CONFIRMED: The “Ecumenical Mass” has arrived
It has long been rumored that a secret Vatican commission has been assigned the task of creating a so-called “Ecumenical Mass;” a rite recently described by Italian journalist Marco Tossati as “a liturgy designed to unite Catholics and Protestants around the Holy Table.”
Well, akaCatholic is now able to report that a high-ranking curial official (a cardinal who I hope to be able to identify by name soon) has unequivocally confirmed, in writing, not only that the committee was actually created, but that its work has been completed, and what’s more, the “Mass” it produced is as bad, or worse, than imagined.
As will become clear, there can be no doubt that Francis is very pleased with the results.
Following are some excerpts taken from the Cardinal’s somewhat lengthy missive (written in Italian and translated into English) wherein His Eminence severely criticized the newly created Mass.
After carefully reviewing the text produced by the committee, His Eminence stated that the new rite has “every possibility of satisfying the most modernistic of Protestants.”
He went on to reveal that it is being presented in the “Instruction” that accompanies it, as:
“A sacred meeting or assembly of the People of God … to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. Thus the promise of Christ, ‘where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them,” is eminently true of the local community.’” [NOTE: Here, His Eminence is providing a direct quote taken from the “Instruction” for the Mass]
His Eminence went on to observe:
This promise [“Where two or three are gathered…”], which refers only to the spiritual presence of Christ with His grace, is thus put on the same qualitative plane, save for the greater intensity, as the substantial and physical reality of the Sacramental Eucharistic Presence. [Emphasis in original]
Just as one may have expected, a considerable effort was made to downplay those things in the Mass that Protestants find objectionable.
For instance, the Cardinal writes:
As is only too evident, the emphasis is obsessively placed upon the supper and the memorial instead of upon the unbloody renewal of the Sacrifice of Calvary.
Getting to the heart of the matter, His Eminence observed that the rite not only obscures, but even amounts to a denial of certain dogmatic truths. He writes:
It does not, in a word, imply any of the essential dogmatic values of the Mass which together provide its true definition. Here the deliberate omission of these dogmatic values amounts to their having been superseded and therefore, at least in practice, to their denial. [Emphasis in original]
The Cardinal even went so far as to say that “faith in the dogma of the Real Presence is implicitly repudiated.”
In other words, it’s not Catholic!
Again, we cannot be surprised to find that this is the case. The only question was how the committee would go about denying the “intrinsic value of the Eucharistic Sacrifice.” Now we know.
His Eminence tells us that the new rite:
“…changes the nature of the offering, turning it into a sort or exchange of gifts between man and God: man brings the bread, and God turns it into the ‘bread of life’; man brings the wine, and God turns it into a ‘spiritual drink.’ … By suppressing the continual reference to God in the Eucharistic prayers, there is no longer any clear distinction between divine and human sacrifice.” [Emphasis in original]
As we have long noted in this space, Francis is focused almost exclusively on earth bound activities; most notably, so-called “social justice” and service to the poor.
The Cardinal observed that the rite makes these man-centered priorities evident:
There is a danger that the uniqueness of this offering will become blurred, so that participation in the immolation of the Victim comes to resemble a philanthropical meeting, or a charity banquet.
His Eminence further observed that the rite is designed in such a way as to strip the priest of his unique identity (surprise, surprise). He writes:
The priest’s position is minimized, changed and falsified. Firstly in relation to the people for whom he is, for the most part, a mere president, or brother, instead of the consecrated minister celebrating in persona Christi … Not a word do we now find as to the priest’s power to sacrifice, or about his act of consecration, the bringing about through him of the Eucharistic Presence. He now appears as nothing more than a Protestant minister.
The Cardinal suggested that his criticism, severe as it is, only scratches the surface:
A complete evaluation of all the pitfalls, the dangers, the spiritually and psychologically destructive elements contained in the document—whether in text, rubrics or instructions—would be a vast undertaking.
Even so, the courageous Cardinal did not hesitate to conclude:
By way of compensation, the new Liturgy will be the delight of the various groups who, hovering on the verge of apostasy, are wreaking havoc in the Church of God, poisoning her organism and undermining her unity of doctrine, worship, morals and discipline in a spiritual crisis without precedent.
If all that has been said thus far isn’t disturbing enough, the truly terrible news is that the “Mass” described by the Cardinal as having “every possibility of satisfying the most modernistic of Protestants” isn’t just coming to a parish near you; rather, it has been celebrated daily all over the Catholic world for nearly half-a-century!
As some readers have already discerned, the high-ranking curial official quoted in this article is none other than Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani and the BRIEF CRITICAL STUDY OF THE NOVUS ORDO MISSAE (otherwise known as the “Ottaviani Intervention”) that he produced along with Antonio Cardinal Bacci, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, and a group of Roman Theologians.
