Transforming The Extraordinary Into The Ordinary

by Thomas A. Droleskey

The conciliar revolutionaries live in a world of positivism, making one completely gratuitous statement after another that they expect will be accepted uncritically by Catholics worldwide. Many of these statements that we are supposed to accept as true because they have been asserted as being true without any supporting proof or evidence contradict themselves.

Such is the case with "Monsignor" Guido Pozzo, the Secretary of "Pontifical" Commission Ecclesia Dei, in an interview he gave to an interview for the German service of Vatican radio.

"Monsignor" Pozzo went on at some length in his interview, which appears in English on something called "The New Liturgical Movement" website, one of a seemingly endless number of look-alike websites staffed by those who believe that the "papal" motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, July 7, 2007, will usher in the the "restoration" of the Church Militant on earth (which is the ecclesiastical version of those in the fantasy world of naturalism looking to the next election to "restore" sanity and limited government that can be realized only when men and their nations submit themselves to the Social Reign of Christ the King as It must be exercised by the Catholic Church), to explain that there there is a "unity" between the "extraordinary form" and the "ordinary form" of the one Roman Rite:

Q: Pope Benedict asked for “charity and pastoral care” for traditionalist believers. And so the PCED are now watchmen of a sort for those cases in which that does not happen. Where have you found resistance?

A: “The expression “watch” translates the ancient Greek “episcopein”. The primary task of a bishop is to watch. In this sense the PCED exercises the office of oversight and watching over the application of the motu proprio. Certainly, there is still prejudice and resistance against the Mass in the old rite, whether it be on ideological grounds, or because the demand for mass in the old form is seen partly an expression of an antithesis – of an opposition even – to the reform of the liturgy as the Second Vatican Council wanted it. Clearly, these prejudices – still widespread – are to be taken on and overcome. Above all, we have to restore the unity of liturgical history, the unity of the lex orandi as an expression of the unity of the lex credendi, within the unique character of the liturgical forms of the one Roman Rite". . . .

A: The motu proprio says nothing about education for priests who wish to learn to celebrate the Mass according to the old books. Many regard this as a gap, insofar as the celebration of the old liturgy requires rigorous preparation. How would you advise interested priests?

Q: “The problem of priests apt to celebrate the old rite is certainly important and urgent. I have to say that the reason why the bishops often have difficulty in fulfilling the desire for a Mass in the old form is, in fact, the lack of qualified priests who can properly celebrate this mass. Here, then, those faithful affected must have understanding and much patience. I am of the opinion that seminarians in the priestly seminaries should be offered the opportunity appropriately to learn to celebrate in the Extraordinary Form – not as a duty, but rather as a possibility. Where it is possible, one could call on those institutes who come under the jurisdiction of the Commission Ecclesia Dei and who follow the traditional liturgical discipline to assist in the training of priests. In any case, what is essential is a liturgical and theological education which decisively does away with the idea that there is a preconciliar liturgy in opposition to a postconcilar one, or that there is a preconciliar ecclesiology in opposition to a postconciliar one. Rather, there is a growth and a deepening in the history of the faith and liturgy of the Church, but always in continuity, and in essential unity, which can and may never be lost or narrowed.” (Interview with Ecclesia Dei Secretary - Full Text.)

 

These comments repeat the same assertion that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI made in his Explanatory Letter to the "Bishops" that accompanied the Motu Proprio Summorum:

There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church's faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place.cilia matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness (Explanatory Letter on "Summorum Pontificum".)

It would appear at this juncture that "Monsignor" Pozzo is merely parroting the positivism of his "pope" when he asserted that there has been a "unity" in liturgical development. However, unlike Ratzinger/Benedict, who has not once mentioned his former criticism of the conciliar liturgy as being the "rupture" that he, Ratzinger/Benedict, wrote in 2007 had not taken place, "Monsignor" Pozzo made reference to the "pope's" criticism of the development in the conciliar liturgy:

Q: Pope Benedict wrote that even priests in those communities which are attached to the old form of the Roman Rite cannot in principle exclude celebrating according to the new books. How does the SSPX see that?

