Posted on 03/29/2022 2:44:18 PM PDT by ebb tide
Father Gerald Murray has discussed Francis’ liturgical abuses during a March 12 Eucharist in the Church of the Gesù in Rome on the occasion of the 400th anniversary of the canonisations of Ignatius Loyola, presided by Father Arturo Sosa, the Jesuits’ Superior General.
Number 1: Sosa presided while Francis co-presided the Eucharist although the liturgy does not permit a bishop to co-preside a Eucharist with a presiding priest. Murray explains that this flows from the nature of the episcopal office. The bishop is the high priest in his diocese. His priests are co-workers who serve in his absence, not in his presence.
Number 2: During the entrance, Francis was already seated near the altar. He wore no liturgical vestments and gave no indication that he was co-presiding. He preached without wearing the liturgical garments that are prescribed for a preacher.
Number 3: Francis participated in the consecration without wearing liturgical vestments. The 2004 Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum says about this: “The abuse is reprobated whereby the sacred ministers celebrate Holy Mass or other rites without sacred vestments.”
Francis may think he is above the liturgy, but he is not. Murray explains that he is subject to the liturgy and can dispense himself from it only for “a just and reasonable cause” which didn’t exist. Murray concludes that this was a flagrant flouting of Novus Ordo liturgical laws for no reason.
With his behaviour, Francis conveys the message that any priest may do whatever he wants in the liturgy. In Traditionis Custodes, Francis fakes sadness about liturgical abuses in the Novus Ordo. However, his behaviour is for Murray a recipe for more chaos in the life of the Church. Quote, “It needs to stop.”
Ping
He needs to be gone.
Pachapapa Francis is a heretic.
Heretical practices long-approved by Vatican II, not supported by Sacred Scripture, Tradition, Ecumenical Councils, innumerable popes, saints, etc, that Bergoglio is facilitating for his so-called “unique expression” of the Mass:
A.) 1.) Lay people may be commissioned to proclaim Biblical readings at Mass, except for the Gospel reading which is reserved to clerics.
2.) Lay people may act as Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, distributing Holy Communion with the priest, when not enough ordinary ministers or instituted acolytes are available.
3.) In countries where the bishops’ conference has obtained permission from the Holy See, the consecrated host may be received on the hand, rather than directly into the mouth.
4.) Women and girls may act as altar servers if this is approved by the diocesan bishop & if the parish priest chooses to implement it.
These are in opposition to B.) Sacred Scripture (the disciples in Luke 22, Matt. 26, Mark 14) weren’t laypeople and thus were allowed to receive the host in their hands, and Judas’ sinning wasn’t known and priests prohibit the host to the mortally-sinning unrepentant when it is known) and 1-4 above are in opposition to the following:
C.) 1.) St. Sixtus 1 (c. 115): “The Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than those consecrated to the Lord.”
2.) Pope St. Eutychian (275-283)
Forbade the faithful from taking the Sacred Host in their hand.
3) St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Church (330-379): “The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution.”
St. Basil the Great considered communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault.
4.) The Council of Saragossa (380): Excommunicated anyone who dared continue receiving Holy Communion by hand.
5.) This was confirmed by the Synod of Toledo.
6.) Saint Leo the Great read the sixth chapter of Saint John’s Gospel as referring to the Eucharist (as all the Church Fathers did).
Pope St. Leo the Great (440-461)
Energetically defended and required faithful obedience to the practice of administering Holy Communion on the tongue of the faithful.
7.) The Synod of Rouen (650)
Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege.
The Council of Rouen (650): “Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywoman but *only in their mouths.”
8.) The Sixth Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople (680-681)
Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening transgressors with excommunication.
9.) St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)
“Out of reverence towards this sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this sacrament.” (Summa Theologica, Part III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8)
10.) The Council of Trent (1545-1565) “The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition.”
11.) Pope Paul VI (1963-1978)
“This method [on the tongue] must be retained.” (Memoriale Domini)
12.) Pope John Paul II
To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained. (Dominicae Cenae, 11).
D.) 1.) But, as the article states He [Francis] writes: “The liturgical books promulgated by Saint Paul VI and Saint John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II, are the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.” Look at this and compare it to 11 and 12 and then with the following:
2.) “Pope Francis is now putting forth that the current missal — and not the 1962 missal — is the “unique expression of the lex orandi.”
Problem is, 11 and 12 and D 1.) from Francis don’t line up with D. 2) from Francis and given what is shown in A, 1-4.
