Worse than deja vu all over again: Vatican caves

“Certainly, we will preserve the basic elements, the bread, the wine, but all else will be changed according to local traditions: words, gestures, colors, vestments, chants, architecture, decor. The problem of liturgical reform is immense.”

--Pope John Paul, while still Bishop of Krakow, as quoted in Mon Ami: Karol Wojtyla. P. 220

When last we left the saga of the Novus Ordo Missae, Pope John Paul II promised Catholics worldwide that a new set of instructions to correct liturgical abuses would be drawn up and issued by the Holy See as a follow up to his Ecclesia de Eucharistica encyclical letter. This caused many well-meaning Catholics in the Novus Ordo community to jump up and down for joy, believing that the long awaited crackdown from Rome was forthcoming. Some commentators said at the time that the Pope’s encyclical letter was just the word “we needed” to have during the Easter season. Others of us said that the Holy Father’s encyclical letter made many of the same points as his 1980 Holy Thursday letter to priests, Dominicae Cenae, which promised a set of instructions to correct liturgical abuses.

Well, if a news report from Catholic World News’s website is to be believed, the forthcoming document from Rome about the liturgy is worse than deja vu all over again. The 1980 instruction, Inaestimabile Donum, issued by the then named Sacred Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship, did list the major abuses in the new Mass and called for them to be corrected. This gave much hope to those of us who did not then have the grace of tradition. Indeed, I waved copies of Inaestimabile Donum in the faces of offending priests for a year or two before I realized that Rome wasn’t going to enforce anything, including the reaffirmation of the ban on girl altar boys. Many of us did not realize at the time that the abuses were simply manifestations of the false presuppositions of a synthetic liturgy that sought to empty the Mass of its authentic tradition while claiming positivistically that tradition had been maintained as it was “updated.” There was no correcting the Novus Ordo then. There is no correcting it now. There will never be any correction of abuses in the Novus Ordo.

According to the CWN.com news story, the new document from Rome dealing with the liturgy will not mandate any disciplinary measures against liturgical abuses. It will merely call for an adherence to existing norms by “proper training” in the liturgy. If true, this is actually worse than Inaestimabile Donum. All of the thunder made by Francis Cardinal Arinze, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, in the immediate aftermath of the Pope’s encyclical last year was merely rhetoric, which yielded in the final instance to the desires of the ideological descendants of the late Archbishop Annibale Bugnini to keep exploding the liturgical time bombs that Michael Davies has noted with great precision were placed into the Novus Ordo as it was being created synthetically by the Consilium. Although this was entirely predictable, the fact that the new document will not represent the salvation of the Novus Ordo, which admits of so many legitimate adaptations and exceptions as to make any discussion of a liturgical “rite” an absolute oxymoron, should give traditionally minded priests who remain in the diocesan structure a wake up call. Rin Tin Tin and the Cavalry are not coming from Fort Apache.

All discussion of a “universal indult” for priests to offer the Traditional Latin Mass evidently has disappeared from the final text of the soon to be released liturgical document. Of course, Quo Primum is the only universal and perpetually binding indult any priest has ever needed to offer the Immemorial Mass of Tradition. The powers that be in Rome, however, do not want to admit that on behalf of the Holy Father, who must give his approval to the new document. Thus, those traditionally minded priests who thought that they were going to get a golden parachute from the Holy See so as to be able to offer the Traditional Latin Mass in the daylight rather than in the underground have been deceived. As good sons of the Church, many of these priests wanted to wait and see, although the outcome was predictable. Now that the outcome is clear, it is time for these priests to respond to this wake up call. They will receive no help from this pope.

