Aboard the papal plane, Mar 8, 2021 / 03:00 pm (CNA).- Please read below for CNA’s full transcript of Pope Francis’ in-flight press conference from Baghdad, Iraq, to Rome, Italy on March 8, 2021.
Pope Francis: First of all, thank you for your work, your company, your fatigue. Then, today is Women’s Day. Congratulations to the women. Women’s Day. But they were saying why is there no Men’s Day? Even when [I was] in the meeting with the wife of the president. I said it was because us men are always celebrated and we want to celebrate women. And the wife of the president spoke well about women, she told me lovely things today, about that strength that women have to carry forward life, history, the family, many things. Congratulations to everyone. And third, today is the birthday of the COPE journalist. Or the other day. Where are you?
Matteo Bruni, Holy See press office director: It was yesterday.
Pope Francis: Best wishes and we should celebrate it, right? We will see how we can [do it] here. Very well. Now, the word is yours.
Bruni: The first question comes from the Arabic world: Imad Atrach of Sky News Arabia.
Imad Abdul Karim Atrach (Sky News Arabia): Holiness, two years ago in Abu Dhabi there was the meeting with the Imam al-Tayyeb of al-Azhar and the signing of the document on human fraternity. Three days ago you met with al-Sistani. Are you thinking to something similar with the Shiite side of Islam? And then a second thing about Lebanon, which St. John Paul II said is more than a country, it is a message. This message, unfortunately, as a Lebanese, I tell you that this message is now disappearing. Can we think a future visit by you to Lebanon is imminent?
Pope Francis: The Abu Dhabi document of February 4 was prepared with the grand imam in secret during six months, praying, reflecting, correcting the text. It was, I will say, a little assuming but take it as a presumption, a first step of what you ask me about.
Let’s say that this [Ed. meeting with al-Sistani] would be the second [step] and there will be others. It is important, the journey of fraternity. Then, the two documents. The Abu Dhabi one created a concern for fraternity in me, Fratelli tutti came out, which has given a lot. We must… both documents must be studied because they go in the same direction, they are seeking fraternity.
Ayatollah al-Sistani has a phrase which I expect to remember well. Every man… men are either brothers for religion or equals for creation. And fraternity is equality, but beneath equality we cannot go. I believe it is also a cultural path.
We Christians think about the Thirty Years’ War. The night of St. Bartholomew [Ed. St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre], to give an example. Think about this. How the mentality has changed among us, because our faith makes us discover that this is it: the revelation of Jesus is love, charity, and it leads us to this. But how many centuries [will it take] to implement it? This is an important thing, human fraternity. That as men we are all brothers and we must move forward with other religions.
The [Second] Vatican Council took a big step forward in [interreligious dialogue], also the later constitution, the council for Christian unity, and the council for religious dialogue — Cardinal Ayuso accompanies us today — and you are human, you are a child of God and you are my brother, period. This would be the biggest indication. And many times you have to take risks to take this step. You know that there are some critics who [say] “the pope is not courageous, he is an idiot who is taking steps against Catholic doctrine, which is a heretical step.” There are risks. But these decisions are always made in prayer, in dialogue, asking for advice, in reflection. They are not a whim and they are also the line that the [Second Vatican] Council has taught us. This is his first question.
The second: Lebanon is a message. Lebanon is suffering. Lebanon is more than a balance. It has the weakness of the diversity which some are still not reconciled to, but it has the strength of the great people reconciled like the fortress of the cedars. Patriarch Rai asked me to please make a stop in Beirut on this trip, but it seemed somewhat too little to me: A crumb in front of a problem in a country that suffers like Lebanon. I wrote a letter and promised to make a trip to Lebanon. But Lebanon at the moment is in crisis, but in crisis — I do not want to offend — but in a crisis of life. Lebanon is so generous in welcoming refugees. This is a second trip.
Bruni: Thank you, Your Holiness. The second question comes from Johannes Neudecker of the German news agency Dpa.
Johannes Neudecker (Deutsche Presse-Agentur): Thank you, Holy Father. My question is also about the meeting with al-Sistani. In what measure was the meeting with al-Sistani also a message to the religious leaders of Iran?
Pope Francis: I believe it was a universal message. I felt the duty of this pilgrimage of faith and penance to go and find a great man, a wise man, a man of God. And just listening to him you perceived this. And speaking of messages, I will say: It is a message for everyone, it is a message for everyone. And he is a person who has that wisdom and also prudence… he told me that for 10 years, “I do not receive people who come to visit me with also other political or cultural aims, no… only for religious [purposes].” And he was very respectful, very respectful in the meeting. I felt very honored; he never gets up even to greet people. He got up to greet me twice. A humble and wise man. This meeting did my soul good. He is a light. These wisemen are everywhere because God’s wisdom has been spread all over the world.
It also happens the same with the saints, who are not only those who are on the altars, they are the everyday saints, the ones I call “next-door saints.” Men and women who live their faith, whatever it may be, with coherence. Who live human values with coherence, fraternity with coherence. I believe that we should discover these people, highlight them, because there are so many examples. When there are scandals in the Church, many, this does not help, but we show the people seeking the path of fraternity. The saints next door. And we will find the people of our family, for sure. For sure a few grandpas, a few grandmas.
