+CULLINANE'S MASS: NO CROSS, NO CALVARY, NO CHRIST

To comment please open your gmail account or use my email address, FB or Messenger. 

"Why persecute us?" Bishop Peter Cullinane's diabolical, freemasonic attack on the Latin Mass in CathNews raises the question Christ asked of Saul on the way to Damascus.  

In Cullinane's 'Liturgical misunderstandings and superficialty', where is the Cross? Where is Calvary? Where is Christ? He is ignored and abused. But for Traditional Latin Massgoers suffering with Him is a blessing unto eternal life.

Antipope Bergoglio&Co persecute Latin Massgoers for one reason only: to drive us into the Novus Ordo, where eventually the words of Consecration will be changed and the Mass will be gone, leaving only a Protestant, pachamama pretence. 

The cross is missing from Cullinane's Mass because Protestants and Freemasons dislike it. The "stumbling block" (I Cor 1:23) which is "Christ crucified" must now be preached and lived by Traditional Latin Massgoers, deprived of their Eucharistic Lord, whom +Cullinane calls - intending to insult - 'disabled people' or 'infants'. He inadvertently pays us a compliment; he evidently forgets that it's only "little children" (Mt 18:3) who will "enter the kingdom of heaven" (Mt 18:3).

Let's take 'Liturgical Misunderstandings and Superficiality Part II' point by point, shall we?

• Until the cataclysm of Vatican II, the Mass didn't 'change'. It developed organically. Vat II - whether the council itself or its intended or unintended ambiguities and loopholes - changed the liturgy beyond recognition.

• 'The Mass St Justin knew would live on in the revised missal ... promulgated after the Council of Trent.' The bishop means to say that St Justin's Mass would live on in the revised missal,and he's right. BUT the Council of Trent was a dogmatic council, meaning that Pius V's Mass was promulgated as dogma which cannot be changed, because it's truth - which never changes.  

• 'That Mass' (Pius V's) lives on 'in the revised missal promulgated ... after the Second Vatican Council'. Rather than say that's a lie, in charity let's call it wishful thinking..

•  '(B)oth Missals have resulted from revisions of previous texts'. That's stating the obvious and saying precisely nothing.

• 'Was the 1962 Missal “abrogated”? the bishop asks - and answers himself, 'No, but that only means it was not annulled.  'ONLY ??? That word, 'only' means the 1962 Missal was neither annulled nor abrogated.

• 'It can still be validly used when the Pope authorises it to meet special needs.' The bishop implies that the Mass of Ages is valid only for the simple-minded and geriatric. Quite apart from his patronising condescension, he's assuming that Bergoglio is pope. That's a mistaken assumption. The true Pope - Benedict XVI - gave permission for the Latin Mass, and Antipope Bergoglio (even if he were legit) has no authority to override the permission given in Summorum Pontificum:

Art 1.  The Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the lex orandi (rule of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite.  The Roman Missal promulgated by Saint Pius V and revised by Blessed John XXIII is nonetheless to be considered an extraordinary expression of the same lex orandi of the Church and duly honoured for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church’s lex orandi will in no way lead to a division in the Church’s lex credendi (rule of faith); for they are two usages of the one Roman rite.

It is therefore permitted to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal, which was promulgated by Blessed John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as an extraordinary form of the Church’s Liturgy/

Art. 2.  In Masses celebrated without a congregation, any Catholic priest of the Latin rite... may use either the Roman Missal published in 1962 by Blessed Pope John XXIII or the Roman Missal promulgated in 1970 by Pope Paul VI.  ...   the priest needs no permission from the Apostolic See or from his own Ordinary.

So, dear priests who love the Latin Mass: celebrate it! Obey God, not Bergoglio! The Dark Lord of Mordor aka Cardinal John Dew doesn't have to know about it.

Art. 3.  If communities of Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, whether of pontifical or diocesan right, wish to celebrate the ... Mass... according to the 1962... Missal, they are permitted to do so. 

Art. 4.  The celebrations of Holy Mass mentioned above in Art. 2 may be attended also by members of the lay faithful.

But in the Land of Mordor they'd have to be very discreet members of the lay faithful. Close-mouthed, you might say. 

