A corporal work of mercy.

A corporal work of mercy.
Click on photo for this corporal work of mercy!
Showing posts with label Liturgy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Liturgy. Show all posts

Sunday 17 March 2024

But Jesus Hid Himself

Originally published in 2016.
Today is the Fifth Sunday of Lent which begins Passiontide. If one attends Mass strictly in the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite it is not generally apparent having been done away with as a time within Lent. In the traditional calendar, it is called the First Sunday of the Passion with the colloquial Palm Sunday being the Second Sunday of the Passion. There is a further stripping away of liturgical elements and embellishments which began at Septuagesima, 

From First Vespers last night until the Paschal Vigil, the Gloria Patri is not said after the Asperges on Passion Sunday or the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, Introit, Lavabo, and Communion Antiphonal Psalms. In the Office, it is eliminated from some of the Verses and Short Responsories. Jesus is losing his earthly glory. The readings and psalm antiphons reflect this in the Mass and Office. Those who hate him are now plentiful, as plentiful now, as when he walked. Those who seek his death are now coming to the fore. Those who seek the death of His Church are coming to the fore and are also within Her. Lent now takes a change in focus; -- while our penance continues, we now shift towards the passion of Our Blessed Lord and his saving work of redemption.

Abbot Gueranger writes:
"During the preceding four weeks, we have noticed how the malice of Jesus' enemies has been gradually increasing. His very presence irritates them; and it is evident that any little circumstance will suffice to bring the deep and long-nurtured hatred to a head."
His passion then has begun. His glory, as at Mount Tabor, is no longer apparent.

There is one element that remains in the modernist liturgy depending on the parish's own tradition. While it was once obligatory it is now optional and that is the veiling of the Crucifix and statues, though not Stations of the Cross or the imagery in windows. 

Veiling of ImagesBut why? From whence does this tradition come? 

It is thought to have begun around the 9th century in Germany. When Lent began (which in most languages is a derivative of Quadregesimae, the Latin for forty days), a cloth called a hungertuch, or hunger cloth, was used to cover the altar. It was removed on the Tuesday of Holy Week during the reading of the Passion according to St. Mark when “The curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom.” The Gospels in the three-year cycle in the New Lectionary do not reflect the symbolism and beauty of Passiontide and the veiling. They are all from St. John’s Gospel and are in sequence – “I am the Resurrection and the Life;” … “If a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it bears much fruit;” and, “He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.”

The change from the one-year Lectionary, in place from St. Gregory the Great, was a grievous error. The desires of the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council could have been achieved without the assault on the whole Church tradition of readings. A Lesson could have been added to the Sunday liturgy. Weekdays could have had their own Mass texts whilst still acknowledging the Sanctoral cycle. Interestingly, the Advent readings in the new Lectionary are beautiful and are the one thing that perhaps, one day, be inserted into the old Lectionary.  could have had its own lectionary as in Lent in the traditional rite. The three-year Lectionary remains a problem. Mass is not a bible study and what is lost in the reading below is quite profound, as you will soon comprehend.

For the Mass on the Fifth Sunday of Lent according to the ancient use Roman Missal, the Gospel for no less than 1600 years until 1969 has been the following and it explains the veiling and why they killed Him.

GOSPEL ¤ John 8. 46-59 † A continuation of the holy Gospel according to St. John.
At that time Jesus said to the multitudes of the Jews: Which of you shall convince Me of sin? If I say the truth to you, why do you not believe Me? He that is of God heareth the words of God. Therefore you hear them not, because you are not of God. The Jews therefore answered and said to Him: Do not we say well, that Thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil? Jesus answered: I have not a devil: but I honor My Father, and you have dishonored Me. But I seek not My own glory: there is One that seeketh and judgeth. Amen, amen, I say to you: If any man keep My word, he shall not see death for ever. The Jews therefore said: Now we know that Thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the Prophets: and Thou sayest: If any man keep My word, he shall not taste death for ever. Art Thou greater than our father Abraham, who is dead? and the prophets are dead. Whom dost Thou make Thyself? Jesus answered: If I glorify Myself, My glory is nothing: it is My Father that glorifieth Me, of whom you say that He is your God, and you have not known Him: but I know Him: and if I shall say that I know Him not, I shall be like to you, a liar. But I do know Him, and do keep His word. Abraham your father rejoiced that he might see My day: he saw it and was glad. The Jews therefore said to Him: Thou art not yet fifty years old: and hast Thou seen Abraham? Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham was made, I am. They took up stones therefore to cast at Him: but Jesus hid Himself, and went out of the temple.

“But Jesus hid Himself.”

St. Augustine said that at this moment by virtue of His divine nature, Jesus became literally invisible.
“He hides not himself in a corner of the temple as if afraid or running into a cottage or turning aside behind a wall or column; but by His Divine Power making Himself invisible he passed through their midst.”

In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, we read the following:
205 God calls Moses from the midst of a bush that burns without being consumed: "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob."9 God is the God of the fathers, the One who had called and guided the patriarchs in their wanderings. He is the faithful and compassionate God who remembers them and his promises; he comes to free their descendants from slavery. He is the God who, from beyond space and time, can do this and wills to do it, the God who will put his almighty power to work for this plan.
"I Am who Am"
Moses said to God, "If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you', and they ask me, 'What is his name?' what shall I say to them?" God said to Moses, "I AM WHO AM." And he said, "Say this to the people of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you'. . . this is my name for ever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations."

Moses and the Burning Bush DBouts.jpg

CCC 206 In revealing his mysterious name, YHWH ("I AM HE WHO IS", "I AM WHO AM" or "I AM WHO I AM"), God says who he is and by what name he is to be called. This divine name is mysterious just as God is mystery. It is at once a name revealed and something like the refusal of a name, and hence it better expresses God as what he is - infinitely above everything that we can understand or say: he is the "hidden God", his name is ineffable, and he is the God who makes himself close to men.
CCC 207 By revealing his name God at the same time reveals his faithfulness which is from everlasting to everlasting, valid for the past ("I am the God of your father"), as for the future ("I will be with you").12 God, who reveals his name as "I AM", reveals himself as the God who is always there, present to his people in order to save them.
CCC 208 Faced with God's fascinating and mysterious presence, man discovers his own insignificance. Before the burning bush, Moses takes off his sandals and veils his face in the presence of God's holiness.13 Before the glory of the thrice-holy God, Isaiah cries out: "Woe is me! I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips."14 Before the divine signs wrought by Jesus, Peter exclaims: "Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord."15 But because God is holy, he can forgive the man who realizes that he is a sinner before him: "I will not execute my fierce anger. . . for I am God and not man, the Holy One in your midst."16 The apostle John says likewise: "We shall. . . reassure our hearts before him whenever our hearts condemn us; for God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything."