Indeed, Pope John Paul II is wedded to the liturgical revolution, and has been since the Second Vatican Council. He is not going to be leading the cavalry over the hill. The late Father Vincent Miceli gave me a very important insight into the mind of the Holy Father back in January of 1983. As a self-deceived Catholic conservative who held out high hopes for the pontificate of the former Karol Cardinal Wojtyla when he was elevated to the Throne of Saint Peter on October 16, 1978, I was flabbergasted that the Pope had appointed the then Archbishop of Cincinnati, Joseph Bernardin, to succeed the late John Cardinal Cody as Archbishop of Chicago. Bernardin? Chicago? That was the stuff of Father Andrew Greeley. I had written a priest-friend in Canada in 1979 at around the time Greeley began to push Bernardin for Chicago, that “this will never happen in the pontificate of Pope John Paul II. Father Miceli took a few bites out of his meal at a diner in Massapequa Park, Long Island, New York, looked at me and said, “The Pope’s a liberal. Bernardin is a friend of his from the Second Vatican Council. They are fellow progressives. Don’t kid yourself.” He continued eating his meal in perfect peace. Well, although I filed Father Miceli’s wise counsel away, I didn’t want to believe it at the time. He was, of course, quite right.

To wit, I received a letter from a reader of Christ or Chaos (which is going to become an online publication by the end of February) that contained a nugget from a 1980 book, Mon Ami: Karol Wojtyla, written by a fellow named Malinski and published in France:

"In 1965—when Pope John Paul II was still the Bishop of Krakow, he discussed the phenomenon referred to as inculturation with a friend, saying: 'Certainly, we will preserve the basic elements, the bread, the wine, but all else will be changed according to local traditions: words, gestures, colors, vestments, chants, architecture, decor. The problem of liturgical reform is immense.'" (page 220)

The reader, Mr. A. E. Newman, had a pithy comment or two of his own in his letter to me: “Tell me, what hope is there from a man who thinks like this–what hope for a stable liturgy, for upholding of age long traditions? What hope from a man who flies in the face of his predecessors? Now that his reign is drawing to a close I can answer that [there is] no hope! My own view is that in the eyes of history the last three popes will bear a heavy responsibility for our present shambles and [the loss] among the faithful of millions. Just at the moment when Islam is strong. We can credit him for one thing: he followed through! God will deal with him, but we [will deal] with the deformation of our Faith.”

Although the fodder for an entire series of articles, the comments of the then Archbishop of Krakow are quite instructive. They should serve as a sobering reminder to good priests and laity who believed that the Novus Ordo can be reformed that the problem rests in the new Mass itself. Not much time needs to be wasted on this as the proverbial handwriting is really on the wall. Those traditionally minded priests who have remained in the Novus Ordo structure should stop believing that their words or even their presence can counteract entirely the harm to the Faith contained within the new Mass, admitting that there are priests within the diocesan structure who are zealous for the salvation of souls and who spend themselves tirelessly for the flock entrusted to their pastoral care. They should, as painful as it may be for them to consider, simply follow the courageous examples of Father Stephen P. Zigrang and Father Lawrence Smith. They should assert their rights under Quo Primum no matter what unjust ecclesiastical consequences might befall them. Many of their sheep will follow them, and those sheep will provide for their temporal needs, as is happening at Our Lady Help of Christians Chapel in Garden Grove, California, where hundreds upon hundreds of fed-up Catholics have found their way to the Catholic underground simply by word of mouth. It is simply time to force the Novus Ordo structure, built on quicksand, to collapse of its own intellectual dishonesty and liturgical incompleteness. It is time for good priests to say goodbye to a synthetic concoction and to bravely embrace the glory of Tradition.

Each priest must make his own decision in this regard. It is, though, a grave disservice to the faithful to try to pretend that the Novus Ordo itself is not the problem and/or that the problems will get better over the course of time. They will not. The Novus Ordo remains the prisoner of its own false presuppositions and of the devolution of liturgical decision making to local level, as was envisioned in Paragraph 22 of Sacrosanctum Concilium itself on December 1, 1963.

What applies to priests applies as well to the long-suffering laity who have waited for such a long time to see the abuses that have their origin in the Novus Ordo itself come to an end. So many good people, who dearly love God and want to save their souls, have fought valiant but ever failing efforts in most instances to keep the liturgical time bombs from exploding in their own local parishes and dioceses. Some of these people have tried to equip themselves with the latest “information” from Rome about what is licit and illicit in the context of Holy Mass. What these good people need to realize, though, is that the Novus Ordo is impermanent and unstable of its very nature. The new Mass is entirely predicated upon the idiosyncratic predilections of a bishop or a priest or diocesan and/or parish liturgical committees.

The Mass of Tradition has always been beyond even the realm of a bishop to change for reasons of “inculturation” or the “genius of the peoples.” The Immemorial Mass of Tradition gives God the fitting and solemn worship that is His due, communicates clearly and unequivocally the nature of the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice for human sins, and provides a permanence and stability that are reflective of the nature of God Himself and of man’s need for Him and His unchanging truths. It is time for good lay people themselves to say goodbye to the angst and confusion and anger generated by all of the problems associated with the Novus Ordo Missae.

There's no need to cite anybody, since everybody knowledgeable knows that Paul VI introduced the Novus Ordo, not Vatican II. But since you think such quotes are necessary, here are a few authoratative citations you must have missed:

"Indeed, though we are sorely grieved to note, on the one hand, that there are places where the spirit, understanding or practice of the sacred liturgy is defective, or all but inexistent, We observe with considerable anxiety and some misgiving, that elsewhere certain enthusiasts, over-eager in their search for novelty, are straying beyond the path of sound doctrine and prudence. Not seldom, in fact, they interlard their plans and hopes for a revival of the sacred liturgy with principles which compromise this holiest of causes in theory or practice, and sometimes even taint it with errors touching Catholic faith and ascetical doctrine."
--Pius XII, Mediator Dei

Or how about this:

"The liturgy of the early ages is most certainly worthy of all veneration. But ancient usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations, on the simple ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity. The more recent liturgical rites likewise deserve reverence and respect. They, too, owe their inspiration to the Holy Spirit, who assists the Church in every age even to the consummation of the world.[52] They are equally the resources used by the majestic Spouse of Jesus Christ to promote and procure the sanctity of man.

"Assuredly it is a wise and most laudable thing to return in spirit and affection to the sources of the sacred liturgy. For research in this field of study, by tracing it back to its origins, contributes valuable assistance towards a more thorough and careful investigation of the significance of feast-days, and of the meaning of the texts and sacred ceremonies employed on their occasion. But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer's body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See."
--Pius XII, Mediator Dei

And Vatican II said this in its Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy: "The treasury of sacred music is to be preserved and cultivated with great care...The Church recognizes Gregorian Chant as being specially suited to the Roman liturgy. Therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services."

Or how about this: "Care must be taken to ensure that the faithful may also be able to say or sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them."

Etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.

Anybody can play this game--there are over a thousand pages of documents with zillions of juicy quotes, suitable for citation in defense of almost any position whatsoever. Yours is the modernist version--decidedly Protestant and unCatholic.

>i> You and others love to sling such charges against true Catholics for refusing to accept the new religion.

I simply will not be bullied into becoming a Protestant for the sake of anybody.

LOL......How are you bullied?

How can you continually deny that you are not a schismatic? Look at your language. It is plainly evident you do not share the faith that the Holy See professes. To do so you would, in your opinion, become a protestant. You accuse the Church of promulgating a new religion. You consider yourself a real catholic, which can only mean that those who don't share your contempt for the Holy See are not.

There is a vivid, real, palpable demarcation that you consistently and persistently convey. Clearly, your point of view and the one most Catholics would tend to hold, along with the pope, are not consistent. One or the other is promulgating a schism. I believe that you think the Church as a whole is in schism as you have accused it of "promulgating a new religion." Yet you take offense when you are accused of the same thing. Somebody's in schism and it ain't the pope.

There's no need to cite anybody, since everybody knowledgeable knows that Paul VI introduced the Novus Ordo, not Vatican II
--ultima ratio

When did anyone say the Novus Ordo was initiated directly by Vatican II? You are often debating a straw man instead of anyone on this forum. You might argue that there is no connection between the liturgical reforms initiated by Vatican II and the Novus Ordo, that one is completely independent of the other. You would be wrong, but you could at least argue that and be saying something pertinent to the discussion.

Your first citation of Mediator Dei, the one that starts:

Indeed, though we are sorely grieved to note, on the one hand, that there are places where the spirit, understanding or practice of the sacred liturgy is defective, or all but inexistent ...

also has nothing to do with anything being discussed here, except that it points out that there were abuses of the liturgy long before Vatican II and that even then there were people like yourself who were disobedient to the Holy See. Whose side are you on? Yours or mine?

Your other citations condemn your own position even more clearly. Here they are with some of the context restored which you conveniently left out:

60. The use of the Latin language, customary in a considerable portion of the Church, is a manifest and beautiful sign of unity, as well as an effective antidote for any corruption of doctrinal truth. In spite of this, the use of the mother tongue in connection with several of the rites may be of much advantage to the people. But the Apostolic See alone is empowered to grant this permission. It is forbidden, therefore, to take any action whatever of this nature without having requested and obtained such consent, since the sacred liturgy, as We have said, is entirely subject to the discretion and approval of the Holy See. [ Hmmm.... The sacred liturgy is ENTIRELY SUBJECT TO THE DISCRETION AND APPROVAL OF THE HOLY SEE.... Who around here acknowledges JP II is the legitimate successor of St. Peter yet refuses to accept his authority in matters concerning the sacred liturgy??? --nika ]
61. The same reasoning holds in the case of some persons who are bent on the restoration of all the ancient rites and ceremonies indiscriminately. The liturgy of the early ages is most certainly worthy of all veneration. [ Yes. It most certainly is. The liturgical reforms initiated by Vatican II brought the church nearer to the liturgy of the early church, whose Christianity converted the known world. "All veneration" includes your veneration, ultima. --nika ] But ancient usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations, on the simple ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity. [ Right. Its being worthy of "all veneration" isn't based on its being old. No problem there. --nika ] The more recent liturgical rites likewise deserve reverence and respect. [ Like liturgical rites brought about by the reforms initiated by Vatican II. --nika ] They, too, owe their inspiration to the Holy Spirit, who assists the Church in every age even to the consummation of the world. They are equally the resources used by the majestic Spouse of Jesus Christ to promote and procure the sanctity of man. [ Yes they certainly do owe their inspiration to the Holy Spirit, Whom you resist, ultima. --nika ]
62. Assuredly it is a wise and most laudable thing to return in spirit and affection to the sources of the sacred liturgy. For research in this field of study, by tracing it back to its origins, contributes valuable assistance towards a more thorough and careful investigation of the significance of feast-days, and of the meaning of the texts and sacred ceremonies employed on their occasion. [ Amen!!! And that is exactly what was done by the liturgical reforms initiated by Vatican II. --nika ] But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer's body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See. [ Of course. As was mentioned above, "The sacred liturgy is entirely subject to the descretion and approval of the Holy See." The legitimate successor of St. Peter at that time did not allow those things. Therefore those practices are forbidden until the legitimate successor of St. Peter allows them. It is all really very simple, ultima, if one possesses the basic virtue of obedience. --nika ]

The problem has always been disobedience, whether it be by modernists or by so-called "traditionalists." If both sides would just obey the Holy See in liturgical matters we wouldn't need to have these discussions.

1. Here is what you said: "You don't like Vatican II's liturgical changes, so you throw up this smoke screen claiming its being pastoral makes it non-binding. Its being pastoral does not inhibit its authority in any way."

Your claim that I don't like Vatican II's liturgical changes is ridiculous--since they didn't make any substantial changes, though they made a few minor suggestions. My quarrel has always been with the Novus Ordo, and that came later, after the Council closed. So your original point was far off the mark.

Now you claim a connection--that Vatican II planned for a Bugnini-type Mass all along. But this is just another display of your ignorance on these matters. Most of the Council fathers never in their wildest dreams envisioned anything so devastating and unCatholic as the Novus Ordo. And my point on the citation about ancient usages was not that they were not venerable as Pius XII says, but that what we've got now in the Novus Ordo is not that venerable usage but a modernist concoction having more to do with copying Martin Luther's rejection of Catholicism than with any authentic rite from antiquity.

2. Nobody said the pope had no authority to change the language of the Roman Rite from Latin to the vernacular, if he so wishes. But that said, it's still a dumb thing to have permitted. I have made this distinction time after time. Popes and councils have all sorts of authority to do and say all sorts of things--not all of them wise or prudent. Yes, they should be given all due respect and adherence, even in non-binding matters. But such respect and adherence is predicated on their being faithful servants of the Catholic faith and protectors of Sacred Tradition. Once they cynically abandon that faith and Tradition, they open themselves up to our justifiable demurrals.

