Womenpriests! Intercommunion! Pastoral Discernment! Whoopee!!

Womenpriests! Intercommunion! Pastoral Discernment! Whoopee!!

A small selection from the Daily Disasters

FEB 08, 2017 by HILARY WHITE

We can’t really say everything old is new again. It’s really just more of the same.

But we can certainly look behind the headlines to a little bit of recent Catholic history and discover that most of the daily list of horrors coming out of the Vatican and upper levels of the episcopate are nothing new at all. They are, at most, natural developments of what has been going on for 50 years. One might say, the logical results of them


Do as we say shall be the whole of the law

For our bulging “Papal Positivism will give us EVERYTHING!” file:

Bishop of Malta doubles down: says its “most traditional idea” to just do whatever this pope says even if it contradicts… well… everything else.

During the meeting, Abp Scicluna repeatedly stressed that there there is only one interpretation of AL – the interpretation given by the Pope himself to the bishops of Argentina. The Abp also said that if this is the interpretation offered by the Pope himself, who are we to say otherwise…

The mantra is this: We have one Pope, the present pope – Francis and reminded his parish priest[s] that this principle is is the most traditional of principles: we follow whatever the Pope says. He went on to say that if the next Pope says something else, we will then follow what he says. We have one choice fundamentally; we are either Catholics with the Pope or we are not. The Archbishop quoted Saint George Preca, the Maltese saint, who said: Ego sum cum Papa semper.

… except of course, it’s completely the opposite of the Tradition of the Church, the dogmatically defined teaching on Papal Infallibility. And of Scripture. In other words, it’s what we call in the biz, “a lie”.

But as always, we can count on the “good” “conservative” priests to take it lying down:

Many parish priests were disgusted at how Scicluna, while brandishing a copy of the newspaper, openly mocked the parish priest for speaking to the journalists about his concerns. Many said after that if this is how he deals with dissent, then they will not speak to him, and prefer to follow their own conscience in the matter.

And that, ladies and gents, is EXACTLY how we got into this situation; by “good” priests keeping their mouths firmly shut and their heads well down. Don’t want to rock that boat/jeopardize our sinecures/our meal tickets, wot?

And of course, while they’re keeping silent, the heretics are leading the faithful over the cliff:

In the meantime, one of Abp Scicluna’s attack dogs, Father Joe Inguanez, who is one of a group of liberal clerics who have plagued the local Church for decades, has written an article in the local press stating that Mueller’s comments in no way correct the Maltese Criteria.


Womenpriests! Because, pastoral discernment!

Next we have Magister on the latest from (Jesuit-run) Civilta Catholica saying that womenpriests is only a matter of time.

Recently “conservative” Catholics gasped in horror when the pope ordered a “commission” to “discuss” the possibility of women being ordained to the diaconate.

Now here’s the pope’s confreres/minions bringing that to its obvious next step (remembering that Civilta Cattholica is an official organ of the Vatican, its articles vetted by the Secretariat of State):

… a doctrine proposed by the Church needs to be understood by the believing intelligence. The dispute over women priests could be set in parallel with other moments of Church history; in any case, today in the question of female priesthood the “auctoritates,” or official positions of the magisterium, are clear, but many Catholics have a hard time understanding the “rationes” of decisions that, more than expressions of authority, appear to signify authoritarianism.

“One cannot always resort to the past, as if only in the past are there indications of the Spirit. Today as well the Spirit is guiding the Church and suggesting the courageous assumption of new perspectives.”

Wahwahwah … concrete circumstances … wah-wah … profound social changes of the 20th century … wahwahwah… pastoral development… wahwahwah-wah… courageous assumption of new developments…


Once you get past all the Jesuitspeak, what it boils down to is, if we can just ignore “Saint” John Paul II on marriage and Holy Communion, why not on everything else? I mean, we’re already ignoring the black and white words of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ as recorded in Holy Scripture, right? What’s a pope after that, amirite? If you say its opposed to Papal Infallibility, we’ll just redefine it or ignore it until it goes away. The end.