Art. 5. (W)here a group of the faithful attached to the previous liturgical tradition stably exists, the parish priest should willingly accede to their requests to celebrate Holy Mass according to the 1962 Missal.

Logically then, the bishop should willingly accede also. But in the case of St Columba's Ashhurst, Cardinal Dew refused to do so.

Art. 3. (T)he pastor should allow celebrations in this extraordinary form also in special circumstances such as marriages, funerals or occasional celebrations.

One might enquire, if the Latin Mass were permitted so freely by Pope Benedict XVI, why do Bergoglio&Co want to exterminate it? 

Because the Traditional Latin (Tridentine) Mass has turned out far too popular. It;s the stumbling block par excellence: the TLM is the only threat to establishment of the New World Church which Bergoglio is bidden by his puppetmasters to build.

• 'Pope Paul VI made it clear that the revised form of the Missal replaced the unrevised form.' Obviously it wasn't clear to Pope Benedict XVI.
  
  
• '(T)he Second Vatican Council’s reform had at its disposal up-dated scholarship.' Hah! Unfortunately that 'scholarship' is necessarily muddied by modernist post-Vat II thought flowing through it.
  
  
• 'According to Pope Paul VI, the Council intended to make it easier for people to see the meaning of the various parts of the Mass and the connection between them, and easier for people to participate.' See how the Mass has been dumbed-down? How many professionals and academics still attend the Novus Ordo? Hmmm? And how is it easier to 'see the meaning of the various parts ... and the connection between them' when almost all the rubrics have been tossed? What are priests actually required to DO in the Novus Ordo? Very little - and there are hordes of middle-aged women dying to do it for them.
  
  
• '(T)he revised Missal expects that most of the congregation will be receiving Holy Communion.' How can a shepherd of the flock calmly contemplate this state of play, when tragically it means that many - most scandalously at funerals -  because they are ignorant are receiving Holy Communion sacrilegiously, in a state of mortal sin.
  
  
• '(F)ull, conscious and active participation...' Yes, Bp Cullinane is still banging on about that odorous red herring. For the bishop and his ilk, attending Mass means doing something. Anything, as it turns out, in many Masses. Worshipping lions, anyone? Pole-dancing? Blessing the congregation with a guitar?
  
  
  

• 

  Hinduisation of the Mass in India

  
  
  
  
•  (A)cting as ”one body, one spirit in Christ” does not mean we should be regimented like an army platoon. It means sharing in the Spirit of Christ who abides in us - which means actually possessing that Spirit, which means being IN A STATE OF GRACE, which means confessing our sins. 
  
  
• The priest’s role is still special.' Oh, how dismissive. Bishop Cullinane, lift your game! The priest's role is SO special, there would be no Mass without him. The priest is called to be mediator between God and men, and therefore superior to them in sanctity - although all men are called to perfection (not that Novus Ordo-ites would know it.  A PP was once heard to ask rhetorically, in a 'homily', "Who says we have to be perfect?" A certain reader of this blog had to be restrained from answering.)

St John Vianney, the Curé of Ars

• 'The way we relate to people who have “gathered in his name” is different from the ways we relate to people who have gathered for social occasions.' Tell that, bishop, to parents who attend 'school Masses'.
  
  
• For the Eucharistic Prayer the bishop unwillingly concedes that kneeling is 'laudable', but still insists on our being counted “worthy to stand in Your presence”. Does the bishop really think that Catholics who haven't confessed their sins for months or years are worthy to stand in God's presence? The fact is, Christ Himself appears on the altar (actually downgraded to a table) and the only fitting response for those whose knees still work (perhaps because they're regularly exercised) is to go down on them and adore our crucified Lord.
  
  Why insist that that people should stand? Because kneeling is the instinctive reaction to the Divine Presence, and Bergoglio&Co, driven by the spite of the devil, want to eliminate the Divine and all evidence of It.
  
  

  "If people who have been kneeling for a thousand years suddenly get to their feet, they do not think, “We’re doing this like the early Christians, who stood for the Consecration”; they are not aware of returning to some particularly authentic form of worship. They simply get up, brush the dust from their trouser-legs and say to themselves: “So it wasn’t such a serious business after all”: Martin Mosebach in Heresy of Formlessness,

  
  
  
• 'Nor are ‘altar’ and ‘table’ conflicting concepts' (tell that to the Marines) 'as the table shape of the altar in meant to remind us.' Que? 
  
