Posted on 01/26/2026 12:36:33 PM PST by ebb tide
Ongoing reform is central to the liturgy because it has cultural elements that change over time and across places, pro-homosexual Cardinal Blase Cupich of Chicago - an ardent enemy of the Roman Rite and a good friend of Leo XIV - wrote on ChicagoCatholic.com (January 21).
He repeated the historical misrepresentations which Cardinal Arthur Roche used at the January 7–8 consistory to polemise against the Mass of all ages.
For Cupich, “with the passage of time and changes in the culture, there is always a need to reform the liturgy.”
Particularly compelling he found Roche's fabulation that, according to Pope Pius V, there ought to be only one rite for celebrating the Mass. [In reality, Pius V allowed all rites older than 200 years.]
For Cupich - who presides over the Eucharist with Asian dragons and allows all sorts of liturgical abuses in his archdiocese - “there can only be one rite as a means of preserving the unity of the church.”
Key ideological concept: “The two main takeaways in reading Cardinal Roche’s remarks are, first, the nature of liturgy itself calls for ongoing reform, and second, that accepting the reform authorized by the Church is a matter of preserving the unity of the Church, as St. Pope Pius V stated - a truth the late Pope Francis recalled.”
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
Ping
For Cupich, “with the passage of time and changes in the culture, there is always a need to reform the liturgy.” I beg to differ, there is a Holy Bible, what would change in that book?
“according to Pope Pius V, there ought to be only one rite for celebrating”
They’re lying through their teeth. Pius V never said that. He simply scrapped unapproved liturgies that hadn’t existed prior to 1370. Anything either older than from 1370 or that the Holy See had explicitly approved after 1370 was fine. Thus, the Ambrosian, Dominican, Sarum etc rites were allowed to continue undisturbed.
According to the cardinal’s ‘logic’, since the culture is predominantly pagan and godless now, the Church should have an official satanic rite.
He’s such a confusing mess. Lord, save us from these wolves in shepherds’ clothing!
HE’S NEXT TO THE RED DRAGON!
1203 The liturgical traditions or rites presently in use in the Church are the Latin (principally the Roman rite, but also the rites of certain local churches, such as the Ambrosian rite, or those of certain religious orders) and the Byzantine, Alexandrian or Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Maronite and Chaldean rites. In "faithful obedience to tradition, the sacred Council declares that Holy Mother Church holds all lawfully recognized rites to be of equal right and dignity, and that she wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way.
Using Pius V to argue for the novus ordo. That’s a new one.
What’s even worse is he’s using Pope St. Pius V to abrogate the very Mass that that Pius declared, “Accordingly, no one whosoever is permitted to infringe or rashly contravene this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, direction, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree and prohibition. Should any person venture to do so, let him understand that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul”.
For Cupich - who presides over the Eucharist with Asian dragons and allows all sorts of liturgical abuses in his archdiocese - “there can only be one rite as a means of preserving the unity of the church.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No one doubts the importance of unity in faith. It is a fundamental principle of the Catholic Church that distinguishes it from other Christian denominations. And no one doubts that this unity is expressed in worship. But the misleading argument is to assume that unity of faith is necessarily tied to unity of worship. To assume this is absurd. There are 24 rites in the Church, completely different from each other, and no one would think that a Chaldean from Iraq, a Coptic from Egypt, or a Byzantine from Romania have a different faith from a Roman from Madrid or Bogotá. All of them share the one Catholic faith and yet their worship or lex orandi is diverse. This is why all arguments and efforts to terminate the Tridentine Mass are absurd and even abusive.
If any Catholic of faith attends a Mass celebrated with Paul VI’s reformed missal in Buenos Aires, he will find it quite different from the one he attends when on vacation in Mar del Plata, or Mendoza, or Paris, or New York.
What’s more, it would be difficult to find two historical moments in the Church in which unity in the faith was more strongly sought after than in the 13th and 16th centuries. Well, any Catholic living in a European city at that time, say Lyon or Milan, if he attended Mass at his parish, it would be celebrated in the Lyonese or Ambrosian rite; if he attended the Franciscan convent, which was 20 meters away, it would be celebrated in the Roman rite; and if they walked two blocks to the Dominican convent, they would find a Mass in the Dominican rite, and a few steps further on, the Carmelites (shod) would celebrate it in the Carmelite rite. And if he decided to make a spiritual retreat and went to a Carthusian monastery, there the monks would celebrate according to the Carthusian rite. In other words, within a radius of just a few kilometers, he would have five different forms of lex orandi without undermining the lex credendi. So, here again we can see how efforts since the Second Vatican Council to suppress the traditional Latin Mass based on the necessity of “unity of worship” has been spurious and primarily punitive. [Modified content previously posted by another ‘Freeper’.]
Aren't they some sort of "offense" against the unity of the Church also?
Apparently we have a surfeit of bishops who flunked both church history and ecclesiology in seminary.
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.