and is guilty of rash judgment. But to argue that the pope does not have to clarify his comments, you suppose the context of his comments is so obvious that clarification is unnecessary and the onus is on Fr. Murray to discover that context which is so obvious to you .but not to him, perhaps due to laziness or ill will. So give us the context using the Pope’s own words, and put Fr. Murray to shame, if you are able to do so.(and thanks in advance).
I suppose that anybody who was interested would click the links and see the context.
Sins against justice are worse than sins of the flesh.
The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:
Person 1 asserts proposition X.
Person 2 argues against a superficially similar proposition Y, falsely, as if an argument against Y were an argument against X.
This reasoning is a fallacy of relevance: it fails to address the proposition in question by misrepresenting the opposing position.
Quoting an opponent’s words out of context—i.e., choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent’s intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context).
Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then denying that person’s arguments—thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.
Oversimplifying an opponent’s argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
Exaggerating (sometimes grossly) an opponent’s argument, then attacking this exaggerated version
As I answered scruples, please verify that Fr. Murray employed a straw-man argument by identifying exactly how Fr. Murray did so, and thanks in advance,
Dan, the Pope tells seminarians that when they are priests (I think) to forgive sins.
It gets turned into “The Pope says you don’t need to repent of your sins.”
I am replying to my own post because I received no reply from scruples and straw man fallacy. From a new source on the pope’s actual address to the seminarians
“…Curiously, the Holy Father never delivered this [prepared] speech. Moreover, what the Pope actually said in its place has never been officially disclosed: not even a hint from the official Vatican press organs. This is what was revealed by the Spanish blog, after receiving testimonies from seminarians who were present. We contacted the source and ascertained that they possess the testimonial evidence of seminarians and instructors who were more than perplexed by what the Pope did say. So, according to their testimony, Francis took the text that had been prepared and set it aside, saying that “it would have been boring” and that he would prefer to be asked questions instead. The most problematic answer the pope gave was the one in which he invited future priests never to deny absolution. According to one seminarian, the Pope is reported to have invited them “not to be clerical, to forgive everything”. More precisely, he is alleged to have added that “if we see that there is no intention to repent, we must forgive all. We can never deny absolution, because we become a vehicle for an evil, unjust, and moralistic judgement”.
Francis calls the priest who denies absolution a “delinquent”, not only omitting the necessary clarifications on the matter, but also making it clear that absolution can never be denied or postponed.
So the accusations against Fr. Murray are false, and it must be asked: Who is delinquent, the one who absolves regardless of the penitent’s disposition or the one who absolves, denies, or defers on the basis of these dispositions? And we must further ask: when is it ever acceptable for a Pope to call priests who are doing their duty delinquents?
I leave it to the reader to evaluate jon’s assertion that Murray’s article is “Another red-herring. Another unjust accusation about the Pope. Another unjust, irrelevant deflection of the topic of this article.”
The issue at hand in this article is the accusation of bigotry, hatred, anti-semitism, anti-gay, anti-immigrant statements among Catholics who self-label as “traditionalists.” The fact that a couple of commentators are bringing up a totally tangential and irrelevant topic concerning the latest thing that they were “outraged” about that the Pope may or may not have said is a total smoke-screen, a deflection, a red-herring, which the people of this commentariat think they’re adept at doing. These people of the commentariat here have the accusation of bigotry hurled against them, and instead of addressing it by fessing up to it and being contrite, they punt by throwing an irrelevant topic about Pope Francis, their favorite punching bag these days.
Well, it is definitely hearsay. And it should not have been spread on the Internet.
And I did answer you and thank you for providing some more context.
jon, good point. It has become a discussion about fancy processions and the need for repentance.
If Pope Francis told priests what it is claimed he said, It is not the same thing as telling sinners they do not need to repent.
Sinners need to be sorry for their sins and seek reconciliation with God.
I think he was telling the priests (if he said it) not to second guess them.
If they are in confession, they are sorry most likely.
I had a weird confession once. I used to confess once a month and my sins were always venial and imperfections. A priest told me “The mercy of God is not something to be taken lightly” or something like that. So, I interpreted it to mean that God did not want me to come to confession so often. So now I only go if I think something might be a grave sin.
Think about how devastating it would be if you were denied absolution. I heard Padre Pio did that.
If that happened to me, I would never go back to confession and just would not take communion.
Then I would miss my Easter duty and be in mortal sin.
So maybe I would try again.
I don’t know.
I might be afraid to go back to church.
in reply to hearsay, 9:52 pm:
“Well, it is definitely hearsay. And it should not have been spread on the Internet.
And I did answer you and thank you for providing some more context.”
Context, well, I was seeking for the context of the pope’s words, viz, qualifications, and not the setting in which he said them. On the matter of hearsay, you are correct, and that is all anyone has to go on, because the Vatican did not publish the Pope’s words, and no seminarian has come forward with a recording of the comments. All we have is the recollections of the seminarians who were there. And yes, that is hearsay. Should their report have made it to the internet? Had I been there as a seminarian, and had I heard what is claimed to have been said, I would have felt an obligation to share it. That someone as esteemed as Fr. Murray felt such an obligation to disseminate the pope’s message may serve to help justify the doing; that said, it is still hearsay. It would have been better had Fr. Murray requested clarification from the Vatican before taking to print. You have convinced me.
Fr. Gerald Murray has a Doctorate in Canon Law. He is highly esteemed in his field. He has the responsibility to help lead and guide the Catholic Church in matters of Canon Law.
Can. 331 The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.
All through history, we have had bad popes at times. Pray for a bad pope– and follow Christ.
I feel so sorry for this Pope. The devil is after him and all Catholics. Apparently, this latest non-scandal is again a straw man because people who are weak in faith and charity are mis-interpreting an off-the -cuff remark made by the Pope to mean that someone does not have to be sorry for their sins.
People, please, educate yourselves so these internet (insert any charitable word you can think of) can’t agitate you like this.
Every agitation comes from Satan.
God bless Fr. Murray. He bravely speaks the truth.
His sin is worse than sodomy.
Learn the Catholic Faith.
“His sins?” Whose sins are you talking about— Theodore McCarrick’s filthy gay sex crimes of rape of priests, seminarians, and young boys?
That is injustice and sins of the flesh.
If you do not sin, you will not fall for stupid stuff.
Stop gossiping and listening to gossip.
Never attack the Pope.
God always backs the Pope.
He will not support you in attacking His Pope.
People, I beg you, learn the Catholic Faith.
Stop arguing in favor of sin.
The Pope is not your enemy.
Even if he was, what does Jesus tell you to do with your enemy?
You are his enemy.
We love you and he loves you.
Your souls are in peril.
No, of course the Pope is not an “enemy.” Let’s be real honest. Can you do that? The current pope, like the current Cardinal of San Diego– and the current U.S. president– are merely incompetent. Judas Iscariot, Theodore McCarrick, and many, many others, all through history– — were all incompetent, too. Some were actually even criminals, like Iscariot and McCarrick! All through history, the Catholic Church has had both good and bad priests, bishops and popes. And the U.S. has had both good and bad presidents. They are all mere human beings, “and to dust they shall go,” like everyone else. Don’t idolize the Catholic leader, the Pope. I talked to a devout Russian Orthodox couple the other day, and asked what they thought of Patriarch Kirill– and they replied, “Unprintable. Arch-Hypocrite.” But life goes on. You have to practice your religion, anyway, in good and bad times. Better to realistically face the truth, always.
What is the Pope incompetent at?
I think you just don’t like him.