Jesus revealed to the Temple authorities, the leadership of Israel, who He was. He knew Abraham and did so in such a way that they would know with absolute clarity who He was. He had done it before, seven times.

1. I Am the Bread of Life: (John 6). 

2. I Am the Light of the World: (John 8). 

3. I Am the Gate of the Sheepfold: (John 10). 

4. I Am the Good Shepherd: (John 10). 

5. I Am the Resurrection and the Life: (John 11). 

6. I Am the Way, Truth, and Life: (John 14). 

7. I Am the True Vine: (John 15).

Note that Jesus, when the Jews questioned his age and Abraham, he did not say, "Before Abraham was made, I was made." Had he said this, they would have just thought him delusional. Rather, He said, "Before Abraham was made, I AM." They knew exactly what He meant. 

Now, he is hidden in our churches and chapels only to be unveiled when we recall His Crucifixion -- "Ecce lignum Crucis," -- "Behold the wood of the Cross on which hung the Saviour of the world, come let us adore him." If we hide Him we cannot abide the glory of His saints, therefore, they are also hidden. Christ is shamed. He is humiliated by those whom he came to save. The Jewish "deep state" betrayed Him, and we continue to betray Him today.

He declared Himself before all Israel to be the I AM of the Burning Bush; and for this, they would kill Him. They knew what He said, they knew what He meant. He confessed to them that he was the very Son of God, the very God Himself come to earth.

In the sermon below from 1846, we find an incredible dissertation on Jesus hiding Himself.  
It is a sermon by an Anglican, but one would be hard-pressed to find a better sermon or homily said today on the subject from a typical Catholic pulpit. This was a period that led Saint John-Henry Newman home.

Would that we could hear preaching like this today.


Vox.

+ + +

SERMONS FOR SUNDAYS AND OTHER LITURGICAL OCCASIONS

CONTRIBUTED BY
BISHOPS AND OTHER CLERGY OF THE CHURCH.
EDITED BY THE REV. ALEXANDER WATSON, M.A., 
CURATE OF ST. JOHN'S, CHELTENHAM.
Second Series.  VOL. I.
OXFORD: J. H. PARKER. CAMBRIDGE: T. GREEN.
MDCCCXLVI. (1846)

Then took they up stones to cast at Him."

Thus are we brought down from the whole Gospel for the day to that portion of it which will engage our chief attention during the brief remainder of this morning's service. "But Jesus hid Himself, and went out of the Temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by."

1. Jesus "hid Himself," as man, in prudence: according to the will of His Heavenly Father. As He had been born in "the fullness of time," so it was at an appointed hour that He was to die. But "His hour was not yet come ": and He therefore avoided whatever might unduly quicken the course of events, or put forward the grand horologe of time. And this He did in obedience to the Will of His Heavenly Father. This obedience was the mainspring of His conduct throughout His earthly sojourn. "Lo I come to do Thy will, O God," was His motto from first to last; and never was it more fully translated into action than in all He did with regard to His final suffering and departure.

When that hour of mingled humiliation and glory, which compressed eternal interests within the compass of a few passing minutes; when that everlasting hour arrived, the holy and obedient Jesus yielded Himself at once into the power of His enemies. Thus, when Satan had entered into Judas Iscariot, Jesus said to the traitor, "What thou doest, do quickly." When Judas came to Him in the garden with men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, "Jesus, knowing all things that should come upon Him, went forth and said unto them, Whom seek ye? They answered Him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus said unto them, I am He." And when the impetuous Peter—the first to defend, the first to deny his Master—drew his sword and cut oft" the right ear of Malchus, the High Priest's servant, "then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He shall presently give Me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?" When Pilate would fain have released Him, and sought for some pretext for so doing in the replies of Jesus to his interrogatories, "Jesus gave him no answer." And at the last, when He saw that all was "finished,"—prophecy fulfilled, types realised, the preparations for His sacrificial Death complete, His Father's will wrought out,—He bowed His head, and gave up the ghost."

But until the arrival of that hour, His conduct was marked throughout by unexampled prudence. While He wrought His miracles before the multitude, and taught openly in the Temple, and in secret did nothing; while He boldly confuted and reproved the Pharisee, the Sadducee, and the Herodian, regardless of the enmity He thereby incurred; He carefully shunned the precipitation of His end. He had a mission of vast pregnancy and moment to discharge; and until this was done, He would not lay down that life which the Father had put into His power. Whenever danger became imminent, He withdrew Himself from the presence of those who sought to lay hands on Him and destroy Him. Thus, on the occasion immediately before us, when the infuriated Jews took up stones to cast at Him, "Jesus hid Himself, and went out of the Temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by." 

On a previous occasion, when the Pharisees held a council how they might destroy Him, Jesus “withdrew Himself from thence." On a subsequent occasion, similar to that of the text, when the Jews again sought to take Him, "he escaped out of their hand, and went away again beyond Jordan." When the Sanhedrim, after the official prophecy of the unconscious Caiaphas, took counsel together to put Him to death, "Jesus walked no more openly among the Jews; but went thence unto a country near to the wilderness, into a city called Ephraim, and there continued with His disciples." Thus, throughout His whole earthly career, our Blessed Lord exercised a prudence of the highest order; enforcing by His own example the precepts He gave to His first disciples: "Be ye wise as serpents, and harmless as doves ;"—" When they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another ." And these precepts, supported by this supreme example, and adapted to the exigencies of Christians at the present day, apply also to us. "As men may not be too tenacious, so neither may they be too profuse and lavish of life and the comforts of it," says Dean Stanhope; "lest, besides their present hardships, they find at last an indiscreet zeal returned, with a 'Who hath required these things at your hands?' Love indeed is apt and desirous to give over-measure, where it can: but still this must not be the effect of passion alone. Prudence should temper and direct it." 

"It is an office of prudence," says Bishop Taylor, "to serve God So that we may at the same time preserve our lives and our estates, our interest and reputation, for ourselves and our relations, so far as they can consist together. For Christian religion, carrying us to heaven, does it by the ways of a man; and by the body it serves the soul, as by the soul it serves God; and therefore it endeavours to secure the body and its interest, that it may continue the opportunities of a crown, and prolong the stage in which we are to run for the mighty prize of our salvation; and this is that part of prudence which is the defensative and guard of a Christian in the time of persecution: and it hath in it much of duty."