Eva Fernandez (Radio COPE): Holy Father, it is great to resume the press conferences again. It is very good. My apologies, but my colleagues have asked me to ask this question in Spanish.
[In Spanish] During these days your trip to Iraq has had a great impact throughout the world. Do you think that this could be the trip of your pontificate? And also, it has been said that it was the most dangerous. Have you been afraid at some point during this trip? And soon we will return to travel and you, who are about to complete the eighth year of your pontificate, do you still think it will be a short [pontificate]? And the big question always for the Holy Father, will you ever return to Argentina? Will Spain still have hope that one day the pope will visit?
Pope Francis: Thank you, Eva, and I made you celebrate your birthday twice — once in advance and another belated.
I start with the last question, which is a question that I understand. It is because of that book by my friend, the journalist and doctor, Nelson Castro. He wrote a book on [the history of] presidents’ illnesses, and I once told him, already in Rome, “But you have to do one on the diseases of the popes because it will be interesting to know the health issues of the popes — at least of some who are more recent.”
He started [writing] again, and he interviewed me. The book came out. They tell me it is good, but I have not seen it. But he asked me a question: “If you resign” — well, if I will die or if I will resign — “If you resign, will you return to Argentina or will you stay here?”
I said: “I will not go back to Argentina.” This is what I have said, but I will stay here in my diocese. But in that case, this goes together with the question: When will I visit Argentina? And why have I not gone there? I always answer a little ironically: “I spent 76 years in Argentina, that’s enough, isn’t it?”
But there is one thing. I do not know why, but it has not been said. A trip to Argentina was planned for November 2017 and work began. It was Chile, Argentina, and Uruguay. This was at the end of November. But then at that time there was an election campaign happening in Chile because on that day in December the successor of Michelle Bachelet was elected. I had to go before the government changed, I could not go [further].
So let us do this: Go to Chile in January. And then in January it was not possible to go to Argentina and Uruguay because January is like our August here, it is July and August in both countries. Thinking about it, the suggestion was made: Why not include Peru, because Peru was bypassed during the trip to Ecuador, Bolivia, Paraguay, and remained apart. And from this was born the January trip between Chile and Peru.
But this is what I want to say so that you do not create fantasies of “patriaphobia.” When there are opportunities, it must be done, right? Because there is Argentina and Uruguay and the south of Brazil, which are a very great cultural composition.
About my travels: I make a decision about my trips by listening. The invitations are many. I listen to the advice of the counselors and also to the people. Sometimes someone comes and says: What do you think? Should I go or not? And it is good for me to listen. And this helps me to make the decision later.
I listen to the counselors and in the end I pray. I pray and I think a lot. I have reflected a lot about some trips, and then the decision comes from within. It is almost spontaneous, but like a ripe fruit. It is a long way, isn’t it? Some are more difficult, some are easier, and the decision about this trip comes early.
The first invitation of the ambassador, first, that pediatrician doctor who was the ambassador of Iraq, very good. She persisted. And then came the ambassador to Italy who is a woman of battle. Then the new ambassador to the Vatican came and fought. Soon the president came. All these things stayed with me.
But there is one thing behind my decision that I would like to mention. One of you gave me a Spanish edition [of the book] “The Last Girl.” I have read it in Italian, then I gave it to Elisabetta Piqué to read. Did you read it? More or less it is the story of the Yazidis. And Nadia Murad tells about terrifying things. I recommend that you read it. In some places it may seem heavy, but for me this was the trasfondo of God, the underlying reason for my decision. That book worked inside me. And also when I listened to Nadia who came to tell me terrible things. Then, with the book… All these things together made the decision; thinking about all the many issues. But finally the decision came and I took it.
And, about the eighth year of my pontificate. Should I do this? [He crosses his fingers.] I do not know if my travel will slow down or not. I only confess that on this trip I felt much more tired than on the others. The 84 [years] do not come alone, it is a consequence. But we will see.
Now I will have to go to Hungary for the final Mass of the Eucharistic Congress, not a visit to the country, but just for the Mass. But Budapest is a two-hour drive from Bratislava, why not make a visit to Slovakia? I do not know. That is how they are thinking. Excuse me. Thank you.
Bruni: Thank you, Eva. Now the next question is from Chico Harlan of the Washington Post.
Chico Harlan (Washington Post): Thank you, Holy Father. I will ask my question in English with the help of Matteo. [In English] This trip obviously had extraordinary meaning for the people who got to see you, but it did also lead to events that caused conditions conducive to spreading the virus. In particular, unvaccinated people packed together singing. So as you weigh the trip, the thought that went into it and what it will mean, do you worry that the people who came to see you could also get sick or even die. Can you explain that reflection and calculation. Thank you.
Pope Francis: As I said recently, the trips are cooked over time in my conscience. And this is one of the [thoughts] that came to me most, “maybe, maybe.” I thought a lot, I prayed a lot about this. And in the end I freely made the decision. But that came from within. I said: “The one who allows me to decide this way will look after the people.” And so I made the decision like this but after prayer and after awareness of the risks, after all.
Bruni: The next question comes from Philippine de Saint-Pierre of the French press.