A: “You would have to ask the SSPX. I think, as I said before, that the question of the liturgical books of Paul VI’s reform has to be addressed as part of the proper understanding of liturgical reform and of its consequent correct application. The basic question which the SSPX has to answer is whether the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, which Paul VI promulgated, is in and of itself valid and legitimate. There can be no doubt and no hesitation on this point. The answer must be an indubitable ‘yes’. Elsewhere, we have the ambiguities, shortcomings and also doctrinal errors which have spread in the period following the Council, be they in theological understanding, or be they in the application of liturgical reform. The then Cardinal Ratzinger, today Pope Benedict, spoke of a “disintegration” in the liturgy. From this viewpoint, one cannot say that many of those criticisms which were aired were wrong.” (Interview with Ecclesia Dei Secretary - Full Text.)

 

Leaving aside the inconvenient little fact that the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service is the liturgical abuse par excellence (see, for example, Taking The Obvious For Granted), "Monsignor" Pozzo is not, to put the most charitable construction on his remark above, remembering the full context of the then "Cardinal" Ratzinger's discussion of "disintegration" in the conciliar liturgical service properly. Then then prefect of the conciliar Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was criticizing the very construction of the conciliar liturgy, noting that it had been a rupture with the past:

What happened after the Council was something else entirely: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it--as in a manufacturing process--with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product. Gamber, with the vigilance of a true prophet and the courage of a true witness, opposed this falsification, and thanks to his incredibly rich knowledge, indefatigably taught us about the living fullness of a true liturgy. As a man who knew and loved history, he showed us the multiple forms and paths of liturgical development; as a man who looked at history form the inside, he saw in this development and its fruit the intangible reflection of the eternal liturgy, that which is not the object of our action but which can continue marvelously to mature and blossom if we unite ourselves intimately with its mystery. (Joseph "Cardinal: Ratzinger, Preface to the French language edition of Monsignor Klaus Gamber's The Reform of the Roman Liturgy.)

The prohibition of the missal that was now decreed, a missal that had known continuous growth over the centuries, starting with the sacramentaries of the ancient Church, introduced a breach into the history of the liturgy whose consequences could only be tragic. It was reasonable and right of the Council to order a revision of the missal such as had often taken place before and which this time had to be more thorough than before, above all because of the introduction of the vernacular.

But more than this now happened: the old building was demolished, and another was built, to be sure largely using materials from the previous one and even using the old building plans. There is no doubt that this new missal in many respects brought with it a real improvement and enrichment; but setting it as a new construction over against what had grown historically, forbidding the results of this historical growth. thereby makes the liturgy appear to be no longer living development but the produce of erudite work and juridical authority; this has caused an enormous harm. For then the impression had to emerge that liturgy is something "made", not something given in advance but something lying without our own power of decision. (Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger, Milestones.)

 

Moreover, "Monsignor" Pozzo's parroting of the current "papal" that contradict's the "pope's" own past statements as a conciliar "cardinal" flies in the face of reality as the architects of the conciliar liturgy and their apologists told us that the Novus Ordo service was indeed meant to be a rejection of the even the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition that had been promulgated by Angelo Roncalli/John XIII in 1961 (altered in 1962 with the insertion of the name of Saint Joseph into the Canon of the Mass) as a means of accustoming Catholics to a continuous stream of liturgical change as a natural, normal part of liturgical life in the conciliar structures:

We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren that is for the Protestants." (Annibale Bugnini, L'Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1965.)

"[T]he intention of Pope Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the Mass, was to reform the Catholic liturgy in such a way that it should coincide with the Protestant liturgy.... [T]here was with Pope Paul VI an ecumenical intention to remove, or at least to correct, or at least to relax, what was too Catholic in the traditional sense, in the Mass, and I, repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist mass" (Dec. 19, 1993), Apropos, #17, pp. 8f; quoted in Christian Order, October, 1994. (Jean Guitton, a close friend of Giovanni Montini/Paul VI. The quotation and citations are found in Christopher A. Ferrara and Thomas E. Woods, Jr., The Great Facade, The Remnant Publishing Company, 2002, p. 317.)