Thus far we have endeavoured to consider the conduct of our Blessed Lord, on the occasion under review, on its human side; as an exhibition of prudence and discretion. But it has a sublimer aspect than this; to which we now with reverence will turn.

Jesus “hid Himself," as God, in majesty; the majesty of displeasure. "He did not hide Himself," says St. Augustine, "in a corner of the Temple, as if He were afraid; or take refuge in a house, or run behind a wall, or a pillar; but, by His heavenly power making Himself invisible to His enemies, He went through the midst of them." Just before, He had said, "Before Abraham was I Am"; with evident reference to the Name revealed by the Lord to Moses, as recorded in the First Lesson for this morning's service; when He appeared to him in the burning but unconsumed bush, as he was keeping the flock of Jethro, the Priest of Midian, near the base of Mount Horeb. On that occasion, when Moses would have drawn nigh to see that great sight, the Lord forbad his nearer approach, and commanded him to unsandal his feet, because they were standing on holy ground. He, who required this reverence towards an inferior manifestation of Himself, would not permit the rude hand of violence to invade His incarnate glory. He "hid Himself" in the secret depths of His invisible Godhead.

There is, doubtless, a mystery in this; and we cannot fully understand why He, who submitted on so many occasions to endure the contradiction of sinners against Himself, refused on other occasions to undergo the indignities that wicked hands would have put upon Him. But a like mystery invested the whole of His earthly career. The darkest shades of humiliation were never permitted altogether to obscure His glory; while yet, that glory was so far hidden, that men despised Him and esteemed Him not. Great, however, as was the mystery of His commingling of glory and shame, the mystery of the manifestation of His glory alone was greater. He might have flashed forth devouring lightnings from the dark and surcharged cloud. He might have kindled into supernatural and overwhelming brightness the splendours of His Divine and resistless Presence. But He did none of these things. He manifested forth His glory by hiding Himself. When the Lord, in the days of old, would preserve righteous Lot and His prophet Elisha from the hand of violence, He smote their enemies with blindness; and so He might have done on this occasion: but, as the threatened indignity was greater, so was the punishment wherewith He visited it. "He hid Himself."

Awful are the exhibitions of Divine glory, when the Lord is raised up out of His holy habitation, and comes forth from His unseen depths to punish the ungodly. But these are as nothing when compared with the hidings of His face. When the Lord would denounce the severest judgments against Israel of old, He said to Moses, "Mine anger shall be kindled against them in that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide My face from them, and they shall be devoured, and many evils and troubles shall befall them; so that they will say in that day, Are not these evils come upon us, because our God is not among us?" And when, on the other hand, He would confer upon His repentant people the greatest possible blessing, He said by the mouth of Ezekiel, "Neither will I hide My face from them any more: for I have poured out My Spirit upon the house of Israel."

The hidings of Jesus, in the days of His flesh, were yet more majestic and awful. He came into the world for the express purpose, among others, of manifesting the glory and the grace of God: so that to hide Himself was, as it were, to revoke His mission with regard to those from whom He thus withdrew. He abandoned them to the evil of their own hardened and unbelieving hearts, and left them to be filled with their own ways.

It is impossible to conceive anything more dreadful than the condition of the man from whom Jesus has hid Himself. Such a man sinks at once into a state of moral stupidity: he sins on without aim or purpose. Until Jesus hid Himself, the unbelieving Jews had an object against which to direct their malignant attacks; but when He could be no longer seen, their malice, though as virulent as ever, became wholly impotent and senseless. And so, when Jesus hides Himself from sinners of the present day,—who insult His majesty because it is concealed to the-eye of sense or mere reason (though not to the eye of faith), beneath mean and simple accidents,—He leaves them to perish as brute beasts. The force of argument and moral suasion having been tried upon them in vain, together with all other manifestations of the true and holy Jesus, He will no longer expose Himself to the rash temerity and blinded insolence of their invasions, but hides Himself, going through the midst of them, and so passes by.

The abstract contemplation of such a subject is too awful for man to dwell upon at any length; and we will therefore now consider it, (so hastening to a conclusion,) under its practical aspects and bearings.

But is it possible, men may ask, for persons at the present day to commit acts of insult and injury towards the Divine Jesus, akin to that of the blaspheming Jews when they took up stones to cast at Him? Alas, it is but too possible. "Certainly we cannot commit such open blasphemy; but it is another matter whether we cannot commit as great. For, often sins are greater, which are less startling; insults more bitter, which are not so loud; and evils deeper, which are more subtle." Although Christ is no longer on earth in bodily presence, He is here by His Spirit: and it is quite possible for men to repeat the offence of the blaspheming Jews by casting stones, so to speak, against either the Church, which is His Body; or the Sacraments, which are His Presence; or the Poor, who are His Brethren.

The Church is the Body of Christ, "the fullness of Him That filleth all in all:" and they who resist or blaspheme or persecute Her, do in effect resist and blaspheme and persecute Him. And such are not only, nor even chiefly, the openly wicked and profane; whose offences are of a different description: but those who deny the Divine authority of the Church, rejecting her principles for the opinions of men and the maxims of the world; those who deny her Apostolicity, treating her as a merely human and secular institution; those who invade her constitution, legislating for her on grounds of political expediency, and not according to the laws of Christ. "Verily, I say unto you, they have their reward." They refuse to acknowledge the Body of Christ in His corporate members; and He hides it from them. They are no longer permitted to behold the tokens of her presence. She becomes to them what they would have her be. In their eyes she has no form nor comeliness, although she is all-glorious within. But with these hidings of her beauty and this withdrawal of her presence, there comes not only an apparent abdication of her authority; leaving men to live as they list, according to the broad measures of the world, instead of the straight and narrow lines of eternity: but also the utter loss of her intercession and benediction. She no longer stands between the living and the dead. A silent curse spreads over the land she has abandoned to itself. The rulers have forsaken Christ, and Christ has forsaken them. The people would have it so, and their house is left unto them desolate.

"Be wise now, therefore, O ye kings:
Be learned, ye that judges of the earth.
Kiss the Son, lest He be angry,
And so ye perish from the right way,
If His wrath be kindled, yea but a little.
Blessed are all they that put their trust in Him."

Again, the Sacraments are the Presence of Christ. In the Sacrament of Holy Baptism, He is present by His Spirit, Who, in answer to the prayers of the congregation, is given by our Heavenly Father to infants, when baptized, that they may be born again and be made heirs of everlasting salvation. In the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, He is really and spiritually present, being taken and received by the faithful as their heavenly food and divine life. 