Philippine de Saint-Pierre (KTO): Your Holiness, we have seen the courage and dynamism of Iraqi Christians. We have also seen the challenges they face: the threat of Islamist violence, the exodus of Christians, and the witnesss of the faith in their environment. These are the challenges facing Christians through the region. We spoke about Lebanon, but also Syria, the Holy Land, etc. The synod for the Middle East took place 10 years ago but its development was interrupted with the attack on the Baghdad cathedral. Are you thinking about organizing something for the entire Middle East, be it a regional synod or any other initiative?
Pope Francis: I’m not thinking about a synod. Initiatives, yes — I am open to many. But a synod never came to mind. You planted the first seed, let’s see what will happen. The life of Christians in Iraq is an afflicted life, but not only for Christians. I came to talk about Yazidis and other religions that did not submit to the power of Daesh. And this, I don’t know why, gave them a very great strength. But there is a problem, like you said, with emigration. Yesterday, as we drove from Qaraqosh to Erbil, there were lots of young people and the age level was low, low, low. Lots of young people. And the question someone asked me: But these young people, what is their future? Where will they go? Many will have to leave the country, many. Before leaving for the trip the other day, on Friday, 12 Iraqi refugees came to say goodbye to me. One had a prosthetic leg because he had escaped under a truck and had an accident… so many escaped. Migration is a double right. The right to not emigrate and the right to emigrate. But these people do not have either of the two. Because they cannot not emigrate, they do not know how to do it. And they cannot emigrate because the world squashes the consciousness that migration is a human right.
The other day — I’ll go back to the migration question — an Italian sociologist told me, speaking about the demographic winter in Italy: “But within 40 years we will have to import foreigners to work and pay pension taxes.” You French are smarter, you have advanced 10 years with the family support law and your level of growth is very large.
But immigration is experienced as an invasion. Because he asked, yesterday I wanted to receive Alan Kurdi’s father after Mass. This child is a symbol for them. Alan Kurdi is a symbol, for which I gave a sculpture to FAO [the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations]. It is a symbol that goes beyond a child who died in migration. He is a symbol of dying civilizations, which cannot survive. A symbol of humanity. Urgent measures are needed so that people have work in their place and do not have to emigrate. And also measures to safeguard the right to emigrate. It is true that every country must study well the ability to receive [immigrants], because it is not only about receiving them and leaving them on the beach. Receive them, accompany them, help them progress, and integrate them. The integration of immigrants is key.
Two anecdotes: Zaventem, in Belgium: the terrorists were Belgians, born in Belgium, but from ghettoized, non-integrated Islamic immigrants. Another example: when I went to Sweden, during the farewell ceremony, there was the minister, of what I don’t know, [Ed. Alice Bah-Kuhnke, Swedish Minister of Culture and Democracy from 2014 to 2019], she was very young, and she had a distinctive appearance, not typical of Swedes. She was the daughter of a migrant and a Swede, and so well integrated that she became minister [of culture]. Looking at these two things, they make you think a lot, a lot, a lot.
I would like to thank the generous countries. The countries that receive migrants, Lebanon. Lebanon was generous with emigrants. There are two million Syrians there, I think. And Jordan — unfortunately, we will not pass over Jordan because the king is very nice, King Abdullah wanted to pay us a tribute with the planes in passage. I will thank him now — Jordan has been very generous [with] more than one and a half million migrants, also many other countries… to name just two. Thank you to these generous countries. Thank you very much.
Matteo Bruni: The next question is in Italian from the journalist Stefania Falasca.
Stefania Falasca (Avvenire): Good morning, Holy Father. Thank you. In three days in this country, which is a key country of the Middle East, you have done what the powerful of the earth have been discussing for 30 years. You have already explained what was the interesting genesis of your travels, how the choices for your travels originate, but now in this juncture, can you also consider a trip to Syria? What could be the objectives from now to a year from now of other places where your presence is required?
Pope Francis: Thank you. In the Middle East only the hypothesis, and also the promise is for Lebanon. I have not thought about a trip to Syria. I have not thought about it because the inspiration did not come to me. But I am so close to the tormented and beloved Syria, as I call it. I remember from the beginning of my pontificate that afternoon of prayer in St. Peter’s Square. There was the rosary, adoration of the Blessed Sacrament. And how many Muslims with carpets on the ground were praying with us for peace in Syria, to stop the bombing, at that moment when it was said that there would be a fierce bombing. I carry Syria in my heart, but thinking about a trip, it has not occurred to me at this moment. Thank you.
Matteo Bruni: Thank you. The next question comes from Sylwia Wysocka of the Polish press.
Sylwia Wysocka (Polish Press Agency): Holy Father, in these very difficult 12 months your activity has been very limited. Yesterday you had the first direct and very close contact with the people in Qaraqosh: What did you feel? And then, in your opinion, now, with the current health system, can the general audiences with people, with faithful, recommence as before?
Pope Francis: I feel different when I am away from the people in the audiences. I would like to restart the general audiences again as soon as possible. Hopefully the conditions will be right. I will follow the norms of the authorities in this. They are in charge and they have the grace of God to help us in this. They are responsible for setting the rules, whether we like them or not. They are responsible and they have to be so.
Now I have started again with the Angelus in the square, with the distances it can be done. There is the proposal of small general audiences, but I have not decided until the development of the situation becomes clear. After these months of imprisonment, I really felt a bit imprisoned, this is, for me, living again.
Living again because it is touching the Church, touching the holy people of God, touching all peoples. A priest becomes a priest to serve, to serve the people of God, not for careerism, right? Not for the money.
