So. Let's take a closer look.

Resisting the Pope to his face?

Two issues caught my attention, as readers know: The reactions by some contemplative nuns to the document Cor Orans and the implementation of its guidelines. And, the reactions of Traditionalists devoted to the TLM and their outright rejection of Traditionis Custodes and the implementation of the disciplines proposed.

First let me say I do have sympathy for those attached to the TLM and the rubrics and sacramental rite involved therein.  I respect their attachment to Latin and ceremony.  I personally love the Mass celebrated so elegantly and mysteriously, especially on Christmas and Easter, yet I also love very much the OF and the vernacular - which is always well celebrated in the parishes I attend.  Thus I don't see the problem between the two - it is the Mass.  Up until now, it was understood as one rite under two forms.  The only difference I felt was wanting is that the calendar was not updated for the TLM to include new saints and that the readings were not the same as in the OF.  

That said, I came across an article at Crisis which helped me understand better the affliction felt by ordinary Catholics who love the TLM.  The article by Sean McClinch, It's Time to Occupy the Churches is not something I would promote, but it helped me understand a bit better the passionate response traditionalists have.  His citation of occupying the churches relates to the events in France and can be linked to the history of the SSPX, when Parisian traditionalists did just that.  His position and proposals sound similar.  Which is an unfortunate position, to be sure,

On April 12, 1977, Parisian traditionalists got sick of worshipping in the community hall the petty New Church bureaucrats relegated to them for the celebration of their banned Mass. So they did what any decent, God-fearing Catholics should – they processed into the church of St. Nicholas with priests, occupied it, and stayed there. Every living Trad should know by heart the exchange that occurred between the parish clergyman of St. Nicholas du Chardonnet and one of the occupying priests. - Sean McClinch

The SSPX influence, especially the doctrine of Archbishop Lefebvre can't be obfuscated.  Many, perhaps most of the adherents to the TLM, be they SSPX or FSSP  tend to believe what Lefebvre taught about VII and the NO:

"Now it was during the Council that the enemies of the Church infiltrated Her, and their first objective was to demolish and destroy the Mass insofar as they could." - 50th Jubilee sermon.

Like I said, I have some sympathy for McClinch and those like him.  I lived through wreckovations of churches and experimentation in liturgical forms, changing readings and responses at Mass, and so on.  When JPII came along, the liturgical rubrics and orthodoxy was more or less restored.  My Archdiocese is especially blessed with good priests and bishops - the younger ones more traditional than their seniors, but very good nonetheless.  All the renovations after the Council were imposed - parishioners had no say in how the parish church was modernized.  All I'm trying to say is that I understand how traditionalists feel, yet I, along with many faithful older people, went through it.  We maybe had to ask a progressive priest to give us absolution in confession, and sometimes we could only be sure we were receiving the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ because at least the Consecration, the words of institution were said properly.  Yet we persevered, said our penance after confession and spent a long time in thanksgiving after Communion.  That's all - I just want to acknowledge that I get it.

Father Ducaud-Bourget (center), accompanied by a thousand traditionalists,

 occupied the Church of Saint-Nicolas-du-Chardonnet in Paris back in 1977.

With few exceptions, it was never about the Liturgy.

I implied that in another post, writing:  "The rejection of the NO is directly linked to the rejection of the Council, and it leads to rejection of Papal/Magisterial authority and threatens the unity of the Church, which is in virtual schism at the moment because the propagandists have rejected Peter – like it or not, Pope Francis."  That is what this is all about.  I've already made too long of a post so I will just post a couple excerpts from articles I feel help me make my point.  The first from Larry Chap.  I admire him very much, I don't take as critical a stance of Pope Francis as does he, but I respect his POV and appreciate his gallantry in expressing his position so respectfully.

I am reminded of an excellent essay by Shaun Blanchard in Catholic Life Journal wherein he says something that I think is entirely correct: Traditionis Custodes was never about liturgy at all. What we are witnessing with regard to the recent “clarification” is not about the so-called “liturgy wars” but is instead about Vatican II and its interpretation. You can access Blanchard’s marvelous essay here. It is all worth reading, but for me here is the most salient thing he says:

“No single English word encapsulates the concept I am trying to convey, but thankfully the Germans have a word for everything. I believe Pope Francis’ motu proprio is the latest in a long series of papal assertions of Deutungshoheit over the legacy of Vatican II. Literally “interpretation-sovereignty,” to have Deutungshoheit means to have sovereignty over a narrative, which is the power to control meaning. Pope Francis’s many and virulent critics (my fellow Americans are especially numerous and sometimes vicious in this regard) typically see dangerous innovation and glaring discontinuities littered throughout his pontificate.”