Whoever, therefore, despises the Sacraments, despises Christ. Whoever denies their saving power, denies the Presence of the Saviour in them. Whoever in effect casts stones at these, as by cavils or contumely or neglect, does in reality thus cast stones at Christ. And then does the Son of God hide Himself from them in the majesty of displeasure; and Sacraments become to these persons what, in their rationalistic unbelief, they would have them be. 

Baptism, when administered by schismatics and pretenders to Holy Orders, fails to regenerate; and their own theory, that Baptism admits only to an outward union with a nominal church, is, in their own case, verified. The Communion is reduced to a formal commemoration of an absent Saviour. In both cases, as regards their own mere outward show of Sacraments, they are right. They have taken up stones to cast at the spiritually-present Jesus; and He has hidden Himself, going through the midst of them, and so passing by.

Lastly: the Poor are the Brethren of Jesus. They are so even in respect of their mere poverty; although it must not be concealed that the poor man who is a wilful sinner is severed from this communion and fellowship. But he, who is at once poor in this world and poor in spirit, is united by the closest bonds to the lowly Son of Mary. This is strikingly shown in the parable of the Sheep and the Goats, wherein the Judge declares that whatsoever is done unto the least of the Hungry, the Thirsty, the Stranger, the Naked, the Sick, the Imprisoned,—being "the poor of this world," but " rich in faith and heirs of the Kingdom," —is done unto Himself. Now, we all know how apt men are to "despise the poor." "There are kinds of distress founded on the passions, which, if not applauded, are at least admired in their excess, as implying a peculiar refinement of sensibility in the mind of the sufferer. 

Embellished by taste, and wrought by the magic of genius into innumerable forms, they turn grief into a luxury, and draw from the eyes of millions delicious tears. But no muse ever ventured to adorn the distresses of poverty or the sorrows of hunger. Disgusting taste and delicacy, and presenting nothing pleasing to the imagination, they are mere misery in all its nakedness and deformity." And therefore the many "despise the Poor." But in so doing, they despise Christ; and what is their punishment in consequence? Jesus might rend aside the veil of His humanity, and reveal Himself as God. He might put off the sordid dress of poverty, and clothe Himself with light as with a garment. But He inflicts a severer punishment than this—He hides Himself. The Poor no longer visibly bear upon them "the marks of the Lord Jesus "; and secular legislation, at once blind and self-confident, sets itself to relieve their distress by increasing their degradation. It brands the Poor Man as a Pauper, and consigns him to contempt and shame. Jesus has hidden Himself in majestic displeasure: and men of the world little dream that He will reveal Himself again at the Last Day, and avenge the cause of the poor and the oppressed!

"Oh, how much are they to be pitied, in whatever sphere they move, who live to themselves, unmindful of the coming of their Lord. When He shall come, and shall not keep silence; when a fire shall devour before Him, and it shall be very tempestuous round about Him; every thing, it is true, will combine to fill them with consternation: yet, methinks, neither the voice of the Archangel, nor the trump of God, nor the dissolution of the elements, nor the face of the Judge itself, from which the heavens will flee away, will be so dismaying and terrible to these men as the sight of the poor members of Christ; whom, having spurned and neglected in the days of their humiliation, they will then behold with amazement united to their Lord, covered with His glory, and seated on His throne! How will they be astonished to see them surrounded with so much majesty! How will they cast down their eyes in their presence! How will they curse that gold, which will then eat their flesh as with fire, and that avarice, that indolence, that voluptuousness, which will entitle them to so much misery! You will then learn that the imitation of Christ is the only wisdom: you will then be convinced it is better to be endeared to the cottage than admired in the palace; when to have wiped the tears of the afflicted, and inherited the prayers of the widow and the fatherless, shall be found a richer patrimony than the favour of princes."

H. H.

Wednesday 29 June 2022

Delirious Dichotomy - the profound liturgical wisdom of Francis

 An Apostolic Letter was issued in Rome today by Pope Francis. A Jesuit has commented formally on the liturgy. The last time I was at Mass celebrated by a Jesuit, everything had changed but the bread and wine. In Toronto, we are blest to have a Jesuit pastored parish, Our Lady of Lourdes.



The document urges proper liturgical formation. I can agree with that.

 

Let's see. Pope Francis would like proper liturgical formation.

Can we begin with Sacrosanctam Concilium?

Chirograph on Sacred Music?

Redemptionis Sacramentum?

How about the General Instruction on the Roman Missal?

Please, spare me, Jorge.

As for this, your "intention" will mean nothing. Nor, will you live long enough. Your attempt to tear the Church apart over this will fail. You will not stop It. Who thought at Easter or a year ago or a decade ago that we would see Roe vs. Wade collapse so quickly? The same will happen to the false church dwelling within the Bride of Christ. 


For more information, Father Zuhlsdorf has explored the shallow depths of the mind of Francis and his ghostwriters.

https://wdtprs.com/2022/06/francis-new-desiderium-desideravi-an-apostolic-letter-on-the-liturgical-formation-of-the-people-of-god-an-attempt-to-explain-traditionis-custodes-to-calm-the-storm/

Tuesday 10 May 2022

Bergoglio's continued attack on Catholics and the liturgy

The bombastic pompous pontificating Bergoglio has laid another attack on faithful Catholics and the holy liturgy accusing those who follow the traditional rites to be doing the work of the "devil" and fostering division. He opines on Sacrosanctam Concilium which, if one reads it, is not the Novus Ordo liturgy. He is a liar. It stated that "Latin" is the language of the liturgy. "Gregorian chant has pride of place." That the people must be taught to "sing in Latin those parts of the Mass pertaining to them." It called for no major changes. He is a liar. He whines about his experiences with the communion fast and how many readings for the Holy Saturday/Easter Vigil liturgy.

Where is Pinocchio in Sacrosanctam Concilium?

 

Stinking hypocrite! Sheer poppycock and psychological projection.

The only division is coming from this Argentinian boil on the literal seat of Peter. It's a boil long passed being lanced - an infection that is filled with the Sulphur from the devil he accuses the rest of us of following.

Mark Lambert details the "gaslighting" of this evil clown.

https://marklambert.blogspot.com/2022/05/pope-francis-gaslighting-pope-attacking.html

The man does not edify, build-up or bring peace. He is a nasty, mean, abusive bully raging at the little people who only desire liturgical peace and prayer and a happy life and to worship God the way their ancestors before 1965 did!

"May his days be shortened and another his bishopric take!" 




Dear brothers and sisters, good morning and welcome!

Thank you, Father Abbot Primate, for your introduction. Italian has improved! That is fine. I greet the Father Rector, the Father Dean, the Professors, and all of you, dear students and former students of the Pontifical Liturgical Institute.

I am happy to receive you on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of its foundation. It came as a response to the growing need of the People of God to live and participate more intensely in the liturgical life of the Church; a requirement that found illuminating verification in the Second Vatican Council with the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium. By now, your institution's dedication to the study of the liturgy is well recognized. Experts trained in your halls promote the liturgical life of many dioceses, in very different cultural contexts.

Three dimensions clearly emerge from the conciliar drive for the renewal of liturgical life. The first is active and fruitful participation in the liturgy; the second is ecclesial communion animated by the celebration of the Eucharist and the sacraments of the Church; and the third is the impulse to the evangelizing mission starting from the liturgical life that involves all the baptized. The Pontifical Liturgical Institute is at the service of this triple need.

First of all, formation to live and promote active participation in the liturgical life. The in-depth and scientific study of the Liturgy must encourage you to favor, as the Council wished, this fundamental dimension of Christian life. The key here is to educate people to get into the spirit of the liturgy. And to know how to do it, it is necessary to be impregnated with this spirit. I would like to say that this should happen to Sant’Anselmo: to become imbued with the spirit of the liturgy, to feel its mystery, with ever new amazement. The liturgy is not possessed, no, it is not a profession: the liturgy is learned, the liturgy is celebrated. To arrive at this attitude of celebrating the liturgy. And one participates actively only to the extent that one enters this spirit of celebration. It is not a question of rites, it is the mystery of Christ, who once and for all revealed and fulfilled the sacred, the sacrifice and the priesthood. Worship in spirit and truth. All this, in your Institute, must be meditated upon, assimilated, I would say "breathed". At the school of the Scriptures, the Fathers, the Tradition, the Saints. Only in this way can participation be translated into a greater sense of the Church, which makes us live evangelically in every time and in every circumstance. And this attitude of celebrating also suffers temptations. On this I would like to underline the danger, the temptation of liturgical formalism: to go after forms, formalities rather than reality, as we see today in those movements that try to go back a little and deny the Second Vatican Council itself. Then the celebration is recitation, it is a thing without life, without joy.

Your dedication to liturgical study, on the part of both professors and students, also makes you grow in ecclesial communion. The liturgical life, in fact, opens us to the other, to the closest and most distant from the Church, in the common belonging to Christ. Giving glory to God in the liturgy finds its confirmation in love of neighbor, in the commitment to live as brothers in everyday situations, in the community in which I find myself, with its strengths and limitations. This is the path of true sanctification. Therefore, the formation of the People of God is a fundamental task for living a fully ecclesial liturgical life.

And the third aspect. Every liturgical celebration always ends with the mission. What we live and celebrate leads us to go out to meet others, to meet the world around us, to meet the joys and needs of many who perhaps live without knowing the gift of God. Genuine liturgical life, especially the Eucharist, pushes us always to charity, which is above all openness and attention to the other. This attitude always begins and is founded in prayer, especially in liturgical prayer. And this dimension also opens us to dialogue, to encounter, to the ecumenical spirit, to welcome.

I dwelt briefly on these three fundamental dimensions. I emphasize again that the liturgical life, and the study of it, must lead to greater ecclesial unity, not to division. When liturgical life is a bit of a banner of division, there is the smell of the devil in there, the deceiver. It is not possible to worship God and at the same time make the liturgy a battlefield for issues that are not essential, indeed, for outdated issues and to take a stand, starting with the liturgy, with ideologies that divide the Church. The Gospel and the Church's Tradition call us to be firmly united on the essential, and to share legitimate differences in the harmony of the Spirit. Therefore the Council wished to prepare abundantly the table of the Word of God and of the Eucharist, to make possible the presence of God in the midst of his People. Thus the Church, through liturgical prayer, prolongs the work of Christ in the midst of men and women of all times, and also in the midst of creation, dispensing the grace of his sacramental presence. The liturgy must be studied while remaining faithful to this mystery of the Church.

It is true that every reform creates resistance. I remember, I was a boy, when Pius XII began with the first liturgical reform, the first: you can drink water before communion, fast for an hour ... "But this is against the holiness of the Eucharist!" dress up. Then, the evening Mass: “But, why, the Mass is in the morning!”. Then, the reform of the Easter Triduum: "But how, the Lord must rise again on Saturday, now they send him back to Sunday, Saturday evening, Sunday does not ring the bells ... And where do the twelve prophecies go?". All these things scandalized closed minds. It also happens today. Indeed, these closed mindsets use liturgical schemes to defend their point of view. Using the liturgy: this is the drama we are experiencing in ecclesial groups that distance themselves from the Church, question the Council, the authority of the bishops ..., to preserve tradition. And the liturgy is used for this.

The challenges of our world and of the present moment are very strong. Today, as always, the Church needs to live by the liturgy. The Council Fathers did a great job to make it so. We must continue this task of forming the liturgy in order to be formed by the liturgy. The Holy Virgin Mary together with the Apostles prayed, broke the Bread and lived charity with everyone. Through their intercession, the liturgy of the Church makes this model of Christian life present today and always.

I thank you for the service you render to the Church and I encourage you to carry it forward in the joy of the Spirit. I bless you from my heart. And I ask you to please pray for me. Thanks.

             

Tuesday 10 December 2019

Octave of the Immaculate Conception continues


In the liturgical cycle of the Roman liturgy before the destruction which began in 1955, this time now after December 8 was known as the Octave of the Immaculate Conception. You can follow this link, http://divinumofficium.com/cgi-bin/horas/officium.pl# which is also on a tab above to find out more about today and the different versions of the Divine Office, not including the new deformed and debased, Liturgy of the Hours wherein Pope Montini even had the temerity to write, "In this new arrangement of the psalms a few of the psalms and verses that are somewhat harsh in tone have been omitted, especially because of the difficulties anticipated from their use in vernacular celebration."

Because Pope Giovanni Battisti Montini knew better than the King David, the Prophet and God himself.

Leaving you to research as you will, I do wish to post the Readings of the Third Nocturne from St. Bernard of Clariveaux on Mary as the new Eve. May they enrich your day.



Reading 7
From the Holy Gospel according to Luke
Luke 1:26-28
In that time the angel Gabriel was sent from God into a city of Galilee, called Nazareth, To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. And so on.