Let it be candidly said: the Roman Rite which we have known hitherto no longer exists. It is destroyed. (Father Joseph Gelineau, an associate of Annibale Bugnini on the Consilium, quoted and footnoted in the work of a John Mole, who believed that the Mass of the Roman Rite had been "truncated," not destroyed. Assault on the Roman Rite)

 

The late Monsignor Klaus Gamber, a liturgical historian who was not a traditionalist, wrote openly in the book whose French language edition was prefaced by the remarks of the then Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger about the destruction of the Roman Rite:

Not only is the Novus Ordo Missae of 1969 a change of the liturgical rite, but that change also involved a rearrangement of the liturgical year, including changes in the assignment of feast days for the saints. To add or drop one or the other of these feast days, as had been done before, certainly does not constitute a change of the rite, per se. But the countless innovations introduced as part of liturgical reform have left hardly any of the traditional liturgical forms intact . . .

At this critical juncture, the traditional Roman rite, more than one thousand years old and until now the heart of the Church, was destroyed. A closer examination reveals that the Roman rite was not perfect, and that some elements of value had atrophied over the centuries. Yet, through all the periods of the unrest that again and again shook the Church to her foundations, the Roman rite always remained the rock, the secure home of faith and piety. . . .

Was all this really done because of a pastoral concern about the souls of the faithful, or did it not rather represent a radical breach with the traditional rite, to prevent the further use of traditional liturgical texts and thus to make the celebration of the "Tridentine Mass" impossible--because it no loner reflected the new spirit moving through the Church?

Indeed, it should come as no surprise to anyone that the prohibition of the traditional rite was announced at the same time as the introduction of the new liturgical texts; and that a dispensation to continue celebrating the Mass according to the traditional rite was granted only to older priests.

Obviously, the reformers wanted a completely new liturgy, a liturgy that differed from the traditional one in spirit as well as in form; and in no way a liturgy that represented what the Council Fathers had envisioned, i.e., a liturgy that would meet the pastoral needs of the faithful.

Liturgy and faith are interdependent. That is why a new rite was created, a rite that in many ways reflects the bias of the new (modernist) theology. The traditional liturgy simply could not be allowed to exist in its established form because it was permeated with the truths of the traditional faith and the ancient forms of piety. For this reason alone, much was abolished and new rites, prayers and hymns were introduced, as were the new readings from Scripture, which conveniently left out those passages that did not square with the teachings of modern theology--for example, references to a God who judges and punishes.

At the same time, the priests and the faithful are told that the new liturgy created after the Second Vatican Council is identical in essence with the liturgy that has been in use in the Catholic Church up to this point, and that the only changes introduced involved reviving some earlier liturgical forms and removing a few duplications, but above all getting rid of elements of no particular interest.

Most priests accepted these assurances about the continuity of liturgical forms of worship and accepted the new rite with the same unquestioning obedience with which they had accepted the minor ritual changes introduced by Rome from time to time in the past, changes beginning with the reform of the Divine Office and of the liturgical chant introduced by Pope St. Pius X.

Following this strategy, the groups pushing for reform were able to take advantage of and at the same time abuse the sense of obedience among the older priests, and the common good will of the majority of the faithful, while, in many cases, they themselves refused to obey. . . .

The real destruction of the traditional Mass, of the traditional Roman rite with a history of more than one thousand years, is the wholesale destruction of the faith on which it was based, a faith that had been the source of our piety and of our courage to bear witness to Christ and His Church, the inspiration of countless Catholics over many centuries. Will someone, some day, be able to say the same thing about the new Mass? (Monsignor Klaus Gamber, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, p. 39, p. 99, pp. 100-102.)

 

"Monsignor" Pozzo's remarks in his interview on the German service of Vatican radio are pure positivism. They are at odds with all reality. The Novus Ordo was meant by its planners to be a break from the Catholic Faith as it is a synthetic expression of a synthetic religion, one spawned by the ethos of Modernism as it had been recycled by the the agents of the "new theology. They have told us so. Why is it so hard to believe them?

The Novus Ordo was meant of its very nature to be a vessel of communicating false ecumenism as it eliminated various feast days that had been celebrated from time immemorial, continuing the conciliar "tradition" that begun with Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII's "revision" of the liturgical calendar in accordance with Jansenist principles of minimalism in 1960, and as it eliminated traditional collects, especially those that referred to the miracles of various saints as having taken place as a matter of fact, and sought to appease the ancient enemies of the Church who adhere to Talmudic Judaism. The constant references to "continuity" on the part of those seeking to justify the doctrinal and liturgical revolutions of conciliarism are nothing other than self-delusional exercises in positivism. There is no such "continuity," not in Faith and not in Worship.