In other words, Traditionis Custodes is about whose interpretation of the post-conciliar reforms will be ascendent in the Church going forward, and the Pope making it clear that he wants it to be his vision of the Council and not that of the traditionalists. - Read the rest here.

 

 

Pope Francis is not the destroyer.

There is a false prophecy attributed to Francis of Assisi that Pope Francis is the destroyer Pope.  I'm convinced many traditionalists and even contemplative monastics believe this.  Especially as it concerns "Cor Orans" IMPLEMENTING INSTRUCTIONOF THE APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION “VULTUM DEI QUAERERE” ON WOMEN’S CONTEMPLATIVE LIFE.

From Archbishop Vigano, to former members of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate, and some Discalced Carmelite nuns, rumor and fears are promulgated that the Holy See - Pope Francis himself is out to destroy contemplative life in the Church.  The notion defies reason and is based upon rumor, lies, conspiracy theories concerning infiltration as well as apocalyptic paranoia.  There is so much misinformation circulating regarding contemplative communities of nuns. I can't help connect this to the recent outcry against the discipline imposed upon the TLM, which so many claim is spiritually abusive.  That said, I will link to a couple excerpts from Where Peter Is and the fifth article in a series defending contemplative life, Welcome the Light, by Sr. Gabriella Hicks, OCD.

Sr. Gabriella's series is surprisingly candid and direct, unusual in my experience for a Carmelite, but very welcome to better understand what has been going on and clearing away so much of the misinformation circulating on the subject.  I don't have a direct quote but even H.M. St. Teresa of Avila remarked that outsiders, lay people and even clerics do not understand the inner workings of religious communities - which may explain why clergy like Vigano have such a deranged view of things. 

"Spiritual abuse is especially rampant in communities with sectarian aberrations. As Dom Dysmas de Lassus wrote, “in the Culture of Lies, we are touching on an element that is omnipresent in communities with sectarian aberrations.”

I posted the Open Letter to Archbishop Vigano on our website on October 4, and on the same day LifeSiteNews posted an article about the chaplain at the Fairfield Carmel, Fr. Maximilian Mary Dean. The article presented an interview with Fr. Dean which had been made over a month before. As I read the article and watched the interview, I was shocked to read Fr. Dean’s report of the meeting we Carmelite Nuns had with our former Father General and members of the Definitory (the governing body) in St. Louis in April 2017. In the interview, Fr. Dean claimed that the Father General said “that the times have changed and that they, contemplative, cloistered nuns, need to adapt to the times… that they can’t live the way they were living before.”

This was totally incorrect. Immediately, some of us who were present went online to say so. Although Fr. Dean said, “I heard some reports from what took place at the meeting, he didn’t say where he got his information. Since both Mother Stella-Marie, the Prioress of Fairfield Carmel, and Mother Therese, the Sub-Prioress, were present at the meeting[i], as well as Mother Agnes, the Sub-Prioress of Valparaiso, they could have told him directly what was said. The full address of Father General is available online (you can read it here). In his address he did not say anything about needing to “adapt to the times,” but that we need to respond to “the challenges that the times we live in present to contemplative life.” Furthermore, he affirmed and upheld “the truth of our vocation, the truth of Carmel, of its message, of its extraordinary pertinence for modern times.” Moreover, all the conferences and question-and-answer periods were recorded on video, so it is easy to establish the truth. - Read more here.

Sorry for the long post - I just wanted to document these thoughts for my own reference and share them with you.  Beware 'sectarian aberrations'.  Avoid lies and concocted myths meant to destabilize the Church, parishes, religious communities and families.  Do not follow false apparitions and prophecies - remember, as with Fatima, it is the Church which is responsible for the interpretation and approval of all alleged prophecies, locutions, apparitions and heavenly messages.