Homily by St. Bernard, Abbot of Clairvaux.
2nd on this text.
Rejoice, father Adam, and yet more thou mother Eve, ye that are the source of all, and the ruin of all, and the unhappy cause of their ruin before ye gave them birth. Be comforted both in your daughter, and such a daughter; but chiefly thou, O woman, of whom the first evil came, and who hast cast thy slur upon all women. The time is come for the slur to be taken away, and for the man to have nothing to say against the woman. At the first, when he unwisely began to make excuse, he scrupled not to throw the blame upon her, saying, The woman whom Thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat. Wherefore, O Eve, betake thyself to Mary Mother, betake thyself to thy daughter let the daughter answer for the mother let her take away her mother's reproach; let her make up to her father for her mother's fault for if man be fallen by means of woman, it is by means of woman that he is raised up again.
V. But thou, O Lord, have mercy upon us.
R. Thanks be to God.

R. A garden enclosed is my sister, my spouse, a garden enclosed, a fountain sealed.
* O Mary, thy perfumes are a garden of delights.
V. Open to me, my sister, my love, my dove, my undefiled.
R. O Mary, thy perfumes are a garden of delights.

V. Grant, Lord, a blessing.
Benediction. She whose feast-day we are keeping, Mary, blessed Maid of Maidens, be our Advocate with God. Amen.

Reading 8
What didst thou say, O Adam? The woman whom Thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat. These are wrathful words, by the which thou dost rather magnify than diminish thine offence. Nevertheless, Wisdom hath defeated thy malice. God asked thee that He might find in thee an occasion of pardon, but, in that He found it not, He hath sought and found it in the Treasure of His Own mercy. One woman answereth for another; the wise for the foolish; the lowly for the proud; for her that gave thee of the tree of death, another that giveth thee to taste of the tree of life; for her that brought thee the bitter food of sin, another that giveth thee of the sweet fruits of righteousness. Wherefore accuse the woman no more, but speak in thanksgiving, and say, Lord, the woman whom Thou hast given me, she hath given me of the tree of life, and I have eaten; and it is in my mouth sweeter than honey, for thereby hast Thou quickened me. (Ps. cxviii. 103, 93.) Behold, it was for this that the angel Gabriel was sent to the Virgin, to the most worshipful of women, a woman more wonderful than all women, the restorer of them that went before, and the quickener of them that come after her.
V. But thou, O Lord, have mercy upon us.
R. Thanks be to God.

R. My soul doth magnify the Lord;
* For He That is mighty hath done to me great things, and holy is His name.
V. For, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
R. For He That is mighty hath done to me great things, and holy is His name.
V. Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, * and to the Holy Ghost.
R. For He That is mighty hath done to me great things, and holy is His name.

V. Grant, Lord, a blessing.
Benediction. May He that is the Angels' King to that high realm His people bring. Amen.

Reading 9
Has it not of this thy daughter, O Adam, that God spake when He said unto the serpent, I will put enmity between thee and the woman And if thou wilt still doubt that He speaketh of Mary, hear what followeth She shall bruise thy head. Who won this conquest but Mary? She brought to nought the whole wiles of Satan, whether for the pollution of her body or the injury of her soul. Was it not of her that Solomon spake, where he saith, Who shall find a virtuous woman? (Prov. xxxi. 10.) The wise man knew the weaknesses of women, how frail they are in body, and how changeable in mind. But he had read that God had promised that the enemy, who had prevailed by means of a woman, was by a woman to be overthrown, and he believed. But he wondered greatly, and said, Who shall find a virtuous woman? that is to say If our salvation, and the bringing back of that which is lost, and the final triumph over the enemy, is in the hand of a woman, it must needs be that a virtuous woman be found, meet to work in that matter
V. But thou, O Lord, have mercy upon us.
R. Thanks be to 


Monday 25 November 2019

Fifty years of Novus Ordo garbage

Two week ago, I attended my first Novus Ordo Mass in over two years. A friend was being ordained to the transitional diaconate. I could have done without the serviettes in the sanctuary and the Cardinal's jokes, but other than that, it was tolerable.

When I think back to my childhood and my memories of Mass, I can recall in my mind's eye, six candles lit on the altar at the principal Mass which we always attended (there were maybe five in total) and maybe the Kyrie and Sanctus were sung, but that was it. It was a essentially a Read, or Low Mass with some music sprinkled here and there. Everyone knelt all the time and some had hand missals, my parents certainly did. One Sunday, there was a plywood table covered in one cloth and two stubby candles in the sanctuary and poor Father Michael Carroll, a good and saintly man, looked totally flummoxed. I can remember my mother saying, "Well, this is Vatican II." She didn't like it. That was 1965 and I was nine years old. Two years later, at the first class for the new crop of Altar Boys, we were told, "Congratulations Boys, you're the first class that does not need to learn Latin!"

southern orders : WAS THIS MASS BY BLESSED POPE PAUL VI ...

This was the interim 1965 Missal which was the already slimmed down 1962 but in the vernacular up to the Offertory from then on, it was still Latin. The Prayers at the Foot of the Altar were shortened as in the Requiem, without the Judica Me and could be eliminated if one did the Asperges. The Epistle could be read by a layman (man!), there were fewer genuflections and crosses by the priest, the priest now said, "The Body of Christ" and we responded, "Amen" and the Last Gospel was gone. From there it was downhill. By 1967, Latin was gone, the music was atrocious and every week there was something new. We were told this was the New Mass. We did not know we were yet to get a New, New Mass.

By the time November 30, 1969 came, nobody really noticed. There were so many innovations from 1967 on that it was brought in my stealth. The only difference were the readings and some new "Eucharistic Prayers." The chaos blinded us all.

Nobody asked for this - the laity did not demand it.

If there was a problem, it was the ever-present Sunday and Feast Day Read or Low Mass, but that is for a different post and maybe a series.


The Novus Ordo liturgy of Montini has been a disaster for the faith. There is not one thing good which can be said about it but if you can try, please do, in the combox. 

Please dear reader, abandon it, if you can. Find the traditional Mass, diocesan, FSSP. ICRSS, SSPX, drive as far as you must.

And read this and note the quotes from the alleged Saint, Montini, and tell me you don't here Bergoglio!


http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2019/11/paul-vis-contempt-for-catholics-who-did.html





Sunday 17 February 2019

Septuagesima

Today is Septuagesima Sunday, the "pre-Lent" season, banished within the Novus Ordo world. As a Cantor for the Novus Ordo I would check the "Ordo" frequently of course and found it humourous that on the three Sundays prior to Lent, the priest was encouraged to remind the faithful that Lent was coming. How silly. It was to be abolished! Yet, it was if it was screaming to be known.