This morning in the Mass there was [the Scripture reading about] the healing of Naaman the Syrian and it said that Naaman wanted to give gifts after he had been healed. But he refused… but the prophet Elisha refused them. And the Bible continues: the prophet Elisha’s assistant, when they had left, settled the prophet well and running he followed Naaman and asked for gifts for him. And God said, “the leprosy that Naaman had will cling to you.” I am afraid that we, men and women of the Church, especially we priests, do not have this gratuitous closeness to the people of God which is what saves us.
And to be like Naaman’s servant, to help, but then going back [for the gifts.] I am afraid of that leprosy. And the only one who saves us from the leprosy of greed, of pride, is the holy people of God, like what God spoke about with David, “I have taken you out of the flock, do not forget the flock.” That of which Paul spoke to Timothy: “Remember your mother and grandmother who nursed you in the faith.” Do not lose your belonging to the people of God to become a privileged caste of consecrated, clerics, anything.
This is why contact with the people saves us, helps us. We give the Eucharist, preaching, our function to the people of God, but they give us belonging. Let us not forget this belonging to the people of God. Then begin again like this.
I met in Iraq, in Qaraqosh… I did not imagine the ruins of Mosul, I did not imagine. Really. Yes, I may have seen things, I may have read the book, but this touches, it is touching.
What touched me the most was the testimony of a mother in Qaraqosh. A priest who truly knows poverty, service, penance; and a woman who lost her son in the first bombings by ISIS gave her testimony. She said one word: forgiveness. I was moved. A mother who says: I forgive, I ask forgiveness for them.
I was reminded of my trip to Colombia, of that meeting in Villavicencio where so many people, women above all, mothers and brides, spoke about their experience of the murder of their children and husbands. They said, “I forgive, I forgive.” But this word we have lost. We know how to insult big time. We know how to condemn in a big way. Me first, we know it well. But to forgive, to forgive one’s enemies. This is the pure Gospel. This is what touched me the most in Qaraqosh.
Matteo Bruni: There are other questions if you want. Otherwise we can…
Pope Francis: How long has it been?
Bruni: Almost an hour.
Pope Francis: We have been talking for almost an hour. I don’t know, I would continue, [joking] but the car… [is waiting for me.] Let’s do, how do you say, the last one before celebrating the birthday.
Matteo Bruni: The last is by Catherine Marciano from the French press, from the Agence France-Presse.
Catherine Marciano (AFP): Your Holiness, I wanted to know what you felt in the helicopter seeing the destroyed city of Mosul and praying on the ruins of a church. Since it is Women’s Day, I would like to ask a little question about women… You have supported the women in Qaraqosh with very nice words, but what do you think about the fact that a Muslim woman in love cannot marry a Christian without being discarded by her family or even worse. But the first question was about Mosul. Thank you, Your Holiness.
Pope Francis: I said what I felt in Mosul a little bit en passant. When I stopped in front of the destroyed church, I had no words, I had no words… beyond belief, beyond belief. Not just the church, even the other destroyed churches. Even a destroyed mosque, you can see that [the perpetrators] did not agree with the people. Not to believe our human cruelty, no. At this moment I do not want to say the word, “it begins again,” but let’s look at Africa. With our experience of Mosul, and these people who destroy everything, enmity is created and the so-called Islamic State begins to act. This is a bad thing, very bad, and before moving on to the other question — A question that came to my mind in the church was this: “But who sells weapons to these destroyers? Because they do not make weapons at home. Yes, they will make some bombs, but who sells the weapons, who is responsible? I would at least ask that those who sell the weapons have the sincerity to say: we sell weapons. They don’t say it. It’s ugly.
Women… women are braver than men. But even today women are humiliated. Let’s go to the extreme: one of you showed me the list of prices for women. [Ed. prepared by ISIS for selling Christian and Yazidi women.] I couldn’t believe it: if the woman is like this, she costs this much… to sell her… Women are sold, women are enslaved. Even in the center of Rome, the work against trafficking is an everyday job.
During the Jubilee, I went to visit one of the many houses of the Opera Don Benzi: Ransomed girls, one with her ear cut off because she had not brought the right money that day, and the other brought from Bratislava in the trunk of a car, a slave, kidnapped. This happens among us, the educated. Human trafficking. In these countries, some, especially in parts of Africa, there is mutilation as a ritual that must be done. Women are still slaves, and we have to fight, struggle, for the dignity of women. They are the ones who carry history forward. This is not an exaggeration: Women carry history forward and it’s not a compliment because today is Women’s Day. Even slavery is like this, the rejection of women… Just think, there are places where there is the debate regarding whether repudiation of a wife should be given in writing or only orally. Not even the right to have the act of repudiation! This is happening today, but to keep us from straying, think of what happens in the center of Rome, of the girls who are kidnapped and are exploited. I think I have said everything about this. I wish you a good end to your trip and I ask you to pray for me, I need it. Thank you.
[…]
From these comments, love this bishop.
We are in a war. The enemy has already degendered your local restrooms in many places and has been attacking people known as targeted individuals with remote weapons. The public is being gaslighted and brainwashed. People need to be rigid or the enemy will just keep chipping away at everything until it is all gone. The pope looks like he is helping the communists. Did you see the Church Militant interview with all those seminarians who were attacked? A real pope would be furious.
