LOL about NY or Long Island being depopulated (as I sit in a 10-mile traffic jam on the Southern State.)

However you spin it, it's alarming to hear that "dozens" of Manhattan's beautiful and historic churches are going to be closed in the imminent future. This, in a metropolis where 2.5 million Catholics reside.

I might cheerfully assign a lot of blame for different things on to the Obama administration and the dire economic situation created by its policies, but even I wouldn't blame them for the massive scale of Catholic church closings in the Northeast and elsewhere.

"Fatima seems to have been rather simple on the face of it. Then Fr. Gruner and the apocalyptic folks got into it and mucked it all up."

This. That is a simpler way of making the point I tried to make.

This just showed up in my email inbox and is quite timely.

“In such an extremity, in such a desperate state of affairs, where evil has taken over a world soon to be consumed in flames, what are all the true Christians to do, all good men, all Saints, all men with any faith and courage? Grappling with a situation more clearly impossible than ever, with a redoubled energy by their ardent prayer, by their active works and by their fearless struggles they will say, O God, O Father in Heaven, hallowed be thy name on earth as it is in Heaven, thy kingdom come on earth as it is in Heaven, thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven. On earth as it is in Heaven! And they will still be murmuring these words while the very earth is giving way beneath their feet."

“And just as once upon a time, following upon an appalling military disaster the whole Roman Senate and State officials of all ranks could be seen going out to meet the defeated consul and to congratulate him on not having despaired of the Roman Republic; so likewise the senate of Heaven, all the Choirs of angels, all ranks of the Blessed will come out to meet the generous athletes of the Faith who will have fought to the bitter end, hoping against hope itself."

“And then that impossible ideal that the elect of all ages had obstinately pursued will become a reality. In his Second and final Coming the Son will hand over the Kingdom of this world to God his Father, the power of evil will have been cast out for ever into the depths of the abyss; whatever has refused to be assimilated and incorporated into God through Jesus Christ by faith, love and observance of the law will be flung into the sewer of everlasting filth. And God will live and reign for ever and ever, not only in the oneness of his nature and in the society of the three divine Persons, but also in the fullness of the Mystical Body of his Incarnate Son and in the fulfilment of the Communion of Saints!” Cardinal Pie

A little about Pie.

Cardinal Pie was held in high esteem by several popes, most particularly Pope St. Pius X. Beyond using the same motto as the bishop, Pius X studied the works of Cardinal Pie assiduously. To some Poitevin clergy visiting Rome, he admitted the influence of Pie’s works over his own thought. He said, “I have read nearly all of the works of your cardinal, and there are many years in which I have scarcely passed a day without reading some of his pages.”

Bishop Pie saw naturalism as the chief heresy of the modern age and combated it vigorously. As Leo XIII described it in Humanum Genus, naturalism is the doctrine stating “that human nature and human reason ought in all things to be mistress and guide.” Pie himself defines it thus, “This independent and repulsive attitude of nature with regard to the supernatural and revealed order, properly constitutes the heresy of naturalism.” In short, he called it “anti-Christianity.” Continuing on, he insists, “By neither allowing the Incarnation of the natural Son of God nor the divine adoption of man to remain, it suppresses Christianity both at its top and at its bottom, it harms it in its source and in its branches.” Comparing naturalism with ordinary heresy, he states, “Heresy denies one or several dogmas; naturalism denies that there are dogmas, and that there may be any. Heresy more or less alters divine revelations; naturalism denies that God is revealer; heresy dismisses God from such or such portion of his kingdom; naturalism eliminates him from the world and from creation.” Crisis Magazine, May 16, 2013

A few months ago, while in the confessional, the (Novus Ordo) priest gave me a copy of The Fatima Crusader and told me to read it for my penance.

Torculus:

Which Issue of the FC?

It was about a year ago when this happened and I don't remember which issue it was. I don't where it is but if I find it, I will let you know.

There are at least three different arguments/debates that could be made about this statement.

...beginning with the classical understanding of "participation" being binding oneself to Christ in self-sacrifice to the Father.

Just the first few lines of the Morning Offering reinforce that: ".....prayers, works, joys, and sufferings of this day, in union with the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass...."

Francis
I'm at colloquium. We just finished the annual Requiem Mass. I am of the opinion that all Masses should be Requiem's.
Please reference the homily Fr. Pasley gave at SLC 2012 and when it's out on audio his homily today regarding personal eschatology.
Therein you will be reminded what Mother Church has taught us (as well as our Lord) about expectation of the cliche "End of days."
A mania centered upon the Parousia is just parroting Scot's dispensationalists (I'm a Scotsman) which has proven wrong every date and theologically decidedly, repeatedly since the apostolic era.
What is it you want us to concede?