  
• '(H)ygiene aimed at preventing the spread of potentially fatal infections is a matter of moral duty towards ourselves and others.' Well, gee, your Excellency, the common flu is a potentially fatal infection but hand-washing is the only hygiene historically required to prevent it. 
   
• The homily is to help us recognise how God is involved in our lives .... what God is doing.  A sermon is more about what we should be doing ... we also need to know that, but not all our learning can be loaded on to the homily.'  Even just a little bit would help, your Excellency. 
  
  
• 'Constant moralising can lead to over-anxiety for people already harassed by the struggles of living.' Most of the struggles of living are caused by people not knowing how to live. It's the priest's job to tell them. A good sermon is not 'moralising''; it raises our gaze to God and His glory.
  
  
• ‘…(A)lways to be kept in mind is the preservation of that freedom, envisaged by the new rubrics, to adapt the celebration in an intelligent manner to the church building, or to the group of faithful who are present': so why not freedom to kneel for the Eucharistic Prayer without having to swivel and crane our necks to see the sacred Host rather than a frill pretending to be a skirt, around the waist of a teen standing in front of us?   
  
  
• 'The tabernacle and reserved Sacrament are not part of the Mass. This is why the Church’s preference is for the tabernacle to be located in a separate space within the church, suitable for the devotion due to the Blessed Sacrament'. Yes, that's the Novus Ordo Church's preference all right. It was never the preference for all the centuries preceding Vat II. It's the Novus Ordo effect: hide Our Lord away, make it as difficult as possible for visitors to find Him. How often do you find visitors in that 'separate space within the church'? They're nearly always empty. The tabernacle is God's physical earthly home. Almighty God resides within it. It should be as beautiful as we can make it. Stepping into any church should be like stepping into heaven and how can it be heaven if God is not there?
  
  

Did you know that a papal document - Antipope Bergoglio's Evangelii Gaudium 161- says that love of neighbour is the first and greatest commandment? 

Like Bishop Cullinane's church, Bishop Cullinane's Mass has a separate space for God. He is not there. Bishop Cullinane's Mass is about man, not God. 

What would you think if you heard a priest preach in a homily that “According to the almost unanimous opinion of believers and unbelievers alike, all things on earth should be related to man as their center and crown”? 

What if it wasn’t from the pulpit? What if it was from the Second Vatican Council’s Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, Gaudium et Spes, paragraph 12? https://onepeterfive.com/why-do-people-have-a-problem-with-the-novus-ordo/

Do you realise that in the Novus Ordo we are worshipping ourselves?

Did you know that Cardinal Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) famously characterized the Novus Ordo  as a “fabrication, a banal product of the moment”?

"This change also touches the faithful. It is intended to interest each one of those present, to draw them out of their customary personal devotions or their usual torpor.

'We must prepare for this many-sided inconvenience. It is the kind of upset caused by every novelty that breaks in on our habits. We shall notice that pious persons are disturbed most, because they have their own respectable way of hearing Mass, and they will feel shaken out of their usual thoughts and obliged to follow those of others. Even priests may feel some annoyance in this respect.” -Paul VI, who was directly responsible for promulgating the Novus Ordo, implicitly acknowledged its invasive and counterintuitive nature in his general audience of November 29, 1969. In other words his Novus Ordos was a can of worms. 

"(T)hat the Novus Ordo is a matrix of possibilities that can be realized by each community according to its own ideas of what is right and fitting is not a perfection of it, but a sign of its internal incoherence, anarchy, and relativism.

"The traditional rites of the Church follow time-honored rules that require (even if they do not always guarantee) serious, reverent, orderly, and theocentric worship. The result is that anywhere I go in the world, I can walk into a traditional Latin Mass and know what I am going to see and hear. The same texts, the same gestures, the same ethos, the same Catholic religion.https://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2019/01/ten-reasons-not-to-prefer-novus-ordo.html#.Yt-GenZBzgs

 

Yes: the devil delights in the Novus Ordo! Cullinane, Bergoglio&Co invite and incite a counter-revolution in the Catholic Church. St Michael, Archangel, pray for us. 

The Vendéeans: counter-revolutionaries