While not a viewer of Church Militant, I did see the (emailed) interview….
One priest, from Chicago (to the right in the back row), remarked that his ordeal was inflicted under the former bishop (not the current Cardinal Cupich), and that this was done by embedded chancery office moles while the former bishop (the solid Cardinal Francis George) was hospitalized. Same scenario for the approval of female altar servers while Pope John Paul II was hospitalized with a broken hip in 1994 (to which he immediately responded with Ordinatio Sacerdotalis—the end-game of a recently ordained Anglican female bishop).
Just wondering, here, about the final wording of Pope Francis’ Traditionis Custode (especially banishment of the Latin Mass from “parochial churches”), coming as it did immediately after Pope Francis had been hospitalized for ten days.
Maybe a large part of the problem, in the case of many cases, is not the orientation (so to speak!) of bishops, but the fact that seminary training in philosophy and theology does not also prepare them for office fumigation or counterinsurgency.
For all those of you who have been commenting with hatred towards those of us who attend the Latin Mass, although it might sadden you to know, some of the things that reliably occur or do not occur at Latin masses, independent of reverential liturgy, includes not attending Mass dressed like slobs, not chewing the Eucharist like bubble gum, not having giggling elbow poking foot races out the door after receiving the Eucharist, not having to listen to out of tune dreadful guitar music with ear-splitting volume when one is supposed to be intimate with Jesus, and not having end of mass announcements made within one minute after the last host is distributed.
All of these practices, common at NO masses, continue to become more widespread even though we have serious authors like George Weigel assuring us that “the silly season” is long over while he agrees with the principle that all are obligated to respect, without reservation, the NO Mass, which would seem to require becoming oblivious to these increasingly non-reverential NO practices.
A lot of the practices you mention were also done in the early 60’s at the TLM mass, which at that time was the only mass authorized. I am old enough to remember that time, and people talked and ran out the door, etc. back then. There are stories from the 1700’s where people in Germany were mad because people were making out during the mass, having arguments during the mass, etc. Life never changes. Not everything is solved by the TLM. Nor are all the attendees of the TLM perfection itself.
Whoever said anything was “solved” by the TLM or said attendees of the TLM were “perfection?” Ironically, you illustrate the problem in this debate. You present a very secular world view that evil in the world, and in the Church, is a management problem that superior minds are obliged to resolve for the rest of us. God is not involved in the premises of this process. Sin doesn’t exit according to this view, only a lack of social engineering by superior minds. How unchristian can you possibly get?
And what possible point can there be to note evil behavior of Catholics in the past? Do you actually have the audacity to contend that there is anything but a day and night difference in the contemporary Church between the self-indulgent highly secularized practices, including those who essentially trash the Eucharist, that is, between “attendees” of the NO Mass and those who would never trash the Eucharist, the “attendees” of the Traditional Latin Mass? If so, were that the case, it would make you profoundly dishonest. If the moderators here permit a reference, head over to YouTube and do a simple search on liturgical abuse. There you will find multiple short videos illustrating the effects of the self-worshiping content of NO liturgy, at the least in terms of a lack of humble discipline, taken to their logical conclusion. Start with the one with Cdl. Dolan and the Rockettes, not that I find that particular image in any way offensive. As a lifelong New Yorker I’ve gone to the Radio City Christmas show many times. But the content of that video makes the point effectively.
Samton, of course the TLM is not perfect; nothing ever is. But recent surveys between those who regularly attend Mass in that rite report a 99% rate of belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Among the continually declining number who regularly attend Mass in the OF – that includes me – belief in the Real Presence is less than 40%. So while the TLM isn’t perfect, it’s obviously much better.
On occasion I’ve had the opportunity to attend the evening EF Mass at Holy Innocents Church in NYC – which one hopes Cardinal Dolan will not disturb – and like anyone, I’m struck both by the solemnity and dignity of the Mass and the eclectic congregation typically in attendance. On the times I’ve been there, I’ve seen a largely young college-age congregation, but also plenty of cops, bag ladies, plumbers, bums professorial types with Oxford accents and a significant number of attendees from Asia or Africa. Contrast that with the homogenous, affluent white-bread suburban parishes where one seems most likely to find liturgical hipsters, pace George Weigel. It might behoove the Pope to come to EF Mass sometime and see for himself.
Being blind, he cannot see.
Meanwhile, may this comfort and teach us.
“…God acts through Christ in the liturgy in that we cannot act but through Him and with Him. Of ourselves, we cannot construct the way to God. This way does not open up unless God Himself becomes the way. And again, the ways of man which do not lead to God are non-ways. Theology of the liturgy means furthermore that in the liturgy, the Logos Himself speaks to us; and not only does He speak, He comes with His Body, and His Soul, His Flesh and His Blood, His Divinity and His Humanity, in order to unite us to Himself, to make of us one single “body.” In the Christian liturgy, the whole history of salvation, even more, the whole history of human searching for God is present, assumed and brought to its goal. The Christian liturgy is a cosmic liturgy – it embraces the whole of creation which “awaits with impatience the revelation of the sons of God” (Rom. 8; 9).
“Trent did not make a mistake, it leant for support on the solid foundation of the Tradition of the Church. It remains a trustworthy standard. But we can and should understand it in a more profound way in drawing from the riches of biblical witness and from the faith of the Church of all the ages….