With today, or last night's Vespers to be accurate, the Time After Epiphany has left us, a long one this year, short by one Sunday of as long as it could be. The colour is Violet, the Gloria is gone (except on certain feasts), the Alleluia is no more, substituted with the Tract. It is a time of preparation and contemplation for the real season of preparation for Easter. Another unnecessary loss for those stuck in Ordinary Time, as if the Church seasons could ever by, "Ordinary."

It is time to get what is left of that Christmas cake and candy and chocolate eaten up. It is time to prepare for Lent.


If we resolve to keep Lent as strictly as we can, we have the right to enjoy ourselves for the next couple of weeks.
Like it or not, Christmas has left us. In the Ordinary Form of the Latin Rite we must make do with the first bout of Ordinary Time (a name Benedict XVI confessed to not liking). In the Extraordinary Form and the ex-Anglican Ordinariates, this season continues to bear its hallowed name of “Time after Epiphany”.
The following season is Septuagesima, which begins with the Sunday it takes its name from – February 17 in 2019. The name refers to “Seventy”, as in days till Easter. As a result, the two following Sundays are called Sexagesima and Quinquagesima, as in “Sixty” and “Fifty” (Lent in Latin is Quadragesima, hence the Spanish Cuaresma and French Carême). The two days after Quinquagesima Sunday – Lundi and Mardi Gras in French – lead inevitably into Ash Wednesday. Either way you cut it, we are in Pre-Lent.
https://catholicherald.co.uk/magazine/we-can-still-observe-the-lost-season-of-septuagesima/?platform=hootsuite

Friday 16 November 2018

Italian bishops do Bergoglio's bidding and bolwderdize the Novus Ordo and demand an end to Summorum Pontificum!

The Italian bishops, eight years after the English speaking world finally adopted the 2002 Roman Missal and the correct translation, have issued their incorrect translation.

Bowing to Bergoglio's dictates, the Italian bishops have changed the words of the The Lord's Prayer to "do not abandon us to temptation." It is completely wrong. As Gregory DiPippo at New Liturgical Movement writes;
The Greek verb in question “eisenenkēis” does not mean “abandon.” It is a form of a highly irregular verb [1] “eispherō – to bring in, lead-in, carry in, introduce.” No dictionary lists “abandon” or any synonym thereof as a translation. It is as if Christians have not been praying “lead us not into temptation” in countless languages for over 19 centuries, as if no one has ever bothered to consider what these words mean, and comment on them. It is impossible to believe that pastors with the cure of souls in Italy (or anywhere else) are suddenly besieged by anguished parishioners, tormented at the thought that the Eternal Father might be leading them into temptation. But even if that were the case, is it really an improvement to suggest that God cannot lead us into temptation, but can abandon us in it?

Further, they have not translated "bonae voluntatis" correctly in the Gloria.  The current Italian, “pace in terra agli uomini di buona volontà – peace on earth to men of good will” is to be replaced by “pace in terra agli uomini, amati dal Signore – peace on earth to men, loved by the Lord.”

They have refused to translate the actual Latin "pro multis" as "for many" and will continue to use "per tutti," or, for all, in direct defiance of Pope Benedict XVI.

If that is not enough, they have stated that Benedict XVI had no right to issue Summorum Pontificum, that it was illegal and that the Missal of John XXIII, an alleged Saint, was actually abrogated by another alleged Saint, Giovanni Montini.

Make no mistake that this is on the order of the dictator, Peronist on the Seat of Peter. It is a shot over the bow to the traditional orders, the ICRSS, FSSP, etcetera, and the many, many diocesan priests and communities. 

If Bergoglio and his filthy minions want war, they've got it.

This is not 1965 or 1968 and I am not my mother and father.







Sunday 5 August 2018

What is going on in Oklahoma that faithful Catholics should be so abused?

Vox Cantoris has been banned from posting on Twitter until August 9, 
please Tweet my posts.

A guest post from Mr. Laramie Hirsch on the continuing saga of insult and attack on Catholics faithful to the tradition of the Church and Her liturgy.


After reading Mr. Hirsch's column, I am asking myself, "Does this priest suffer from "gay-rage?"


Catty Priest Insults Minorities In Homily...
By Laramie Hirsch

...And, by minorities, I don't mean brown-skinned people, immigrants, or homosexuals.  Instead, the minorities I mention are the most hated minorities in the Catholic Church: Traditionalists.

If you attended Mass at a certain parish in Tulsa early this July, you'd be pleased to see a good sized group of people at a diocesan Traditional Latin Mass.  While the priest there hardly spoke English at all, being a man from Ecuador, he nevertheless did his utmost to worship the Almighty.  Latin is the universal high language of the Church.  It was such a beautiful service, as it always has been ever since the TLM was brought to the parish about a decade ago.  The people there have been taught the beauty of the Church's tradition like never before.  This is all thanks to now-retired Bishop Emeritus Slattery and the former parish priest who has now left the state.

On that, the seventh Sunday after Pentecost, the parish's Extraordinary Form would feature a reading from Matthew 7:15-21 .  Only it wasn't read by the Hispanic priest.  He dutifully stepped aside, and the passage was instead read by the parish priest himself:

"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.  By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?  Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit.  A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit.  Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire.  Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them.  Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven."

If only the Hispanic priest gave the homily.  By all accounts, he appears to love the Latin Mass.  Or, dare we dream, wouldn't it have been nice if the homily came from the former parish priest who introduced the Latin Mass in the first place?  (It seems that he was actually in town that day)  Or even the retired bishop who always protected the Catholic Tradition in this part of Oklahoma?  No.  The homily was given by the current parish priest.  Yet, surely after a full year of shepherding over the Traditionalist laity, this priest would have grown some kind of fondness for the flock beneath him.  Right?

The congregation waited for the kind-hearted instructions from their shepherd.
 
What Took Place

After reading from Matthew, the sermon took a strange turn.  At first, the priest didn't seem to make sense.  It was as though his words melted into typical post-Vatican II gobbelty gook language.  While he initially seemed to be deconstructing St. Paul's writing style, it all seemed one big incoherent ramble.  After that, the priest then talked about people's athletic ability.  He commented about how the people of Christ's day didn't need to go to the gym because they walked everywhere.

Suddenly, just when it seemed his sermon (?) should be wrapping up, he capped off his ramble by bringing up zip codes.  He talked about the parish' s own poor neighborhood, and that local income was not very high.  This was a common, perennial problem, he explained, as it's been a low-income neighborhood since the 1950s.  But then, he unmistakably complained about laity who drive in from widely divergent locations.  He appeared to scoff at those who would drive one to two hours every Sunday from other towns and counties.  And, of course, the only people doing this were the parishioners attending that diocesan Latin Mass.