Did these saints, popes, infallible, binding Councils, etc, commit error, teach lies, dispense falsehoods, and not promulgate truth or has Vatican 2 and the Vat 2 popes done this? Does truth change? Does Sacred Scripture (as shown in B) change? How can Vatican II and its popes undo Sacred Scripture?
E.) Concerning the 6th Ecumenical Council and the Council of Trent for C, 8:
1.) was the 6th Ecumenical Council wrong in promulgating this? Was it in error even though popes then and innumerable ones afterwards agreed with it? Were they in error to do so and promulgate it? Was it true then to do this but not a true thing to do now? Does truth change? If not, then it is binding upon Vat II popes and Vat II popes and they must promulgate it as truth is binding and cannot be changed.
Concerning the Council of Trent (19th Ecumenical Council) in C, 10) which 2a.) also declared the Latin Mass cannot be abrogated, was it in error to declare 2b.) this is truly an “Apostolic Tradition”? Was it wrong in promulgating 2a and 2b? Was they in error on both though popes then and innumerable ones afterwards agreed with it? Was it true then for both but not true now? Does truth change?
Can Popes change truth established for 2k years?
If not for all the aforementioned for the 6th and 19th, then Vatican II and Vatican II popes must abide by them and promulgate them. If they are correct, then Vat II and Vat II popes would be undermining binding and infallible Ecumenical Councils that possess dogmatic force whereas Pope Pius VI said Vatican II was not infallible and 2 popes after him said Vat II did not possess dogmatic force. Or did the church begin in 1962, the first Ecumenical Council then, and the first papacy came into being then with nothing before them to adhere to?
F.) Vat II facilitated the heretical Nostra Aetate to falsely make Christ-denying Islam palatable and salvific.
G.) John XXIII altered the Good Friday Prayer, thus bringing an attack upon Christ’s own words in Jn. 8:21-24 which declared faithlessness on the Jews part would damn them:
[21] Again therefore Jesus said to them: I go, and you shall seek me, and you shall die in your sin. Whither I go, you cannot come.*
[22] The Jews therefore said: Will he kill himself, because he said: Whither I go, you cannot come? [23] And he said to them: You are from beneath, I am from above. You are of this world, I am not of this world. [24]. John XXIII’s move was a capitulation similar to the one fomented against Pope St. Peter but refuted by him in Acts 4:12 which bolstered Christ’s words.
F and G both encapsulate the religious indifferentism promoted and promulgated by Vatican II which declares man is free to choose any religion he deems true in the light of his own conscience and reason and through it obtain salvation, which is refuted by Sacred Scripture per Jesus Christ’ own words in Mt. 7:14, 16:16-18; Jn. 10:7-9, 14:6, Pope St. Peter in Acts 4:12, by the Council of Trent, Pope Pius the 9th in the Syllabus of Errors, and more.
H.) The Roman Catholic Church is not governed by legal positivism.
I.) It is time for all faithful Catholics to stand side-by-side and truly unite the clans through uncompromisingly upholding and faithfully living the holy traditions that have been handed on to us by our ancestors in the Faith. Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle. -2 Thessalonians 2:14
J.) The same, Pope St. Peter, right after Jesus conferred the keys to him and made him his Vicar, was told by Jesus “Get thee behind me Satan” St. Paul opposed Pope St. Peter to his face in Galatians chapter 2, and Pope Honorius I was anathematized, thus all establishing that Popes can be criticized and opposed.
While I am largely sympathetic, consider the setting and the occasion. “Lost as a Jesuit in Holy Week” is proverbial for a reason.
I am reminded of a story about a novitiate in the 80’s that was a cooperative effort set in the Western U.S. that had all sorts of different orders involved, and had all sorts of celebrants taking turns at Mass. One day the celebrant invited all present to join in the Eucharistic prayer. Everyone did except for the Dominicans and the Jesuits— the Dominicans because they knew better, and the Jesuits because they didn’t know the words. (I wasn’t there, but heard this from someone who claimed to have been there).
Even the Oratorians don’t do perfect liturgy (though you have to be very attentive to notice many of the flaws)—the SJs are going to SJ.
One final thing:
The church at one time had no pope so if that is the case now, and God brought the church through it then, He can do it again:
Pope John XI’s papacy began March 931 and ended December 935
Marozia, his mother, obtained his appointment to the papacy with no election taking place. He wasn’t validly placed on Peter’s seat.
And the church went through a secret coddler of heretics (Pope Honorius), but Francis is a new low.