“One thing should be clear: the liturgy must not be a terrain for experimenting with theological hypotheses. Too rapidly, in these last decades, the ideas of experts have entered into liturgical practice, often also by-passing ecclesiastical authority, through the channel of commissions which have been able to diffuse at an international level their “consensus of the moment,” and practically turn it into laws for liturgical activity. The LITURGY DERIVES ITS GREATNESS FROM WHAT IT IS, NOT FROM WHAT WE MAKE OF IT. [Emphasis added] Our participation is, of course, necessary, but as a means of inserting ourselves humbly into the spirit of the liturgy, and of serving Him Who is the true subject of the liturgy: Jesus Christ. THE LITURGY IS NOT AN EXPRESSION OF THE CONSCIOUSNESS OF A COMMUNITY WHICH, IN ANY CASE, IS DIFFUSE AND CHANGING. IT IS REVELATION RECEIVED IN FAITH AND PRAYER, AND ITS MEASURE IS CONSEQUENTLY THE FAITH OF THE CHURCH, IN WHICH REVELATION IS RECEIVED. [emphasis added] The forms which are given to the liturgy can vary according to place and time, just as the rites are diverse. What is essential is the link to the Church which for her part, is united by faith in the Lord. The OBEDIENCE OF FAITH GUARANTEES THE UNITY OF THE LITURGY [emphasis added] beyond the frontiers of place and time, and so lets us experience the unity of the Church, the Church as the homeland of the heart.”
~From our beloved Holy Father Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI as CDF Prefect, from a lecture delivered during the Journees liturgiques de Fontgombault, 22-24 July 2001.
Most – not all – adherents and promoters of the pre-Vatican mass also happen to be rightist conservatives in their political orientation and affiliation. I’m wondering whether those criticizing or badmouthing Pope Francis for his reimposition of the “restrictions” on the Tridentine mass see in this unfolding drama a mirror with the voter “restrictions” now crafted by the Republican Party in 43 states through some 250 bills. Don’t they see their “disenfranchisement” as similar to the “disenfranchisement” of multitude of voters especially minorities? How’s the similarity?
People are not disenfranchised by being required to provide ID to show they’re actually eligible to vote. Ineligible voters don’t have the franchise and therefore can’t be disenfranchised.
Now let’s discuss how rules requiring people to present ID when cashing checks are unjust to forgers and thieves.
If you like elections being easy to steal, then you will not like the new voting laws, designed to make it easy to vote, but hard to cheat.
What a silly statement.
St. Michael the Archangel defend us in battle, be our defense against the wickedness and snares of the devil.
May God rebuke him, we humbly pray. And do thou, O Prince of the Heavenly Host, by the Power of God, thrust into Hell Satan and all evil spirits who prowl the world for the ruin of souls.
Let God arise, let his enemies be scattered, and let those who hate him flee before his face.
Amen.
Amen.
St. Thomas More, St. John Fisher and all Holy Martyrs who died for the faith, pray for us in our time of grave need.
I had previously accused the Shephards of abandoning us. Here is a Shephard whose staff is not just an ornament, he guides and protects his sheep. As for nostalgia, it is not the reason for my having love for the Tridentine Mass. As for the Novus Ordo, I have never questioned its validity, it could use some reforming. As for Vatican ll it’s been in the name of Vatican ll that I saw my Church taken away from me, destroyed, defiled, plundered, and ransacked. So yes I do have some animosity towards the Council which the majority of Catholics are in agreement with. Decisions were made for us without any consideration for the faithful. I believe that if we Catholics question something we deserve an answer. I have come to a serious question, in light of the Biography of Pope Benedict XVl. St. John XXlll worked hard and completed the Council with 70 decrees, The 1962 Missal, and an Apostolic letter on Latin, for all of the ordained to read Latin, write it and speak it fluently. In October of 1962, the Bishops of the world were to come to Rome to officially sign the 70 Decrees. Then the Modernists having a plot took over the Council. They voted out the Council of St. John XXlll and took up the decision to create their own Council, A Council that has born no fruit. So here I question, was it lawful for this to have happened? If it was okay for the Modernists Bishops to deride a Council and make up their own. If it was lawful then I will have to go back and accept Vatican ll in its entirety and ask no more questions.
No, I am sorry. The story you repeated is the schismatic SSPX version of the Council. It is totally wrong. That is the propaganda that the extremist traditionalists spread because they hate the Council. In actual fact, what you are talking about is the ‘schema” that the CDF and others prepared before the Council even started. The bureaucrats in the curia wanted things to go their way, so they prepared the schema to highlight everything the bureaucrats wanted. But those documents were only a starting point – the bishops of the Council were free to entirely reject them, to alter them a little or a lot. The Schema was merely staff work done before the Council, and it could in no way bind a Council of the Church. After the bishops assembled, they found that they did not like what the bureaucrats had prepared, and they mostly threw the bureaucrats work out, and prepared documents that they wanted. That is how Councils are supposed to work. The SSPX and other schismatics push this idea that secret plotters took over the Council and they pretend the bureaucrats must be obeyed at all times and the bishops are subject to the bureaucrats. But that is not how the church works.
Your analysis is wrong.