Then, just as he did last year, he stated that the Latin Mass group in particular was not giving their proper share of money during collection time.  He told the congregation that he preferred having only a Spanish and English Mass.  They were reminded that the FSSP is across the river on the West side of town.  And then, to qualify himself, he said that he had done his job and kept all of his promises to them for the past year, ever since he took over the parish.

In other words: "I've done everything I was supposed to do for you people.  But really, you're not welcome"

He ended his "homily" abruptly and walked off.  He did not assist the Hispanic priest with distribution of the Eucharist after that.  I have to wonder, was the Hispanic priest aware of the American priest's statements?

Parishioners later noticed that the side chapel had its statues removed, and it looked blander and more Protestant.
 
What Was The Sunday Message?

So, did this priest think he appropriately tied his "homily" to the gospel reading from Matthew?  Was he comparing a good tree that produces good fruit to an evil tree that produces bad fruit?  More to the point: does this priest think the Latin Mass produces bad fruit?  After all, according to him, the Traditional Catholic community wasn't generating enough income for the parish.  So, shall we also conclude that, in this priest's mind, good fruit = money?  Bad fruit = less money?  Is money the objective?  Is it cash that should concern us?  Do diocesan Traditionalists produce bad fruit in the form of inadequate collection amounts?  If so, how much more do they need to fork over until they are good and worthy in this priest's eyes?

I always thought that, in post-Vatican II Catholic Church, good fruit = happiness, togetherness, community, fraternal charity, good feelings, and all that emotional hippy dippy stuff.  If so, this tradition-hating priest certainly doesn't value these aspects when it comes to interacting with the Latin Mass parishioners.  Certainly, dare I say, it does not appear as though this priest considers "good fruit" to be wholesome, clean, confessed souls in a state of grace.  (That's just a dusty, triumphalist, pre-Vatican II novelty).  Not in this "homily."  Allegedly, he does not even consistently hear confessions from the Latin Mass group on a monthly basis--as he said he would in the beginning of his tenure.  But even assuming these reports to be wrong: is confession once a month enough?

And what of those poor English and Spanish Mass parishioners, living in that low-income zip code?  Are their contributions inadequate and deserving of a scolding?  Do those communities produce bad fruit as well?  Or are they somehow exempt?  Are those poor folks mystically holy because of their poorness?  Do their low incomes make them virtuous, while the assumed higher incomes of the Traditionalists make them less virtuous?  Is it even accurate to assume the traditionalists have higher incomes, or is that a blanket assumption by the priest?

Did the priest even mean any of this?  Or was he simply ignoring the Sunday gospel reading, preferring to instead deliver a reckless, harsh message to a group of people who've done nothing to him?
 

What This Does To A Community
Modernist post-Vatican II priests have 20th Century liberal values.  They want to sweep the "old dusty Catholic Church" under the rug.  They want to shove all those un-hip, stubborn losers who "can't get with it" into a ghetto.  They are in the middle of transforming the Catholic Church into "a new thing," and laity holding onto how it's always been are in the way.  The New Order uses a sort of federal-government-eminent-domain tactic that runs over communities such as this.

There once was a strong community at this parish.  In fact, it was rather famous, regionally speaking.  People had always praised the good things Bishop Edward Slattery had done, and a lot of it took place in this very parish under a good priest.  But after the retirement and replacement of the good bishop, and after the installation of Pope Francis' new bishop, it has been demonstrated that there has always been a cabal of priests in this town who, under the surface, always vehemently opposed what Bp. Slattery did.  There have always been priests in Tulsa's diocese who have hated Tradition.  At best, these priests view Tulsa's traditionalist laity as an inconvenience.  Judging from the abuse this particular parish has received in the past year, we can conclude that some priests view this group of laity with contempt.  They have therefore tried to destroy this community--and not without results.

If we are going to refer to the fruits of good or bad intentions, then let's see this situation for what it is.  The fruit of this priest and the new bishop is the scattering of Tulsa's Traditionalist community in many directions.  The fruit of their work is angst, both in this community and beyond.  The fruit of these New Order clergymen has been to instill a deep sense of abandonment in laity in Northeast Oklahoma.  Those who hold on to their faith amidst these sorts of trials feel as though the Sword of Damocles hangs over their head.  These people have not been uplifted; they have been tolerated.  They have not been embraced and welcomed; they have been alienated.  They have no intrinsic worth to the local Catholic community.  No one dares ask them what they think.  They are an elephant in the room.  If a priest in the diocese dares to offer to learn the Latin Mass, he becomes a marked man.  Traditionalists are avoided.  They are shunned.  It wouldn't surprise me if they were given their own drinking fountains.  

If this is the fruit of the new bishop, the new priest, and those who agree with their agenda, then let us ask: is this good fruit or bad fruit?
 
Conclusions: Money, Money, Money...?
Let's recap what the three congregations were contributing last October, the last time this very same priest complained about money.  According to that church bulletin, the figures were as follows:

Anglos (28% of the parish) contribute 40%
Hispanics (60% of the parish) contribute 46%
Latin (12% of the parish) contribute 24%
(The term "Anglos" is the priest's terminology, not mine.)

As you can see, the Latin Mass congregation was contributing twice the amount that they represented for the pleasure of having this priest spit in their face.  Today, thanks to a steady diet of nasty, passive-aggressive discouragement, the Latin Mass community has been reduced to 60% of what they once were.  Yet, these people continue to provide more money than they actually represent.

Even more interesting is the fact that some of the Hispanic laity have also witnessed this priest's actions.  After all, it was a combination of the English, Spanish, and Latin Mass congregations who helped to build and complete the St. Toribio Shrine.  Yet, this new priest is undoing many of the Catholic reforms the former priest brought to the parish.  This hasn't gone unnoticed by the Hispanic community.  No es bueno.  They don't like it.    Some have even left for another Tulsa Spanish-speaking parish.  Some tried attending the TLM at one point--perhaps longing for traces of their former shepherd.  I can't help but wonder what changes took place in that congregation since last year.

If money truly was the end goal of this priest, he would stop being ugly to the Latin Mass laity.  Why?  Because they've been carrying a large portion of the parishes' finances on their shoulders.  If and when they go, the parish will be all the poorer for it.  In effect, this new priest will have driven out a large source of income.  But ultimately, does he really care about the money?  Or does this priest value the removal of those Trads over everything else?

In this situation, at best, we can assume that this priest is materialist.  But what is more likely is that this priest is acting in malice towards these people.  He wants them gone.  Period.