"Monsignor" Pozzo also confirmed yet again, as he has done several times in the past, that a yet further "modernization" of the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition promulgated by Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII is indeed to presented before Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict at some point in the near future:

Q: Pope Benedict wishes that both forms of the Roman Rite should enrich each other, but without mixing. What can the old liturgy “learn” from the new?

A. “Firstly, in the motu proprio’s accompanying letter to the bishops, Pope Benedict mentions on the one hand the necessity of updating the calendar of saints: that is, incorporating those saints canonised after 1962; and on the other the inclusion of certain prefaces from the missal of Paul VI., in order to enrich the collection of prefaces in the missal of 1962. The Commission Ecclesia Dei has initiated a programme of studies in order to fulfil the will of the Holy Father. We will soon come, I think, to a suggestion which will shortly be laid before the Holy Father for approval. I believe that one must also recognise that the ordinary form of the Roman Rite offers more extensive readings from the Holy Scriptures than the missal of 1962. Nevertheless, a change in this direction in the missal of 1962 is not easy, because one must always have in view the relationship between the individual scriptural readings and the antiphons or responsories in the Roman Breviary for the relevant day. We must also recall, though, that under Pope Pius XII a range of complementary readings for the commons of saints was added. Thus, one cannot exclude an eventual expansion even in the readings for Mass. That does not mean that, as the celebrating priest or the bishop, one can subjectively and arbitrarily change the order of the lectionary, or mix the two forms, such that the distinctiveness in each is lost.” (Interview with Ecclesia Dei Secretary - Full Text)

 

What "Monsignor" Pozzo did not mention in this interview is that while "bishops" and priests/presbyters cannot change the readings in the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition promulgated in 1961 and 1962 by Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII, "bishops" have petitioned "Pontifical" Commission Ecclesia Dei to do so. Yes, the first president of the commission, the late Paul Augustin "Cardinal" Mayer, with whom I met many times during my trips to Rome in the 1980s and 1990s, gave permission for the use of the Novus Ordo readings in "indult" Masses even though the first "indult, Quattuor abhinc annos, October 3, 1984, insisted that " There must be no interchanging of texts and rites of the two Missals" (see Quattuor abhinc annos). Nothing is stable, nothing is permanent in the land of conciliarism.

Yes, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI really, really meant it when he wrote the following in his Explanatory Letter that accompanied Summorum Pontificum on July 7, 2007:

It is true that there have been exaggerations and at times social aspects unduly linked to the attitude of the faithful attached to the ancient Latin liturgical tradition. Your charity and pastoral prudence will be an incentive and guide for improving these. For that matter, the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching: new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal.  The “Ecclesia Dei” Commission, in contact with various bodies devoted to the usus antiquior, will study the practical possibilities in this regard. The celebration of the Mass according to the Missal of Paul VI will be able to demonstrate, more powerfully than has been the case hitherto, the sacrality which attracts many people to the former usage.  The most sure guarantee that the Missal of Paul VI can unite parish communities and be loved by them consists in its being celebrated with great reverence in harmony with the liturgical directives. This will bring out the spiritual richness and the theological depth of this Missal. (Letter to the "Bishops" that accompanies the Motu Proprio Summorum)

 

Welcome to the word where the "extraordinary" can become the "ordinary" over the course of time. Turn the clock back to 1962? Sooner or later you get to 1969? (See Motu Madness Merry-Go-Round.)

There is a great deal of irony in this.

The steady stream of liturgical changes that began in the 1950s were efforts on the part of Fathers Annibale Bugnini, C.M., and Ferdinando Antonelli, O.F.M., to bring forth what was truly extraordinary at the time, namely, a wholesale liturgical revolution that was unprecedented in any liturgical rite of the Catholic Church, no less in the Roman Rite. What was truly extraordinary and even bewildering to many Catholic priests and laymen became "ordinary" by the time that Giovanni Montini/Paul VI wrote the following when he promulgated the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service on April 3, 1969:

This renewal has also shown clearly that the formulas of the Roman Missal ought to be revised and enriched. The beginning of this renewal was the work of Our predecessor, this same Pius XII, in the restoration of the Paschal Vigil and of the Holy Week Rite, which formed the first stage of updating the Roman Missal for the present-day mentality. (Giovanni Montini/Paul VI, April 3, 1969.)