And at the risk of making everyone tired of hearing “I told you so” I’ll just say, I told you so. Papal Positivism says that the Faith is whatever this pope says it is today. It is merely the thug-version of the general trend since Vaticantwo, in which whatever anyone believes is Catholic teaching is Catholic teaching. Make your own reality! Everything’s true! There are no contradictions!

And if the pope is dithering, self-contradictory or just plain incomprehensible, it becomes the job of the Pythian Priesthood to interpret his gibbering for us plebs.

Either way, Truth isn’t an immutable, objective thing. Catholicism isn’t about Reality. God is not “the same yesterday, today and forever,” but a fickle follower of cultural fashion and political expedience, very much in line with the gods of the ancient world. Indeed, the changeable god is very popular; Islam’s got one, as do the Mormons.

In short, once you’ve got the positivistic principle in place, we’re just talking about power; we’re just trying to decide who gets to decide. And nothing, no sacraments, no devotional life, no institutions, no religious order, not one bit of the ancient patrimony of the Church is going to be safe.


Moving on…

Cardinal Kasper: “Communion for Protestants a natural development of Francisdoctrine.”

“Meanwhile, Cardinal Walter Kasper, a close confidant of the Holy Father, has said he believes allowing intercommunion with Protestants in cases such as a mixed marriage is “the position of the current Pope.”

In comments made to Italian television, the cardinal said of Holy Communion: “In certain cases, I think yes, if they share the same faith in the Eucharist, this is presupposed, and if they are interiorly disposed, they can refer to their conscience to go to Communion, and this, I think, is also the position of the current Pope.”

If there is a “couple or a family, you cannot divide them in front of the altar,” Cardinal Kasper said. “

Well, Kasper hardly needs any introduction. Indeed, he’s been singing the same song for 40 years or more.

Actually, it’s a natural development of JPTwoism or simply of VaticanTwoism as it has been promoted abroad by the popes since Paul VI (who was a big fan of Anglicanism, btw). While the secular media was busying itself denouncing John Paul II as an “archconservative” because he wouldn’t say it’s OK to kill babies, the reality was something rather different.

John Paul II’s religious indifferentism was manifest throughout his pontificate.


Here, even though he is at the stage in his life where he could barely speak, John Paul is still one for the Big Gesture, in this case, kissing the ring/hand of the Archlayman of Canterbury, a man from an “ecclesial communion” known for having hanged, drawn and quartered Catholic saints and stolen the entirety of the Catholic patrimony of England. A man, moreover, whose pretensions to the sacrament of Holy Orders were completely denied by John Paul’s much more illustrious predecessor, Leo absolutely null and utterly void XIII. On their previous meetings, I think I remember that a more robust John Paul had given Williams a pectoral cross to wear with his dress-up.

I’m not really out to bash John Paul here. I’m just saying that if you think Francis is going the wrong way, it’s time to take a closer look at the path laid down for him since 1965.

Certainly John Paul didn’t start the trend.


This is Paul VI giving then-archlayman of Canterbury, Michael Ramsay, an episcopal ring.

What is important to understand is that these guys, Marx and Kasper and Francis, aren’t just pulling this stuff out of their hats.

In fact, the groundwork for Kasper’s assertion above was laid quite specifically in John Paul II’s 1983 revision of the Code of Canon Law, prior to which it was forbidden to allow members of non-Catholic churches to receive the Body and Blood of Christ.


The Catechism of the Catholic Church held to the original teaching in one line…

1400: Ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation and separated from the Catholic Church, “have not preserved the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Holy Orders.” It is for this reason that, for the Catholic Church, Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not possible. However these ecclesial communities, “when they commemorate the Lord’s death and resurrection in the Holy Supper . . . profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and await his coming in glory.”