@Samton911
Romano Amerio, an eyewitness to the Council, paints a vivid, detailed, thoroughly-documented picture that is at odds with your analysis. His book Iota Unum is worth the read, if you want the straight story.
Great article. What an excellent bishop. I wish that he was my bishop.
It looks like the staff of the USCCB, or somebody directing them from Rome, tried to hide the survey of bishops on the USCCB website. So only the inner circle of Francis was really informed of this survey of bishops (Cupich, Farrell, McElroy, etc) and only they responded to it. Of course, we just learned that a top ranking USCCB official was caught using a homosexual app to contact other anonymous men for homosexual sex, so that might have been part of the process to hide the survey on the USCCB web site.
Our church is so horrifically screwed up right now, and we have had homosexual scandal after homosexual scandal going back 30 years. Nobody does a damn thing about it.
Somebody, maybe the pope, made sure he did not get any accurate information on the TLM. There was, in the extremist traditionalist internet presence, a great attempt to weaponize the TLM against the church, and to encourage TLM goers to join the de facto schismatics of the SSPX. So Paprocki is downplaying that aspect a bit. But I have no doubt he was right, that the bulk of the people going to the TLM were not rejecting Vatican II.
Today the news is out that Flynn and Condon of “The Pillar” met with Cardinal Parolin for 90 minutes quite recently. The gist of the story, so far, is that they have the same Grindr information on people using the app from secure Vatican locations. Given that they got to meet with Parolin, they must have some very compelling evidence of wrongdoing. For some reason, people are thinking that Grindr information was used by China to blackmail Vatican officials. That would explain the horrendously bad deal the Vatican made with China. And it would explain Sorondo’s bizarre statement that China best reflects the social teaching of the church. Hold on, there is much more to come from this story.
I like this guy – in a very nice, Priestly way he is saying things that we of the gun-chewing public portion of the laity are saying but nowhere near as nicely.
Nevertheless – he IS saying them, and they DO NEED to be said.
Wow, you chew guns? Boy, you’re tough! 🙂
“I would have appreciated some advance notice.”
Funny how the super “collegial” and super “synodal” Pope Francis treats the bishops so poorly in reality, contradicting in practice the teaching of Vatican I and Vatican II that bishops are not merely vicars of the Roman Pontiff.
“I’d like to point out that there is a difference in between accepting the validity of the Second Vatican Council and believing that it has failed in its objectives.” This is an important point, and thank you to the bishop for making it. Likewise one can (as Catholics must) accept that the New Mass is valid and orthodox, but at the same time worry that it is more open to abuses because of the “optionitis” and all the rubrical safeguards it removed, and that the prayers of the old Mass do a BETTER job of expressing the Catholic teaching concerning the Real Presence, the sacrificial nature of the Mass, etc. There are substantive concerns one can have about Vatican II and the liturgical reform that cannot simply be preemptively disqualified because they go against the official party line. Having CERTAIN reservations about these matters does not call into question the indefectibility of the Church. For decades many bishops have been afraid of entering into serious conversations about this sort of thing, but the time most certainly has come.
There are no real “substantive concerns one can have about Vatican II”. There are some rebellious priests that think they found these so called problems with Vatican II, but these things have been debated for 60 years now, and only the schismatically inclined elements of the SSPX really think there is anything seriously wrong with Vatican II. The liturgical reforms that followed after the council, yes, there were many abuses. But the council itself? There are only perceived problems that are egregiously hyped on the internet, and some people fall into the trap of believing this stuff. But each and every concern has been answered ad infinitum over the last 60 years. If people still do not understand the validity of Vatican II, then they simply have not studied the matter enough, or they have not studied it in good faith.
“Problem” is not the same as “error”, and the implication that only stupid or lazy people could find difficulties in Vatican II is insulting. Many excellent scholars have found ways that Dignitatis humanae, for example, can be read in a way that is consonant with Tradition … but their findings all contradict each other (Thomas Pink, Thomas Storck, Pere Basile of Barroux, John Lamon, Fr Harrison, etc.).
Is your Fr. Harrison of the Roman Theological Forum and is his associate John McCarthy? Msgr.’s 2010 article, The Second Vatican Council: A Needed Interpretation, is worth a read. It’s quite brief but his few examples of problems is concise and powerful.
You are patently wrong.
You have obviously not studied the matter. Recent versions of Microsoft Word allow huge files. Why don’t you cut and paste the entirety of Gaudium Et Spes into a file. Then do a search on the word evolve or derivative of the word, and see what it actually says. Were you to do so, you would see an implicit denial of original sin and a promotion of the idea of humanity evolving into a secular utopia, very much like the idiocies of the pro-abort and all around heretic Teilhard De Chardin. This is why Benedict XVI and most of the world’s prelates in 1985 expressed their own misgivings about GS at their Synod. Granted, as a forty year veteran of pro-life work, I appreciated the strong pro-life paragraph in GS, but the heresies can not be ignored either. When you actually trouble yourself to read it, and the rest of the documents, then come back here and talk about how superior you are to those who have read them and are legitimately not happy about VII as we are not in any way required to be.
Cardinal Heenan of Westminster was an especially trenchant critic of GS, complaining that it seemed to have been written by “clerics with no knowledge of the world.” I’d say he was right about that.
The Novus Ordo Mass and liturgical rites are valid and licit, but are highly banal and deficient compared to the traditional rites.