 

What kind of "present-day mentality," you ask? The kind of "present-day mentality" that can refer to acts of "outward penance" as "belonging to another age in the history of the Church":

The same awareness of the present state of the world also influenced the use of texts from very ancient tradition. It seemed that this cherished treasure would not be harmed if some phrases were changed so that the style of language would be more in accord with the language of modern theology and would faithfully reflect the actual state of the Church's discipline. Thus there have been changes of some expressions bearing on the evaluation and use of the good things of the earth and of allusions to a particular form of outward penance belonging to another age in the history of the Church. (Paragraph 15, General Instruction to the Roman Missal, 1997.)

 

Continuity, "Monsignor" Pozzo? No, a Catholic sees only revolution. Acts of outward penance belong to every age in the history of the Catholic Church, unless, that is, Our Lady herself, the very Mother of God, was wrong when she said:

"Penance! Penance! Penance!. . . .  Kiss the ground as a penance for sinners." (Our Lady's Words at Lourdes.)

"Are you willing to offer yourselves to God and bear all the sufferings He wills to send you, as an act of reparation for the conversion of sinners? (May 13, 1917.)

"Then you are going to have much to suffer, but the grace of God will be your comfort." (May 13, 1917.)

"Pray, pray very much, and make sacrifices for sinners; for many souls go to hell, because there are none to sacrifice themselves and pray for them." (August 19, 1917.) (Our Lady's Words at Fatima.)

 

Continuity? Those who want to believe in the fantasy land of those glitzy websites run by young Motu adherents will continue to do so. Continuity? No, most Catholics who believe that the "restoration" is well underway find it easier to say, Ribbet, Ribbet, That's Not So Bad.

As far as I can tell, that's what those who run those glitzy websites say, at least to themselves, as their "pope" personally violates the First and Second Commandments by personally esteeming the symbols of false religions and calling their places of worship as "sacred" and as he gives a "joint blessing" with the layman masquerading as the "archbishop" of Canterbury, Rowan Williams. No, not a word raised in protest on those sites. Not a word published in defense of the honor and glory and majesty of God, Who has been so blasphemed by this actions. Not a word to help the poor sheep understand that these apostate, blasphemous actions are indefensible and repugnant to God and to the good of souls.

Mind you, I am not even going to go into the "wonderland" that is the Vatican's view of the relationship of the Society of Saint Pius X has with the conciliar church that was discussed at some length by "Monsignor" Pozzo" in the interview that ha been the subject of this commentary. What's the point? It is never necessary to negotiate any point of the Catholic Faith, must less to seek to "convert" a true pope to the Faith.

Take heart, as noted yesterday in Talk About Clothing the Emperor!, the Catholic Church cannot be responsible for any of this. Who teaches us this? The Fathers of the Council of Trent, who, just by the way, you understand, guided infallibly by none other than God the Holy Ghost:

CANON VII.--If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema. (Session Twenty-Two, Chapter IX, Canon VII, Council of Trent, September 17, 1562, CT022.)

 

None of the travesties of the past forty years can be sanctioned or permitted in any way by Holy Mother Church, she is as spotless and immaculate as Our Lady herself.

We must pray as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit, accept with joy and with gratitude each of the sufferings and calumnies and difficulties that come our way as the consecrated slaves of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.

The path to Heaven can be trod only by those who are willing to bear the Cross and to lift it high in their daily lives. considering it our privilege to hear the Immemorial Mass of Tradition offered at the hands of true bishops and priests who reject conciliarism, seeking only to live in such a way that we will be ready at all times to die in a state of Sanctifying Grace as a member of the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order.

It's the Faith that matters, the entire Faith without any compromises, now and for all eternity.

Aren't we willing to suffer some more for the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Immaculate Heart of Mary?

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

 

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!

 

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints