Card. Cupich named to Congregation for Divine Worship
  • MarkB
    Posts: 878
    That's a bellwether, especially considering the way Cardinal Cupich implemented Traditionis Custodes last year.

    This link works:

    https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/251425/cardinal-cupich-among-new-members-of-vatican-congregation-for-divine-worship?fbclid=IwAR2hnDafrFdTy4mixoaZXl8gyEVuBiQULxXkbK-wTZwuevvdjb6QMija0ho

    Thanked by 1Don9of11
  • Oh no! No surprises, but OH NO just the same!
    BMP
    Thanked by 2Salieri hilluminar
  • Pol Pot is appealing his denial of membership on the Civil Rights Commission of the UN.
    Thanked by 2trentonjconn tomjaw
  • trentonjconn
    Posts: 383
    Can we get Luther and Cranmer appointed too?
  • smvanroodesmvanroode
    Posts: 935
    I'm not sure what these memberships actually represent; I assume that Cardinal Cupich won't have much to do with the day-to-day affairs of the dicastery.
  • ghmus7
    Posts: 1,395
    Can we get Luther and Cranmer appointed too?

    I am quite sure that I would rather have Luther as a member of the congregation than Cupich.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,155
    Neither Luther nor Cranmer would have tolerated the liturgical transgressions at St Sabina.
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,146
    Neither Luther nor Cranmer would have tolerated much of what passes for liturgy and (especially Luther) liturgical music these days.
  • Tolerated indeed!
    Latin, incense, vesture, the music of Josquin, and others of like colour (for whose music Luther had a passion) continued for many years after his time.
    But for the canon Luther's mass was little different from the Catholic one.
    Luther loved Latin and wished that it should remain the language of the mass.
    This was true at least during and after Bach's time, and remains so amongst high church Lutherans. Luther's Duetsche Messe was composed later at the insistence of some of his even more 'liberal' colleagues.
    I am not a Lutheran apologist, but do appreciate beauty wherever and in whomever it is found.
  • If we put all the horses in the same stable.....

    I'm afraid of finishing that sentence.
  • StimsonInRehabStimsonInRehab
    Posts: 1,866
    Interesting historic parallel - Caligula did appoint Incitatus to an important priestly and administrative position. While perhaps not as erudite as his predecessor, Cupich is also known for his swift action…
    Thanked by 2tomjaw Jeffrey Quick
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,444
    I assume that Cardinal Cupich won't have much to do with the day-to-day affairs of the dicastery.


    I think this is accurate.
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,134
    Well, anyone who might have had the gall to go against his liturgical directives will certainly think twice now. Pity.
    Thanked by 1CCooze
  • Ronn62353
    Posts: 17
    Dear God in heaven, I wish that some degree of charity might be exhibited in so many of these remarks. Self-righteousness is always a difficult lens through which to view reality.
    Thanked by 2MarkS PaxMelodious
  • Ronn,

    I won't speak for anyone else here. My comments are based on the fact that the Cardinal has a track record of thumbing his nose at the actual teaching of the Church, and behaving in what can only be described as vicious toward anyone who resists his directives.

    Pol Pot has as much place on a Civil Rights Commission as Cardinal Cupich does on the dicastery whose job is to promote the proper celebration of the sacraments.

  • Sometimes charity is difficult when one's principles seem to be trodden underfoot by those who answer to very few persons. Prayer for the person in question is a far greater balm than blame; there are God given good in all .

    A favorite prayer of mine for contentious times such as these - - -

    Put a stop O Lord upon our lips
    that we may speak only what is true.
    Or, being true is only half true
    Or, if wholly true, is merciless.


    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,134
    Dear God in heaven, I wish that some degree of charity might be exhibited in so many of these remarks.
    At what point are you permitted to be bitter about your abusive father? At some point the abused person becomes conditioned—through no fault of their own—to respond with angst and mistrust. And frankly, some of these prelates no longer deserve the respect that their office would otherwise require.

    At this point, I’ve turned both cheeks on my face and my arse and they are all black and blue. I’ve no cheeks left to offer those who denigrate our Lord and His Holy Church—prelate or not. You’re either for Christ, or against Him. There is no in between.
  • Our Lord revealed to Blessed Dina, that it is an offense to his wounded heart to speak ill against one of his ministers, even if that minister is in grave sin by the very fact that he is Persona Christi. There is no problem speaking the truth, but charity must always be preserved, benefit of the doubt, and acknowledgement that formation has been lacking in so many of our priests. We have a priest here who comes sometimes, ordained 60 years ago and he just found out that he was supposed to purify his hands... he never knew. Thanks be to God he is so childlike to accept such corrections... we have to be careful. Charity is always the rule of law, and prayer with penance for the conversion of those within and without who hurt the church- but always remember that our Lord said, "even the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" and having full confidence and trust in these words. There have been worst times in the church than now, we have to see the hand of God even in this as Augustine mentions, "all things work for the good of those who love God (even sin)." God Bless all of you.

    Sister Marie
  • Sister Marie,

    To speak ill of a person would be wrong, but if that person is, precisely, proud of that characteristic under discussion, how might that change the analysis?

    I have, in front of me, a political advertisement for a candidate for public office, in which I read, "Rated 100% by Planned Parenthood". This person is proud of his affiliation with that group. To call him, therefore, a "babykiller" would be wholly true, and not uncharitable.
  • We don't have to deny truths Chris. Thats not what I am saying at all. What I am saying is that we need to remember the dignity of the priest whether or not he is in line with Church teaching.

    Charity brings about conversion and so does prayer and penance- that is the best way to win about graces for conversion of heart (otherwise what is the point of me even being in a monastery?). Fraternal Correction is really an art. In this Novena to Pentecost we can ask the Holy Spirit for guidance in this who is the true teacher of Hearts gone astray.

    What I am saying is that its not exactly the speaking the truth that is the problem, but the way we are saying it. Making fun of Him- joking about the situation (and I'm not referring to anyone in particular), I don't think is the correct method on our part. Its an observation nothing more, take it or leave it- act according to your own conscience which each one has the duty to follow accordingly.
  • It is the month of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, in whose feasts day is world day of prayer for priests. Let us then pray for them

    St. Therese of Lisieux’s Prayer for Priests
    O Jesus, eternal Priest,
    keep your priests within the shelter of Your Sacred Heart,
    where none may touch them.
    Keep unstained their anointed hands,
    which daily touch Your Sacred Body.
    Keep unsullied their lips,
    daily purpled with your Precious Blood.
    Keep pure and unearthly their hearts,
    sealed with the sublime mark of the priesthood.
    Let Your holy love surround them and
    shield them from the world’s contagion.
    Bless their labors with abundant fruit and
    may the souls to whom they minister be their joy and consolation here and in heaven their beautiful and
    everlasting crown.
  • Schönbergian
    Posts: 1,063
    Comparing Cardinal Cupich to Pol Pot because he implemented Francis's instructions is the kind of rhetoric which led to this situation in the first place.
  • Chaswjd
    Posts: 195
    I agree with others here that hyperbole about Cardinal Cupich's involvement with the implementation of Traditionis custodes is unhelpful. That said, the Cardinal seems to have little interest in liturgical matters. There are also videos on Youtube of masses in Chicago containing outright liturgical abuses (and not just differences in style) that the Cardinal seemingly has no interest in stamping out.
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,773
    That suggests that he is in fact very interested, but only one direction.
  • Sister Marie,

    That beautiful prayer of St. Therese is part of my family's morning prayers. We also pray daily for His Holiness, using a prayer for the Holy Father.

    I don't mean to joke, in my comparison with Pol Pot. Slight hyperbole isn't intended to mislead.

    Cupich has been in Chicago longer than Francis has been in Rome, so my observation isn't based on "following Francis' instructions", as it were.

    You're absolutely right that charity wins souls. Abp Cordileone showed charity in requesting prayers for Speaker Pelosi before informing her that she may not receive Holy Communion, and further charity in barring her. My wife (my fiancee, as she was at the time) asked me why I wasn't Catholic, if I accepted that the Catholic Church was the one true Church founded by God. Hearing my lame answer, she informed me that I was, therefore, going to Hell. We're coming up on our 31st wedding anniversary, and I've been grateful to her for this gesture for years. Not all forms of charity are "gentle", for lack of a better word.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,155
    It is however difficult to say what power bishops have in correcting liturgical abuses. Cardinal George seems to have attempted some control, including dialogue with Fr Pfleger, and decided to let the matter rest where it is. Preceding Archbishops have also had run-ins, and yet Fr Pfleger is still in the same posting for over 40 years.
    Luther and Cranmer both had autonomy, no pope to overrule them, and they rewrote their own Canon Law.
  • No worries, it wasn't an attack on you personally. I just felt the conversation was taking a turn that I might turn into something it shouldn't. All in all- we are on the same team. We all love the liturgy here; we all see the distressing wounds Holy Mother Church is receiving within and without. This is a spiritual battle primarily. The devil's number one tactic is division. Ut unum sint.

    I am glad you pray that prayer every day. We need to pray for our priests, the Bishops, and the Holy Father.
  • irishtenoririshtenor
    Posts: 1,256
    @CGZ -- Cupich was appointed to the See of Chicago by Francis in 2014.
  • He was a known quantity before that. I stand corrected on the date of his move to Chicago.
  • MarkB
    Posts: 878
    More is involved with attempting to rein in Fr. Pfleger than telling him to knock off his liturgical abuses. He has established a cult of personality around himself at St. Sabina's, that cult is inextricably enmeshed with the way Fr. Pfleger celebrates Mass (such as it is), he has powerful political allies in the city, and add the race of his congregation into the mix... I can understand why any white archbishop would rather not touch that these days. Remember when Fr. Pfleger was being investigated for abuse? The parish council withheld the cathedraticum.

    Sometimes prudence realizes it's better to just let things be. Fr. Pfleger won't be around forever.

    It's unfortunate, but Fr. Pfleger might be more powerful in some ways than Cardinal Cupich.

    You can't conclude that Cardinal Cupich agrees with the way Mass is celebrated there simply because he has decided not to intervene. Not in this particular case, where there are thorny considerations of race, politics and celebrity status that effectively tie Cupich's hands. It's a no-win scenario.
  • Mark,
    If Father Pfleger were a completely isolated case, you would have a valid point about not agreeing with the practice. Blessing the dragon is another point against the "doesn't necessarily agree" idea.

    Look, I don't want to attack Cardinal Cupich; being a bishop must be tremendously hard, and being faithful to Christ in a present ecclesial environment must be even harder in America than it is in some other places. Nevertheless, when Nero sets the fire, and fiddles, questioning whether concert pitch is 440 or 432 seems a trifle trifling.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • Ronn62353
    Posts: 17
    My friends, the charity that I referred to does not mean that every person is right, but rather the way we express the truth, as the apostle Paul exhorts speak the truth in love. I daily read through the comments on this site, and I stand amazed how seemingly lacking in charity so many of them are. On issues that are neither black or white, some seem to have determined, apart from the church, which side is coirrect. I have closely followed Cardinal Cupich's response to Traditionis Custodes, and it seems to my mind it is in keeping with what the Holy Father desired. Some may not like it, but others might. Some might agree with it, others might not. But he did as the document directed. Even this very thread has brought on such words of bitterness and anger, one has to wonder why anyone would want to become part of such church. Months ago Father Michael Joncas was nothing short of tarred and feathered over On Eagle's Wings. Liking or disliking a song, or a methodology ought not to involve an attack on the dignity of the person.
  • trentonjconn
    Posts: 383
    Perhaps we are sometimes lacking in charity, and fraternal correction is welcome and appropriate if so. It is difficult to not become bitter in this line of work.
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,134
    I admit that many of my own replies tend to come across rather harsh. This is a fault of mine, to be sure. But I have also learned that people also often take the mere statements of simple truths as “offensive” when they are not. The mode of hearing is according to the hearer and not the speaker. So, while I tend toward the harsher criticism end of the spectrum (of who much has been given, much is expected) there are also those who cannot bear to read any criticisms, no matter how just, which is an equal and proportionate problem, albeit at the other end of the spectrum.

    We should also remember that speaking strongly against evil public acts is distinct from condemning the individual; people are eager to extrapolate one from the other, which is why the old trope about “condemn the sin, not the sinner” is so tired and worn; people have difficulty distinguishing one condemnation from the other, even though it is very often the former (the sin) rather than the latter (the sinner) which is being condemned. Also, one can dislike someone who holds an office whilst simultaneously having respect for the office itself.

    Speaking for myself, many of my frustrations come from the fact that so many things about the faith are, in fact, quite simple, and prelates go out of their way to obfuscate them, or worse still: teach in direct contradiction to them. We also have objective measures by which we can judge (so to speak) external actions. We have living tradition. We have formal magisterial teaching. We have Holy Writ. So when prelates eagerly contravene or demolish everything we hold dear, one is justified in expressing alarm/concern and even, yes, criticism. When the animals on the edge of a herd spot a predator, they bleat to warn all the others. To fail to do so would, ironically, lack charity for the others who don’t perceive the danger.
    Thanked by 3rich_enough Elmar Jani
  • Jeffrey Quick
    Posts: 1,922
    Caligula did appoint Incitatus

    I was thinking more of Mrs. O'Leary's cow.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • GambaGamba
    Posts: 495
    I would not celebrate Mass the way Fr. Pfleger does, but I hope the online legions who constantly complain about him are working as hard in their communities as he does in Auburn Gresham. I would not last 41 years in a dying “ghetto” parish I was sent to close down, burying murder victims almost every week. I’m not sure I could organize absolutely impoverished parishioners to build an employment resource center for ex-cons and recovering addicts, or a home for poor seniors, or a youth center where kids can come every day after school, or get thousands of guns off the streets, or distribute free clothing and food every single week, or face down big alcohol and tobacco advertisers, sellers of drug paraphernalia, gang leaders, and crooked Chicago politicians, or keep a Catholic school going, or be able to care for parents whose children were shot in the street. If you know Chicago, you know most people have preferred to forget about that whole part of town ever since white flight in the 70s. There’s nothing there….no jobs, failed schools, no healthcare, no hope. It takes a real Christian to not just live there for so long, but build new things there that make a difference. I don’t know many parishes that do so much with so little. That does not excuse liturgical abuse, but please, put some respect on Fr. Pfleger’s name, or do what he’s done, and better, if you’re going to trash him.
  • Ronn,

    Bishop Paprocki, a canon lawyer, read the document and concluded that proper implementation of it looked very different from Cardinal Cupich's read of it. The document's intent seems clear enough, in an opaque sort of way, and the FSSP representative has met with His Holiness to confirm that, in effect, that fraternity is completely unimpacted by this document.

    Independent of all that, of course, is the idea that the lay faithful have the right (and, if I recall correctly, sometimes the duty) to communicate with their shepherds about matters within their competence.

  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,773
    On issues that are neither black or white, some seem to have determined, apart from the church, which side is coirrect. I have closely followed Cardinal Cupich's response to Traditionis Custodes, and it seems to my mind it is in keeping with what the Holy Father desired. Some may not like it, but others might. Some might agree with it, others might not. But he did as the document directed. Even this very thread has brought on such words of bitterness and anger, one has to wonder why anyone would want to become part of such church.


    I would just point out that it's Francis, to whom Cardinal Cupich owes the revival of his career, who restarted all of this, first by constantly throwing barbs, second by issuing the new motu proprio and its egregious accompanying letter to the bishops, one which we're supposed to accept lying down, when the previous legislation and its accompanying letter were widely ignored. When Summorum Pontificum came out, many bishops finally applied Ecclesia Dei adflicta.

    Frankly, I don't care that the Chicago decree reflects what the pope wants, because the pope wants my religion, my sacraments, and to a certain extent my life of prayer to go away, and I assume that a number of people here agree, though I couldn't possibly dare speak for them. The last year has had some effects worse than my experience living through not one, not two, but three lockdowns (admittedly of varying degrees of severity) which were in some respects an unfortunate foreshadowing of what was to come with the motu proprio.

    What Cupich is doing is cruel, and it affects more than just people who attend the traditional Latin liturgy; he doesn't want too much Latin or chant, and he does not like oriented worship, so if you do those three, you will become a target. Is Cupich the cruelest? No, I think that honor goes to the bishop in Costa Rica who suspended a priest over this, followed by a few American bishops who basically have tried to end it all, even with locations that had an indult Mass beginning in 1988, or who have made it very difficult for their new ordinands.

    Given that the diocese of Fréjus-Toulon, including the seminary, is being visited because the bishop Mgr Rey is welcoming to all comers, at least for a period of discernment, as he's established a reputation for orthodoxy and an openness to both tradition and the charismatic movement — he is a member of the Community of the Emmanuel — and he's no longer able to ordain, at least for now, men that he had called to orders and who were supposed to be ordained this month, I think that it's safe to say that this goes far beyond the trads. There's also the archbishop of Toulouse who banned the cassock in the seminary and sent a rather hostile letter to the seminarians saying that they can't sit in choir and wear cassock and surplice outside of the seminary, and this includes deacons (he didn't address how this doesn't conflict with c. 284). Since they are still "laypeople," they should sit with them, in other words, and a priest should be identifiable first by his various qualities, including holiness and the spirit of service… I haven't met all that many normie French priests, but color me unimpressed by both of those when it comes to normie priests who more often than not wear lay clothes, maybe with a small wooden cross. No, the collar isn't everything, and they even have a proverb that goes "The habit does not make the monk." There's a young liberal priest famous on social media who wears a clerical shirt and tab collar, and while I thought he was OK at first, he's since gotten himself into some trouble. But ordinarily, proper clerical means something. It doesn't lose its value as a sign even if the person wearing it is a terrible person.

    To sum it up, these people want to not have a church rather than have the church with the wrong sorts of people in it.
  • On issues that are neither black or white, some seem to have determined, apart from the church, which side is coirrect.


    It is a testament to the confusion of our times that to stand with what the Church has always taught is to set oneself at odds with the Roman Pontiff.

    I have closely followed Cardinal Cupich's response to Traditionis Custodes, and it seems to my mind it is in keeping with what the Holy Father desired.

    While it's clear what Pope Francis wanted to accomplish, it's far from obvious that he actually managed to do so with his own document.

    Some may not like it, but others might. Some might agree with it, others might not.


    The popularity of an idea (in our day and time, or any particular day and time) is not the measure of its catholicity. I'm told that huge percentages of people contracept, but that does not make such action good or evil. It is evil completely independent of what people like or dislike about it.

    When challenged by his accusers to explain how all the great minds of England could be compliant with the king, St. Thomas More replied (and I'm paraphrasing) that the great minds of Christendom beyond this point in time agreed with him, and he would keep his position, thank you very much.

    But he did as the document directed.

    Is "just following orders" enough to justify actions?

    Even this very thread has brought on such words of bitterness and anger,


    It has brought out the anguished cry "How long, O Lord" from people who have endured torment. It has brought out the urgent appeal to refuse to commit an action so demonstrably imprudent as to not need demonstration.


    one has to wonder why anyone would want to become part of such church.

    Obligatory compliance with diktats issued by iconclasts comes slowly among those who care for their own sanity. As to why anyone would want to join "such church", there's a story of a Jewish rabbi ( I think) who became Catholic after he visited Rome because he became convinced that any merely human organization so knavishly run by such venal men would have extinguished itself eons ago.
  • GambaGamba
    Posts: 495
    the bishop Mgr Rey….and he's no longer able to ordain, at least for now, men that he had called to orders and who were supposed to be ordained this month.


    Isn’t that due to the obstinance of said men, who refused to be ordained according to the new ritual, and found a bishop not their own to confer valid but illicit ordination, incurring automatic suspension of their faculties, because they felt it was necessary for “the good of souls”?
    https://www.thetablet.co.uk/news/15502/traditionalist-monk-suspended-following-clandestine-ordination-
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,146
    You're confusing one group of monks in Frejus, who were immediately suspended a divinis by Msgr. Rey, with Msgr. Rey's diocesan seminary: they are two distinct things.
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,773
    I'll say it until I'm blue in the face, Mgr Rey did not "immediately suspend" Alcuin Reid and his confrère. Rather, Reid wrote to Mgr Rey, his legitimate superior as a deacon incardinated in the diocese of Fréjus-Toulon, informing him of the ordinations, and Mgr Rey wrote back. Only after Mgr Rey failed to receive a response in what he considered a timely manner was the suspension declared, because it was incurred ipso facto on April 20 last.

    Also, Alcuin Reid grievously sinned against a number of people in addition to the church and has complicated the possibility of conferring orders in the traditional rite, but if you compare that rite to the new, you'd weep, and you'd be inconsolable if you'd spent the last several years preparing for ordination promised to you in the traditional rite or had devoted yourself to a life centered on the traditional liturgy. You can read the traditional rite in English at Archive.org and the new rite in English here. (PDF) (Apparently this form is now definitively obsolete, with the publication of a new excerpt from the pontifical, but the main thrust is the same.)