NB: This article is much more than just a parody.
So-called “conservative” Catholics are rightly horrified at the idea that a “liturgy designed to unite Catholics and Protestants around the Holy Table” is in the offing. Many, I suspect, cannot even bring themselves to acknowledge that such a thing could ever possibly be dispensed by the hand of a pope.
And yet, if Cardinal Ottaviani and his collaborators have even come close to providing an accurate snapshot of the Novus Ordo Missae, it is clear that an “Ecumenical Mass” – one created with the deliberate intent of making Protestants comfortable – already exists in the so-called “Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite.”
Who can possibly deny that in Catholic parishes all over the world, militant homosexuals, abortion rights advocates, and notorious public heretics of various stripes have been waltzing up for Holy Communion, Sunday in and Sunday out, for decades on end?
In other words, persons who are quite obviously Protestant (in spite of pretending to remain Catholic) have long been openly invited to gather ‘round “the Holy Table.”
What’s more, it has long been reported, and in L’Osservatore Romano no less, that both John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger gave Communion even to those who openly identify as Protestant.
More recently, in November 2015, Francis publicly counseled a Lutheran woman in such a way as to grant her (and every other heretic paying attention) a license to receive Holy Communion at Mass.
So, what are we to make of these rumors about another “Ecumenical Mass” being in the offing; the motives for this one being more explicitly stated?
Once again, I’m having trouble finding cause for concern.
On the contrary, I say bring it on!
If nothing else, the introduction of such an abomination may serve to open the eyes of those who presently fail to understand that simply because the Novus Ordo was promulgated by Paul VI, this does not mean that it was dispensed to the faithful by Holy Mother Church. As such, it may not necessarily be good, and may even be harmful.
With this in mind, even if the rumored “Ecumenical Mass” never comes to fruition, I am grateful for the rumor itself since it may have created enough concern among certain of the rank and file that they are willing to at least consider, for the first time in their lives, the dangers associated with the Novus Ordo as identified by Cardinal Ottaviani and his collaborators.
As such, please consider passing this article along to any “concerned conservatives” in your circle of influence.
My Comment : A reminder of the conclusion of my research about the Fatima 3rd Secret :
From the first sentence “in Portugal the Dogma of the Faith will be always Preserved….ect…, our Lady explains (in approx. 22 lines) in detail and with simple words to the sheperds, the Vision of the Fatima 3rd Secret, she begins by speaking of Apostasy especially in Rome which will give a bad Council and will change the Mass as the Liturgy, To avoid it, the consecration of Russia must be done at the latest in 1960 if not the Devil will infiltrate the Church, Rome (de facto the World) will lose the Faith and become the seat of the Antichrist, Many cardinals, many bishops, and many priests will be on the road to hell and will take many souls with them, Bad Popes (but Valid) will be elected, the last one will be dismissed and a new one under the control of satan will be elected then killed, this will be the end of the times of the Apocalypse of Saint John, worse than during the deluge, Fire will fall from the Sky, survivors will envy the dead, Russia will be the instrument of chastisement chosen by God to punish the world, Rome will be destroyed and the Pope will flee “In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to Me, and she will be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to the world”.
Read more : https://atomic-temporary-96031253.wpcomstaging.com/2017/07/29/aviso-10-years/
Back to the front.
Of course the Novus Ordo is the bridge between the Old Rite and any future “Ecumenical Mass”. Catholics of a previous generation who where unquestioning of Rome were deceived into thinking it was merely a translation of the Latin Mass. Many of them had no experience of the Protestant communion service and it was often the recent converts who were the first to “smell a rat” when the new rite came in.
WHY AMORIS LAETITIA IS MUCH WORSE THAN ORIGINALLY THOUGHT
“I am not speaking only of the divorced and remarried, but of everyone, in whatever situation they find themselves.” (Pope Francis)
From the beginning the controversy regarding Amoris Laetitia has been portrayed as being limited to whether a divorced and civilly remarried Catholic might be permitted, in certain circumstances, to receive Holy Communion. The purpose of this note is to demonstrate that the reach of Amoris Laetiti goes well beyond just the divorced and remarried, at least for those who do not intend to interpret the exhortation through the previous teachings of the Church regarding the impermissibility of exceptions for intrinsically evil acts.
In fact, in the controversial Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia Pope Francis states that the type of mercy being advocated is not just for the divorced and remarried but for everyone “in whatever situation.” He states:
297. It is a matter of reaching out to everyone, of needing to help each person find his or her proper way of participating in the ecclesial community and thus to experience being touched by an “unmerited, unconditional and gratuitous” mercy. No one can be condemned for ever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel! Here I am not speaking only of the divorced and remarried, but of everyone, in whatever situation they find themselves.