…but as with most NuChurchian artifacts, immedately walked it back. Citing Can. 844:

1401: When, in the Ordinary’s judgment, a grave necessity arises, Catholic ministers may give the sacraments of Eucharist, Penance, and Anointing of the Sick to other Christians not in full communion with the Catholic Church, who ask for them of their own will, provided they give evidence of holding the Catholic faith regarding these sacraments and possess the required dispositions.


All of this – and it’s just a small selection from the Daily Disasters – clearly indicates that whatever outrage, whatever heresy, blasphemy or denial of the Holy Catholic Faith we see coming from today’s Vatican, none of it is anything new.

It is all in perfect continuity with everything that has been going on in the Church since the close of Vatican II.

I’ll say it until I die: Francis isn’t the problem. He’s the symptom.

And in many ways, he’s going to be the solution too.

Get AQ Email Updates

8 comments on “Womenpriests! Intercommunion! Pastoral Discernment! Whoopee!!

  1. Worth noting again (for prob’ly the fourth time in as many months):

    [ paraphrased ] Since Pius X, the Church has seen more and more tolerant popes appoint more and more stupid men as bishops. ( 1962 Diary of Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton, STD, Peritus to Cd Ottaviani at Vatican II )

  2. “I’ll say it until I die: Francis isn’t the problem. He’s the symptom.”
    That is correct.
    This modernist and relativist garbage started long before Bergoglio ascended to the chair of Peter.
    Paul VI is, IMO, the “founding father” of the promotion of the Vatican II modernist, religious relativist and indifferentist heresy we’ve been seeing for the last 50 years.
    He got the ball rolling so to speak, and it only got worse with every successive pope.
    Barring direct Divine intervention, I don’t see anything changing substantially.
    The rot runs too deep in the conciliar hierarchy for anything to change, at least in my lifetime.

  3. Paulo Sesto was widely know to be Roncalli’s personal choice as successor. So, one might argue that at least some portion of the responsibility for Montini can be placed there. In turn, although Roncalli was twice called on the carpet by Pacelli’s Roman authorities for openly abetting the Italian Communist Party, he suffered no sanctions. And it was Pacelli who discovered, encouraged, patronized and enforced the radical transformation of the Mass, especially in the Triduum, which made the liturgical madhouse imposed by Montini a done deal long before the infamous un-council convened its first session.

    So, yes, while Paulo Sesto was on the throne when the Mass was protestantized and the new religion was more visibly inaugurated, Montini was only one in a succession of “more and more tolerant popes” (see citation, my post, above), each of whom share responsibility for the disaster facing us today.

    • I agree with your premise Gpm.
      John XXIII and even Pius XII helped to get the ball rolling for the eventual revolution that occurred in 1962, and was carried out enthusiastically by Sesto, and every successive conciliar pope.
      As I said in my previous post, I can’t see, barring direct Divine intervention, anything changing.
      In my opinion it will take centuries for the Church to go back to upholding the tenets of Trent.
      I read somewhere a while back where France by 2050 would have more Traditional Catholics than Novus Ordo ones.
      Yet sadly I think by 2050 there will be more Muslims in France, and in Europe overall, than Catholics of any stripe.
      Just the birthrate of Arab Muslims in Europe compared to native Europeans.
      That will be another legacy of the conciliar church, especially JPII, for allowing mosques to be built in Europe, especially in Rome.

    • One problem I see in highlighting the missteps of Popes John XXIII, Pius XII and even Pius XI that, as has been rightly pointed out, may have set the stage for the imposition of the Novus Ordo by Paul VI is that some will use this as an excuse for justifying the legitimacy of the Novus Ordo. In other words, there are those who, even while not content at all with the Novus Ordo, will claim that it was within Paul VI’s purview to craft and impose a new liturgy based on the precedent shown by previous popes in the modern era. Some even include Pope St. Pius X, since he apparently altered the Roman Breviary.

      Here I think Fr. Hesse’s explanation of the principle of self-defense is apropos. The previous changes regarding Holy Week merit serious consideration, but the imposition of the Novus Ordo marked a drastic rupture that has repercussions involving the validity of the sacraments and the integrity of the faith.