Hmmmm.

When I was in grade school, we had Mass every day. At least 2 of the 5 were Requiem Masses said for the soul of one or the other faithful departed. Reading the translation of the Dies Irae was useful for the soul, until I went to the local Jebby high school and .....well......ya'know about that.

have we all been boiled?

kenstb

From Quo Primum:

"...Roman Church, the Mother and Teacher of the other churches, and let Masses not be sung or read according to any other formula than that of this Missal published by Us. This ordinance applies henceforth, now, and FOREVER, throughout all the provinces of the Christian world..."

I guess the word 'FOREVER' has a different meaning in these modern times...?

As per Fatima,

"...choose to ignore it" assumes one hears and understands the message and the warning. This goes for the Gospel also. If one never heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ, there is no way for anyone to know the outcome of their salvation.

But if one knows the truth of she who appeared and gave warning, then is seems that to dismiss it as a 'private revelation' intended only for the seers that received it is absurd. To say that someone 'messed up the delivery' of the message and therefore it is corrupt is also absurd.

It is my view that the loss of faith (the Mass, the catechism, dogma, etc., etc.) resulted in all the events that followed into the dissolution of the faith.

Here is another interesting take along the same lines:

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2011/11/it-is-time-for-heresy-of-formlessness.html

Some of the comments are just as good as the article. (And I do agree with the first comment that respecting diversity is in itself quite erroneous)

The most the Church tends to say on any particular private revelation is that it is or is not worthy of belief. You are correct, Liam. No one is required to believe any private revelation. They are not essential to anyone's faith.

Quo Primum gets quoted a lot here, I have noticed. Pius V had no powers not granted to his successors and his decrees on rubrics don't bind them. What I think we run into on these discussions is that Francis, it seems, believes rubrics rise to the level of dogma. I don't accept that. What Pius V was free to decree any of his successors was/is free to change. A particular rite may do a better or worse job of teaching core doctrines, but is not dogma and can be changed by lawful authority.

Has it occurred to anyone else that to substitute one's own views for those of lawful authority is a Protestant position? Isn't that the essence of Protestantism - the lawful authority is wrong and my take on things is the right way? I am afraid some traditionalist-leaning folks may have gone so far that they are the new Protestants of our age.

Charles, what's to say that it hasn't all gone that way? Not saying that it absolutely has, but I'd like to entertain the theory. Proponents of the four-hymn sandwich who won't accept the previous identity of church music because they don't like it (preference based), and because it's "what the people want" essentially rejecting what the church held as beautiful and sacred, are they not exhibiting a form of Protestantism?

Why do we sing Shepherd Me O God instead of chanting Psalm 23? Because its "what the people want." Why do we sing a gathering hymn, such as Gather Us In even though it's text may have nothing to do with the Mass of the day (yes, I understand it fits the liturgical function of the procession and that said procession is technically not part of the Mass) instead of chanting the Introit? Because "the people can sing it." I may just be misguided about this and perhaps a bit dissolusioned, but does it not seem that music in the OF Mass in many places today is about the "people" and not the Mass?

Francis

You can certainly find sources on your own if you wish. I am not the research library, and these discussions are not scholarly, but casual. Suffice it to say that the "rebuttal" you posted presumes the existence of the sources you seek, as it were.

Liam:

It would seem that if you present something as fact, it would be helpful to know where you found your info. Yes, I went out to find the source, and what appears on the surface seems to be a provocation to disbelieve the longstanding truth of tradition. Quo Primum is the destination point to where the Church arrived after centuries of thinking, believing, acting and establishing the core of the faith. That is why it is so often quoted because it is the 'full focus' of all that led up to that point in time, hence why the language is so strong.

Liam:

Well, everything here is a viewpoint for that matter. So why would you (we) even bother to entertain this discussion, and why does it continue to present itself time and time again, especially considering the weight of the questioning statements arising from the minds and hearts of pontiffs, theologians and canonists themselves? It does not go away.

There is an itch that continually needs to be scratched, and the more it is scratched the more we discover something under the skin that seems as though it could be fatal.

"et si dextera manus tua scandalizat te abscide eam et proice abs te expedit tibi ut pereat unum membrorum tuorum quam totum corpus tuum eat in gehennam" Matthew 5:30

Perhaps someone should clue in the BVM and that dancing sun stuff.

AM:

Curious... where is 'ground zero northeast'?