And the church went through a secret coddler of heretics (Pope Honorius), but Francis is a new low.
I wouldn’t want to argue that one, but I will say that this definitely seems like a Holy Spirit (or Holy Ghost if you prefer) “Hold My Beer” moment.
The problem isn’t the TLM but rather the Novus Ordo, rife with paganism, sensuality, bizarre behaviors, etc, for decades and all over the U.S. even now and the following are just a few examples that Francis won’t drop the hammer on as he’s too busy harrassing and those who support the TLM.
1.) Drag Queen sings Ave Maria during “Mass for Victims of LGBT-Phobia” with “Cardinal” Da Rocha
In the description box there:
This took place on May 21, 2021, and was part of a “Mass for all LGBT people” presided over by “Cardinal” Sergio da Rocha, the Novus Ordo Archbishop of São Salvador da Bahia, Brazil...”
2.) Scantily Clad Girl Dancing in the Altar with the Priest
https://youtube.com/shorts/zTexZjr27aI?feature=share
3.) The priest does a Novus Ordo chicken dance while a poor tambourine gets beaten to death by someone else:
Oh Happy Day 2021 Easter
4.) Liturgical Abuse
5.) Check out 3:13 in this:
Liturgical abuses
6.) Novus Ordo vs. Tridentine Mass: Which Mass has been more abused?
7.) Traditional Latin Mass is not allowed in parishes, but Aztec dance is ok.
8.) MUST-SEE: Novus Ordo Mass ends with Guitar Blessing
And there’s a whole lot more of this on YT from decade to decade and ongoing to now. But where have the Vatican II popes been at in denouncing these things? If you stand with Sacred Scripture and Tradition and don’t agree with everyone doing whatever they want, then Francis says you’re “rigid” or “clerical” but if you agree with anything goes then Francis says you’re “loving” and “pastoral.”
There are so many conservative-minded Novus Ordo adherents who act as if they have fidelity to the church (which has always taught that abortion is murder) and yet they say nothing to those in the pews when those who are openly against this church stance step foward to receive the Eucharistic host; according to a 2018 Pew Research Poll, 51% of Novus Ordo adherents, compared to TLM adherents, are pro-choice on abortion. Where is Francis at showing he loves the unborn and Sacred Scripture and Tradition?
Guy goes to a Franciscan and says, "Father, can you pray a novena for me to get a new Lexus?" Franciscan says, "Ok, but what's a 'Lexus'?" "Oh, it's a luxury car." "Oh, ok."
Next he goes to a Trappist with the same request. Carmelite looks confused, then says, "Ah ... what's a 'Lexus'?" "Oh, it's a luxury car." The Trappist says, "Ah ... what's a 'car'?"
Finally he goes to a Jesuit. The Jesuit looks at him in confusion and says, "Hmmm, what's a 'novena'?"
Sorry, editing error. s/Carmelite/Trappist/g
I’ve generally heard a much more drawn out version, with Franciscan, DOminican, and Jesuit being the normal cast (and how I tell it). I originally heard it told by a Benedictine who substituted and OSB for the SJ, and I heard a very good variation involving a parish priest in the third spot (I should note, this was second hand, with the teller being a Polish priest, so it is possible that things have morphed between cultures).
The punch line in that case was “Of course, I’d be happy to—that’s how I got mine.”
That said—I’ve never heard the Trappist/Carmelite in the middle with the “Ah . . . what’s a car” but rather the first two are generally politely declining on the grounds that the request, once understood is judged inappropriate.
I’m a pretty big devotee of the EF, and I realize that there are loads of abuses that have gone on with the OF—but the OF is normally somewhat better than the cases that you note, and JFK’s funeral was far more typical of what one would find in the OF in his day than what you will find in an FSSP or ICKP Parish now.
With rare exceptions, the Jesuits will be bad at best if you like solemn liturgy done well (there was a Jesuit Bishop for Hungarian expats based out of Toronto for many years who was an exception to this rule). They are like the Leafs post Sawchuk—if you are interested in rooting for a team that will satisfy, switch teams and stop complaining.
LOL!
I never said that all Jesuits are bad, and you don’t get to say who leaves or stays, Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, etc, decides that.
I never claimed to be able to say who stays or leaves, and while you didn’t make a broad claim about the Jesuits, you did seem to be making an extremely broad claim about the OF.
There are good Jesuits, just like there are good lawyers and good FBI agents, but at certain times in history, 99% of them give the other 1% a bad name. I want to see Pope Francis canonize Clement XIV.
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.