      • Good points, Anthony. I suspect that any savvy interlocutor who does his research will demolish criticism of the Pian modifications of the Breviary with reference to the “kind” and “degree” of same under the rubric of organic development, preserving intact all traditional bases incorporated at the time.

        No such argument could ever be proven concerning the Nervous Ordeal “liturgy.” It was a schismatic concoction, to which even Pope Benedict XVI referred in His use of such terms as “banal” and “on the spot,” thus neither organic or within the strictures of Tradition.

  4. From a detailed, lengthy work of scholarship published on the TIA site:

    Dialogue Mass – XLIII
    The Holy Week Reform Paved the Way
    for the Reform of the Mass
    Dr. Carol Byrne, Great Britain
    In this article we will look at the manner in which ancient principles of the traditional Holy Week liturgy were sacrificed on the altar of Progressivism, and reflect on the tragic fact that Pius XII made this destructive agenda the basis of binding juridical norms for the whole Roman Rite.

    Night of the long knives

    This was accomplished on November 16, 1955, with the Decree Maxima Redemptionis. The members of Pius XII’s Liturgical Commission used the “lingchi” (1) strategy – a slow slicing rather than a single fatal blow, also known as “death by a thousand cuts” – in their concerted attack on the traditional Holy Week rites.

    His reforms paved the way for the Vatican II revolution
    The reformers started by lopping off “medieval accretions” whether textual, ritual or ceremonial, topping and tailing the preparatory and concluding prayers of the Mass, paring to the bone the prayers of blessing, excising most of the Scriptural readings, gouging holes here and there in the ancient custom of the Roman Rite and generally butchering the coherence of the whole.

    From 1951 to 1955, the Holy Week ceremonies were subjected to cut after brutal cut, none of which was fatal in itself, until they were so attenuated that, like all lingchi victims, they scarcely resembled their former selves. This was the method by which those who were wielding the knives were attempting to prepare the faithful for the eventual abandonment of the traditional Mass.

    It is of the greatest significance that the resulting Holy Week liturgy, which would later be incorporated into the 1962 Missal, was horribly dismembered and mutilated, its beauty disfigured, its dignity assailed, its order and structure wrecked, its own special identity transformed so as to appeal to modern man.

    Connection between Holy Week reforms & Paul VI’s New Mass

    Before moving on to examine these “cuts” in all their gory detail, we must pause to consider that they were merely the prelude to worse atrocities, for what happened to the liturgy in 1969, with the introduction of the Novus Ordo, plumbed new depths of barbarity. The same methods were used, largely by the same people who operated in the Holy Week reform, but were applied in stages, via the 1962 Missal, to the whole of the Church’s liturgy.

    Msgr. Wagner in suit and tie at the time of the Council
    This intention of the reformers was confirmed by the German liturgist, Mgr. Johannes Wagner, (2) Director of the Liturgical Institute of Trier. (3) Writing in 1959, he explained that the Holy Week reforms were the forerunner of the reform of the Mass itself:

    “It has always been the desire of those working for a true renewal of the liturgy that it should, in its whole action, become meaningful again; a meaningful interplay or, better, combined action and interaction of many, where each has his own non-interchangeable, non-transferable contribution to make, his own part to play. The new order of Holy Week shows many tendencies in this direction… [this reform] would indeed be the beginning of the great renewal of the liturgy which the Church needs. God grant it!” (4) [emphasis added]

    Leaving aside the inbuilt presumption of divine approval that has always been characteristic of the reformers, we cannot ignore the fact that Mgr. Wagner had some personal involvement in the Liturgical Movement industry. The Institute he directed was responsible for publishing militant propaganda in favor of the Holy Week reforms and for organizing Congresses in Germany and abroad for the same purpose. (5)

    Where angels fear to tread (6)

    As we have seen, these reformers called for, among other things, the elimination of much of the Roman Rite, the use of the vernacular and “active participation” by the people. The reformers rushed in where even angels fear to tread by proposing to change the Canon of the Mass.