In a 2016 letter to Pope Francis, distinguished professors Germain Grisez and John Finnis pointed out just how easy it would be for those not committed to Catholic orthodoxy to interpret Paragraph 297 of Amoris Laetitia in a way that runs profoundly afoul of Catholic morality, and they petitioned the Pope to correct such a misunderstanding (see, The Misuse of Amoris Laetitia to Support Errors Against the Catholic Faith,” available online). These professors provided numerous examples in their letter as to how no. 297 could be used to support immoral behavior.
Even within the parameters of a more restrictive interpretation, AL 297 specifically mentions couples “living together,” and by the time you get to paragraph 301 the generalized use of the term “irregular situations” begins to appear. No precise definition of what “irregular situations” means is given, but one presumes the more generalized language is purposeful.
Here is the very troubling passage from Amoris Laetitia (no. 301) which clearly suggests that a person can be in a “concrete situation” where he has no choice but to live in mortal sin (and is thus justified in remaining in his objectively sinful condition even though he knows the rule):
301. For an adequate understanding of the possibility and need of special discernment in certain “irregular” situations, one thing must always be taken into account, lest anyone think that the demands of the Gospel are in any way being compromised. The Church possesses a solid body of reflection concerning mitigating factors and situations. Hence it is can no longer simply be said that all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace. More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule. A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding “its inherent values”, or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin.
Amoris Laetitia, no. 303, contains another very controversial statement made by Pope Francis, stating that a person can come to the realization that God wills him to stay in his sinful condition. It reads, in pertinent part:
“Yet conscience can do more than recognize that a given situation does not correspond objectively to the overall demands of the Gospel. It can also recognize with sincerity and honesty what for now is the most generous response which can be given to God, and come to see with a certain moral security that it is what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits, while yet not fully the objective ideal. In any event, let us recall that this discernment is dynamic; it must remain ever open to new stages of growth and to new decisions which can enable the ideal to be more fully realized.”
In his great encyclical on Catholic morality, Veritatis Splendor, Saint Pope John Paul II specifically foresaw and rejected the type of argument put forth in Amoris Laetia (303) quoted above. He stated very clearly that
“It would be a very serious error … to conclude that the Church’s teaching is essentially only an “ideal” which must then be adapted, proportioned, graduated to the so-called concrete possibilities of man.” (VS 103)
Still further, Saint John Paul II stated:
“circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act “subjectively” good or defensible as a choice.” (VS 81)
Pope John Paul II explained in Veritatis Splendor the clear Catholic teaching that an intrinsically evil act cannot be creatively transformed into something willed by God under concrete circumstances (the suggestion put forth in AL 303 and 301).
“The negative moral precepts, those prohibiting certain concrete actions or kinds of behavior as intrinsically evil, do not allow for any legitimate exception. They do not leave room, in any morally acceptable way, for the “creativity” of any contrary determination whatsoever.” (Veritatis Splendor 67)
“The negative precepts of the natural law are universally valid. They oblige each and every individual, always and in every circumstance. It is a matter of prohibitions which forbid a given action semper et pro semper, without exception.” (VS 52)
By trying to claim that an intrinsically evil act like adultery, fornication or other “irregular situation” may be the most generous response a person can give to God at a certain moment in his life, Pope Francis has embraced situation ethics and has strayed far from the firm and authentic foundations of Catholic morality. Pope John Paul II had already warned that such an argument is clearly erroneous.
CONCLUSION: Amoris Laetitia potentially opens the door to the justification of practically any type of mortal sin, not only because it is arguably for “everyone” in “all situations,” but also because “no area of Christian morality can remain unscathed” if the general statements about moral acts in the document are considered valid, to quote the great Dominican scholar, Father Aidan Nichols. For example, why would a married gay couple not be able to claim under the rationale of Amoris that their union is the best response they can make given their concrete situation. Thus, when Dr. Joseph Seifert referred to Amoris Laetitia as a “theological atomic bomb” which in essence would blow up Catholic morality, making all Catholic morality essentially optional, his opinion was not mere hyperbole.
Amoris Laetitia has created quite a mess for those who teach moral theology. One could forcefully argue it is the greatest threat to Catholic morality the Church has ever encountered.
Thomas L. Mulcahy, M.A., J.D.
My Comment : We are living Somethig never seen in the history of the Church, a heretic probably not Catholic at the Top, leading souls to hell, we have the obligation for the salvation of our own soul to oppose, to denounce, to fight against it, your Catholic life will have no sense if you have not yet understood this fact, those are the end of times of the Apocalypse of Saint John, my back to the front is also to remind it to all of you, do not expect any new conclave or any new Pope without getting before, a direct intervention from God during this evil pontificate, in other words we are living the fatima 3rd Secret in live and the last step is the worst.
Check out TradCatKnight as well.