    Whatever Alcuin thought was promised to him and whether Mgr Rey ultimately changed his mind or not don't matter in thinking that if you have a vocation, and you can only get ordained once, you should be ordained in the traditional rite; that's the most sensible part of the whole thing, actually. Should one just go find himself a bishop? Absolutely not in the way that Alcuin did. But it's why people join the FSSP, ICRSP, IBP, etc. in the first place!
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • Ronn62353
    Posts: 17
    I'll have one final comment. Under the reigns of St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI, when they extended the permission to celebrate the liturgy using the missal of 1962, there was much rejoicing in some segments of the church, weeping in others. But those documents, together with the document on the translation of liturgical texts in a number of places violated the Tradition, certainly violated norms laid down by the Second Vatican Council, to say nothing of a rather curious take on liturgical history. Yet those things were overlooked. It seems to me that cafeteria Catholics live and work and pray on both sides of the spectrum. Loyalty to the Holy Father and to the Church is not an option we take out only when we like what is being said. Sometimes loyalty to the church involves closing my mouth, swallowing hard, and believing that, even in, what seem like the darkest moments, God is in charge.
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,452
    @Ronn62353
    Vatican II did not ask for us to have one Roman Rite. It did not ask for a new Roman Rite. It is obvious that the New Roman Rite as commonly celebrated around the world to increasingly empty churches is not what Vatican II asked for. Worshiping in the way that countless Catholic have worshiped over a thousand years is not a cafeteria, Choosing a church because of the political views of the parish priest, etc. is.
  • kevinfkevinf
    Posts: 1,148
    @Ronn62353 You did not mention the violations that were made immediately after the VatII council: the abrogation of Latin as the liturgical language, the dismissal of Gregorian chant just to name a few. So it would seem that the very thing you admonish under JPII and Benedict you yourself are doing. I do not disagree that we sometimes do have to keep our mouths closed but I also wish for an accurate reporting of history. As for Cupich et al, the words of Fr.Z are correct: say your prayers, go to confession and try to help each other out. God does have a way of being in charge. I am not worried.
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,773
    Under the reigns of St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI, when they extended the permission to celebrate the liturgy using the missal of 1962, there was much rejoicing in some segments of the church, weeping in others. But those documents, together with the document on the translation of liturgical texts in a number of places violated the Tradition, certainly violated norms laid down by the Second Vatican Council, to say nothing of a rather curious take on liturgical history


    You should at least give examples of your assertions. Matthew Hazell regularly does so every week or even more often, notably on Twitter, where he describes the total rearrangement of the orations of the Mass as well as editing which violated the Consilium's own principals, to say nothing of his threads on how the lectionary came to be. Gregory DiPippo has demolished almost every single myth out there, and if you don't believe him, the Gelasian Sacramentary is available to us in a critical edition and was available to the Consilium as well. They ignored it.
    Thanked by 2tomjaw kevinf
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,155
    "They ignored it" Oh? I thought they used it extensively as a source of cut and paste snippets. That and the other ancient sacramentaries.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,757
    I have heard for years such things as, blessed Maudine of South Snardvark by the Sea had a vision and said, "Holy priest poo stinketh not. Naaaaay, is sin to say it does." Well, priests do have a divine component conferred by Christ, but their human component can stink to high heaven and they are capable of being totally rotten. I don't know the Chicago Cardinal so you will have to make your own determinations about him.

    All that being said, anyone who reads the documents of Vatican II can easily see the Consilium ignored the dictates of the Council and did as it pleased. The pope at the time, whether you accept him as a saint or not, was up to his neck in it. Thus we have what we have today.

    Being eastern, I look at the Roman Rite reforms with a jaundiced eye and have difficulty taking their implementation seriously. Given the Peter Principle at work in Rome these days, I can't see much changing anytime soon. The folks in charge have truly risen through the ranks to their respective levels of incompetence.
  • Charles,

    Remind your readers of the Peter Principle.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,757
    "The Peter principle is a concept in management developed by Laurence J. Peter, which observes that people in a hierarchy tend to rise to "a level of respective incompetence": employees are promoted based on their success in previous jobs until they reach a level at which they are no longer competent, as skills in one job do not necessarily translate to another." Saint Wiki.