    It is evident that the reformers who patronized the Congresses simply used the gatherings as proverbial “fishing expeditions” to trawl for any information, however biased or spurious, they could later use as false evidence for the “need” to dismantle the Church’s ancient liturgy.

    In order to assess the extent of the damage done by Bugnini’s men to the Holy Week ceremonies of the ancient Roman Rite, all we need is a pre-1955 Missal in one hand and a 1962 Missal (which contains the bulk of Pius XII’s reforms) in the other. A simple comparison will reveal the depredations of a progressivist culture twisting its knives deep into the entrails of the Church’s traditions. It will also serve to remind us that lingchi was not the sole preserve of the Chinese.

    The blessing of palms on Palm Sunday

    The first thing we notice in Pius XII’s reform (also in the 1962 Missal) is that the Asperges, which preceded every solemn Sunday celebration throughout the year, (7) has been dropped. The same applies to the prayers at the foot of the altar. (8)

    Paul VI at the closing of the Council
    Regrettable though that may be, the significance of their loss hardly registers on the scale of destruction wrought on the ancient and venerable rite of the Blessing of Palms that preceded the Mass. It is important to know that the rite of blessing and the Mass together formed a monolithic structure, which had remained solid and unchanged for many centuries; as such it was indivisible, an organized whole that exerted a powerful and influential force for spiritual good in the Church.

    The destruction of the rite of blessing can be described, without exaggeration, as a total cliff face collapse of the traditional structure, as it was simply “scooped out” by the reformers. In the resulting landslide, as we shall see, many beautiful prayers and accompanying ceremonial, valued over the centuries for their power to move the soul and reinforce the Faith, were swept away.

    How important was the traditional blessing of palms?

    Dom Prosper Guéranger remarked with reference to this ceremony: “We may have an idea of its importance by the solemnity used by the Church in this sacred rite.” (9) No greater token of its importance could be given than to enshrine the Blessing of Palms in a rite that is closely modelled on that of the Mass itself.

    The pre-1955 rite began at the altar, on which the palms were laid; the sequence of texts corresponded to the Introit, Collect, Epistle, Gradual, Gospel, Secret, Preface, Sanctus and Post-communion; the part of the rite corresponding to the Canon was filled with seven prayers of blessing of the palms, after which the clergy and the people would approach the altar, as they would at Communion time, to receive the blessed palms. This structure, with its obvious connection to the Holy Sacrifice, was abandoned by the 1955 Decree, thus turning overnight the traditional rite into a “museum piece”.

    Now, let us examine why our forefathers in the Faith considered these Palm Sunday ceremonies of such great importance (and, by implication, why the 1955 reformers who abolished them did not).

    Even the briefest survey of its prayers and ceremonies, which is all that can be attempted here, would suffice to show that they were valued for their theological content, their poetic beauty, their expressive symbolism and their ability to move the soul to enter, through contemplation, into the mystery of Christ’s Passion.

    Their effect was enhanced when they were conducted against the backdrop of imposing architecture, magnificent vestments and the sublime strains of Gregorian chant. All of these elements combined to attract and edify both clergy and faithful for many centuries.

    Theological content suppressed

    The first casualty of the reform of the Blessing of Palms was the essential connection between the Passion of Christ and the institution of the Holy Eucharist.
    Before 1955, the texts of the liturgy gave an overview of salvation history, starting with the events of the Old Testament when after the Israelites murmured against Moses and Aaron God provided them with manna in the desert; those texts considered Christ’s entry into Jerusalem as a figure of His triumph, through His Passion, over sin and death. The analogy with the Eucharist is that God provides the Bread of Life on our altars through the Holy Sacrifice.

    In the traditional rite, the Gospel of the Palm Sunday Mass included the institution of the Eucharist, but this was cut out in 1955, as it was in all the Passion readings of the reformed Holy Week.