The notion, therefore, that because Vatican II or some popes say or do something, this is always good and wise--is wrong. Only their specifically binding definitions on faith and morals are divinely protected. Otherwise they can say that pigs can fly and order everybody to eat fried grasshoppers on Fridays--and do so with impunity.

In one fell swoop, for instance, the introduction of the vernacular destroyed Church unity of worship, creating a babel of voices and a stultifying mundanity of expression from which it has not yet recovered. The pope had the authority to do this--but lacked the wisdom to appreciate the consequences of such a radical action. That said, even so we are talking about language only--not the invention of a whole rite that had never evolved from anything prior. The Novus Ordo, after all, was an invention, not a restoration of anything, nor even a reformation of anything. Nor is the fabrication of new rites so clearly something a pope has the authority to do--which is why it is theologically disputed.

3. You claim, "The problem has always been disobedience, whether it be by modernists or by so-called 'traditionalists.' If both sides would just obey the Holy See in liturgical matters we wouldn't need to have these discussions."

But the Holy See is itself at the root of the problem. It is not the cure but the cause of the present devastation--and it is itself not even fully Catholic since it numbers in its personnel men who are openly apostate or heretical and hostile to the Catholic faith itself, along with its traditions.

In the final analysis, the bad situation in the Church was not created by the faithful who cling to their traditions, but by the men who lead the Church and seek to abandon Catholicism. They and they only are to blame for the present chaos. Their failures in faith have in turn destroyed the faiths of countless millions who have walked away from the Church in disgust, and it is these leaders who are primarily at fault, not the rest of us.

Had the Holy See itself obeyed Sacred Tradition and passed-on what had been transmitted through the centuries by the Church, the destruction might have been avoided. But it was careless about its own patrimony and severed its connection to Tradition. As a result, what the Church has now in the Novus Ordo is a rite that DESTROYS Catholic faith rather than upholds it. And it suffers under a Vatican bureaucracy that is no longer committed to Catholicism.

You seem frightened by my logic--and you should be. It is that the Holy See--which is another word for the Vatican bureaucracy--is no longer fully Catholic. It is not schismatic to say this--because it is true. Many highly placed Vatican officials no longer adhere to the Catholic faith and do all they can to undermine its Sacred Tradition. How is it wrong to state this?

You should be alarmed by the facts, not by my assautlt on pious but false preconceptions. You ASSUME whatever Rome does is Catholic and supportive of the Catholic faith. But if you compare its policies with that of its predecessors going back two thousand years, you will see there is a huge disparity, and that the present Vatican has deliberately pursued a different course.

You object to my saying this is a new religion. Yet the new liturgy bears a closer resemblance to Lutheran or Methodist services than to any preconciliar Catholic Mass. And its theology is likewise new--bearing no resemblance whatsoever to anything that had gone before. The one distinguishing feature of the present revolution that characterizes Rome these days, in fact, is its eagerness to suppress whatever seems distinctly Catholic in practice or belief.

... what we've got now in the Novus Ordo is ... a modernist concoction having more to do with copying Martin Luther's rejection of Catholicism than with any authentic rite from antiquity. ...
Yes, they [ Popes and Councils ] should be given all due respect and adherence ... But such respect and adherence is predicated on their being faithful servants of the Catholic faith and protectors of Sacred Tradition. Once they cynically abandon that faith and Tradition, they open themselves up to our justifiable demurrals. ...
... the Holy See is itself at the root of the problem. ... and it is itself not even fully Catholic since it numbers in its personnel men who are openly apostate or ... heretical and hostile to the Catholic faith itself, along with its traditions.
In the final analysis, the bad situation in the Church was ... created ... by the men who lead the Church and seek to abandon Catholicism. Their failures in faith have in turn destroyed the faiths of countless millions who have walked away from the Church in disgust, and it is these leaders who are primarily at fault, not the rest of us.
Had the Holy See itself obeyed Sacred Tradition and passed-on what had been transmitted through the centuries by the Church, the destruction might have been avoided. But it was careless about its own patrimony and severed its connection to Tradition. As a result, what the Church has now in the Novus Ordo is a rite that DESTROYS Catholic faith rather than upholds it. And it suffers under a Vatican bureaucracy that is no longer committed to Catholicism.
--ultima ratio
And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. And I will ask the Father: and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you forever: The Spirit of Truth, whom the world cannot receive ... He shall abide with you and shall be in you. ... the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, He will teach you all things and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you. ... when He, the Spirit of Truth, is come, He will teach you all truth. ... And behold I am with you all days, even to the consumation of the world.
--Jesus, Matthew 15:18-19, John 14:16-17,26, 16:13, Matthew 28:20

You are telling us that you don't believe that Jesus keeps His promises. You can't believe that the Holy See has not "obeyed Sacred Tradition and passed on what had been transmitted through the centuries by the Church" and that it has "severed its connection to Tradition" and also believe the promises of Jesus to His Church and to St. Peter and his successors in the Holy See.

You aren't Catholic. Catholics believe in Jesus and in His promises. Catholics believe the Holy Spirit has always been in the Church, is in the Church presently and remains there forever. We have that on the authority of Jesus. Catholics know that a belief that the Holy See has severed it connection with tradition is incompatible with the very essence of Catholicism. You don't believe in Jesus, you believe in your own limited, narrow, fallible judgment and place it above that of the Church, the Successor of St. Peter and above Christ Himself.

You, like so many others, claim to "pray" for me while you spew personal hostility constantly. I have been called schismatic and heretical and disobedient by you in separate posts--without an inkling of supportive proof of any kind. You use the words of Jesus--and claim I oppose these--which is another way of being vindictive. But I ask again--how have I been disobedient to the Church? How am I heretical? How am I schismatic? I acknowledge the Pope's authority--though I don't think he has used his authority wisely. I accept all the teachings of the Catholic Church--despite attempts by very highly-placed Vatican churchmen to undermine those very teachings. I attend a valid Mass at an SSPX chapel every Sunday and do so legitimately--as even Rome grudgingly acknowledges. So either put up or shut up. Tell me what doctrine I am obliged to accept that I don't accept or what command I have specifically disobeyed as a Catholic or how I have refused to accept the authority of the Pope. Or else keep your vitriol in check.

Your difficulty is that you exaggerate your reverence for the papacy and translate this into pope-worship. This is why you are appalled by my criticizing papal failings. You seem to believe he and Vatican Council II are the very essence of the Catholic faith. They are not--being merely its servants--and fallible servants, for the most part. You seem not to appreciate that if high churchmen harm the faith by introducing dangerous novelties, they are most certainly deserving of criticism by the faithful. The faith, after all, is prior to the papacy or any single council of bishops. It is the reason for their offices in the first place. It is Catholic Tradition, moreover, which protects the deposit of faith--since it embodies the truths the Church has always and everywhere believed, those which are binding on all Catholics. That is why if Tradition is openly attacked, then the attack is on the faith itself. Yet this is what is happening daily by those who claim to be Catholic prelates. This is why I say not all those who claim to be in the Church are actually in it. Some have lofty ecclesiastical titles--but are actually no longer Catholics.

Popes and councils have all sorts of authority to do and say all sorts of things--not all of them wise or prudent. Yes, they should be given all due respect and adherence, even in non-binding matters. But such respect and adherence is predicated on their being faithful servants of the Catholic faith and protectors of Sacred Tradition. Once they cynically abandon that faith and Tradition, they open themselves up to our justifiable demurrals.
--ultima ratio

Once again, since you believe "Popes and Councils" have cynically abandoned faith and Tradition you have placed yourself outside of the Catholic faith. Sorry.

Attempting to weasel out of your admission of your non-Catholicism by nitpicking the definition of "Holy See" is ridiculous. Why do you now insist you really do belong to a Church you are convinced is run by a bunch of modernists who have abandoned faith and tradition? No matter why, you are still not a Catholic. Catholics believe "Popes and Councils" are protected by the Holy Spirit from abandoning faith and Tradition.

One more thing: Do you believe the Novus Ordo is valid and licit?

By the way, I really do pray for you. I know you don't believe it. That's OK.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.