Liam... there is no fourth message, but Socci wrote a book about the remaining part of the third.

http://www.amazon.com/Fourth-Secret-Fatima-Antonio-Socci/dp/1930278772

There is speculation that OLOF makes reference to the council in that part (so not Quo Primum specifically), but... who knows!?

Proponents of the four-hymn sandwich who won't accept the previous identity of church music because they don't like it (preference based), and because it's "what the people want" essentially rejecting what the church held as beautiful and sacred, are they not exhibiting a form of Protestantism?

From the position of the music director, it may not be a case of what the people want, but what your boss says the people want. You will do it if you want to remain employed. I am fortunate enough to not have been in that kind of parish for a number of years. However, it takes a good musician years to build a good program. It takes a nutty priest and an incompetent musician about one week to destroy it. As for the infamous 4-hymns, I was there when those started and we were told that is what we had to do.

Picking up on ClergetKubisz's thought, is it possible that a pope can do this?

Popes can do anything, at least according to you ultramontane Latins who think they are almost god-like. We easterners always looked at that with suspicion and distrust.

a) that there is a crisis in the Church

Yes, there is and it started at Pentecost.

b) that we are experiencing it today

Unlike some of our leaders, the Devil is very good at what he does.

c) that the liturgy is disintegrating

The disintegration started before Trent and was institutionalized by that council. There was a period of stability before it started up again.

d) that the crisis is in large due to the disintegration of the liturgy

I think the state of the liturgy is the symptom, not the cause. Perhaps the cart is before the horse.

That could have been better phrased to consider that not all Latins are ultramontane.

I know they are not, but far too many do hold to ultramontanism in practice. The Latin church kind of backed itself into a corner on that one.

It's a Fourth Massage. It got corrupted by the seer.

Julie,

That was quite a list of things for me to consider. Firstly, I don't know that its fair to ask me whether I disagree with the former Cardinal Ratzinger's diagnosis of a problem that we all can see is real. It doesn't matter if I agree or disagree with Cardinal Ratzinger. What does matter is that faith is a personal choice that is influenced by those who transmit the faith. I have seen real priests attract people of all kinds by their holy example. I have seen real liturgical musicians change lives by using their talents wisely and generously. Having heard the Word actually proclaimed from the ambo and the responsorial sung with authority, I am not in need of convincing about the power of our faith to inspire and to save. Our liturgy does reflect or embody what we believe, and I don't doubt that damage to the liturgy has had a ripple effect throughout society.

But, in my experience, it isn't the liturgy or style of mass that has caused folks that I know of to leave the church. It is the lack of kindness of those of us involved in greeting and welcoming them, singing and proclaiming the Word to them, and preaching to them that has caused these people to leave. In my view, most folks who attend mass in my area have never read anything written by Cardinal Ratzinger or any theologian. They do know whether they feel welcome. They do know if we say one thing and do another. They do know what it feels like to be treated like step children. I think that many young people look for sincerity in what we say we believe as opposed to what our actions show that we believe. When, unfortunately, we don't live up to our rhetoric, they see us as hypocritical and they don't believe what we claim to believe.

Having said that, I have seen a lot of people leave the church not because their faith withered, but because they joined the military and had to leave, or they got married and moved away or their jobs relocated.

Another reason for the loss of worshippers is the fact that parents are not teaching the faith to their children. I am persuaded that children learn what they live, not what we tell them, and I have seen several generations of young people receive the sacrament confirmation (which Pope Francis called the sacrament of farewell) and then never set foot in a church until they want to be married in one. I don't know if this is a result of the disintegration of the liturgy, as you put it, but I do know that it is real.

I am not so sure about the classical Roman rite. Prior to the fall of Rome it would have greatly resembled the eastern liturgies in all their splendor. The empire collapsed in the west and Rome became a backwater. Most things degraded quickly including the liturgy. I have never said the eastern liturgies are superior. We have them essentially intact because the empire in the east lasted a thousand years longer. By the time of the Turks, the Greek liturgy had spread to eastern Europe and Russia which maintained the liturgy after the empire fell. It is largely gone today in what was Constantinople.

Yes, I do believe Pius V did some heavy tinkering with the western liturgy - a tradition that has continued to our present day. My objection is not to the Latin Church liturgy, but to those who maintain it came forth from Trent in perfect and heavenly form and that the Church is doomed and falling apart because it is no longer the principal liturgy of the western Church.

If the Church is falling apart, I think there are other factors involved. The Catholics and former Catholics I know have not left because of liturgical rites or music. The reasons they give are that they can't abide by the Church's teachings on contraception and many are in irregular marriage situations which put them at odds with the Church. Several have also mentioned bad preaching, so it must be fairly common.