    Christ the King must rule over all nations
    Secondly, Pius XII’s reform abolished the Preface, (10) which proclaimed Christ’s authority over all the “kings and powers of this world” and the consequent duty of temporal governments to be subservient to Christ the King. The elimination of this doctrine from the ancient rite can, at the very least, be regarded as an affront to Pius XII’s immediate Predecessor who had promulgated the Encyclical Quas primas, on the Kingship of Christ, in 1925. In that Encyclical Pope Pius XI reaffirmed the unbroken teaching of previous Popes that nations as well as individuals must submit themselves to the rule of Christ the King.

    Indeed, the significance of this omission goes way beyond the issue of “simplification” of the liturgy. It can be considered as the first step in the progressivists’ campaign to promote the sort of “religious liberty” that would later surface at Vatican II.

    For, 10 years later, in December 1965, Dignitatis humanae, Vatican II’s Declaration on Religious Liberty, also suppressed the traditional papal teaching on the social reign of Christ the King. With the promulgation of that Declaration Church leaders ceased to teach that all rulers and statesmen have an obligation to give public honor and obedience to Christ. This perennial teaching of the Magisterium was rejected by Vatican II in order to open the Church to the revolutionary principles of the modern world. (11)


    A particularly gruesome and sadistic form of execution used for centuries in China.
    Mgr. Johannes Wagner was an influential figure in the post-war German Liturgical Movement. He later became a member of Pope Paul VI’s Consilium, and was given the task of directing the work on the new Missal. He was also one of the select few liturgists on the Consilium who worked directly with Bugnini. (See Piero Marini, A Challenging Reform, Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2007, p. 12) Other key collaborators on this project were the well known liturgists Jungmann, Jounel, Gy, Wagner, Vagaggini, Gélineau, Bouyer and McManus.
    This was set up in 1947 to promote liturgical reform in Germany through publications and organization of liturgical Congresses.
    Johannes Wagner, Postscript to Balthasar Fischer and Johannes Wagner (eds.), Paschatis Sollemnia. Studien zur Osterfeier und Osterfrommigkeit. Festschrift J. A. Jungmannzur Vollendung seines 70. Lebensjahres von Schülern u. Freunden dargeboten Freiburg, (Studies on the Easter Celebration and Piety. A Tribute to J. A. Jungmann for his 70th birthday, presented by pupils and friends), Herder, 1959. (See here), pp. 190-191
    In 1950 the Institute organized the first German Liturgical Congress at Frankfurt, in 1951 the First International Congress of Liturgical Studies at Maria Laach and in 1955 the second German Liturgical Congress at Munich. All put pressure on Pius XII for liturgical reforms, some of which were granted in his pontificate, the rest being only a matter of time before they materialized.
    A far-sighted and apt quotation from Alexander Pope’s Essay on Criticism (1709):
      “No place so sacred from such fops is barr’d…
       Nay, fly to altars; there they’ll talk you dead;
       For fools rush in where angels fear to tread.”
    Except in Eastertide when it is replaced by another equally solemn ceremony, the Vidi aquam.
    Psalm 42, however, was not included in the pre-1955 prayers at the foot of the altar in Passiontide.
    P. Guéranger O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, Dublin: James Duffy, 1886, vol. 6, p. 195.
    Part of the Preface of the Blessing of Palms reads: “For Thee do Thy creatures serve, because they know Thee, their only author and God: and all the things that Thou hast made join in praising Thee; and Thy saints bless Thee, in that they confess with unfaltering voice before kings and powers of this world that great name, the name of Thine only-begotten Son.”
    The revolutionary principles of the modern world are now clearly apparent even in formerly Catholic countries today in the legalization of divorce, contraception, pornography, “gay marriage,” euthanasia and abortion. Under the protection of Vatican II’s repudiation of the reign of Christ the King over societies, an abortion clinic was opened in Rome during the papacy of Paul VI; he was reportedly upset, but could do nothing to prevent it without contradicting his own teaching on religious liberty and the separation of the Church and State. He can, thus, be said to have presided over the spiritual and corporal destruction of his flock in his own Diocese.

Leave a Reply