Vatican II was a valid council and an utter disaster and failure that needs to be consigned to the ash heap of history. It bore extremely little in the way of good fruit.
I say this as a priest who has yet to celebrate the traditional rites, but because of Bergoglio’s mendacity, heresy, and motu proprio Traditionis Custodes, plans on learning them and leaving the Novus Ordo Rites behind.
Truth cannot be changed, even by a pope or an ecumenical council.
I do not know when the sale began on this two DVD disc set, but the timing is helpful now:
FSSP Instructional Mass Video
From the description:
This DVD is offered only in NTSC format. It will not work in overseas DVD players that use a PAL format.
This 2-DVD disc set has been produced by the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter in collaboration with the EWTN Global Television Network to teach priests how to say Low Mass in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite. The video includes an introduction by Darío Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos, President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei. A comprehensive step-by-step explanation and walk-through of the entire ceremony of Low Mass. A real-time demonstration of the Mass filmed from four simultaneous camera angles with the ability to switch the viewing angle at any time! Instruction in the basic principles of gesture and movement as well as all the variable elements commonly encountered when offering Mass. A talk on the fundamental principles of the Extraordinary Form by Fr. Calvin Goodwin, FSSP, and a spiritual commentary on the liturgy.
International version now offers English, Spanish, Italian, French and German audio options.
Over three hours of footage on two DVD discs
Praise God for your voice, Father.
Some commenters here would appear to suffer from off-the-normal Bell curve of linguistic ability or skill in reading comprehension. For the pugnacious, curmudgeonly, confrontational illiterates among us, I should like to repeat your statement:
“There are substantive concerns one can have about Vatican II AND the liturgical reform….” [emphasis added].
When John XXII convened VCII, he invoked the “Holy Spirit” to assist in a “New Pentecost” for the Church. Myriad actions following VCII were said to have been motivated, justified and implemented in the “Spirit of Vatican II.”
Is it not right and just that the faithful ask substantive questions in this regard: Many post-VCII actions were rationalized as necessary and reflective of “The Spirit of VCII;” why was the word “Holy” dropped from His name?
St. Pope John XXIII, in his letter convening the council, reported his impetus as desiring a “New Pentecost.” Just as the Holy Spirit gifted the Church to grow and thrive once upon a time, St. Pope John XXIII wished for a return visit at VCII.
If the mission of the Holy Spirit is to bring the faithful into communion with Christ so as to form His Body, HOW CAN THE MASS EXODUS, the ever-increasing number of apostates leaving the Church in the wake of VCII, the increasing number of CINOs who do not believe in the Real Presence, etc., be said to result from the Holy Spirit at and after VCII, which was St. Pope John XXIII’s desire and motivation for having called it in the first place?
Or are we to deny the Holy Spirit his substantial consubstantiality???
Let us hear the grovelled answer, ye of little faith.
An a-one bishop, no doubt about it. Bless him.
Because people are living well into their 80s and 90s, many of us don’t recognize the difference between enjoying pretty good health from your 70s-90s and bearing the daily, if not hourly, responsibility and physical/mental burden of leading a country, Fortune 500 company, or Church. At that age, being able to competently fulfill such a role is extremely rare. What typically happens is advisors and other influencers assume more and more of the leader’s power, even more so when the leader takes a turn for the worse. Many fault Benedict XVI for resigning from the papacy but the decision reflected both wisdom and courage.
How many Catholics have read the documents of VII? So how can they reject VII? We mostly accept it on faith. The results suggest that it’s past time for that (blind) faith to be questioned, along with VII and especially its implementation.
I have read the documents of Vatican II, Gilberta. In fact they saved my faith when I was a young man.
I agree that many Catholics have not. I consider myself a fairly traditional Catholic, and has always been a source of sadness to me that so many denigrate the Council when they aren’t even aware of what it teaches.
You’re right. People need to question, not merely assume.
If you read the documents, I am confident you will find that all of the nonsense from the sixties and the seventies — sterile church decors with stalactites instead of statues, tabernacles banished to broom closets, liturgical flash dancing, etc. — were abuses of Vatican II, not its fruits.
Please, read the documents for yourself. They are not terribly dense. And I found them to be uplifting, heartening and absolutely Christ-centered.
In my opinion, they really do succeed in showing a way forward for the people of God.
Some brief criticisms of the Vatican 2 documents:
Unitatis Redintegratio (Decree on Ecumenism): It refers to heretical assemblies as “separated churches” in a striking departure from the traditional use of the term “ecclesia”; It fails to support the doctrine of extra-ecclesiam nulla salus, by conflating the possibility that one may be saved *within* another faith, with the idea that one may be saved *b*y another faith; It encourages Catholics to pray in common and in communion with heretics.
Lumen Gentium (Decree on the Church): It denigrates the Catholic Church by failing to distinguish that the Catholic Church *is* the Church of God, instead altering the traditional language to state that the Church of God merely *subsists in* the Catholic Church.
Nostra Aetate (Decree on Non-Christian Religions): It includes blatant lies about Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Rabbinic Judaism, to make them seem more palatable to Catholics, and more agreeable with our faith, when they are neither.
Dignitatis Humane (Declaration on Religious Liberty): It declares a natural right to choose and practice false religions, which is prima facie aberrant–One has a natural right to proclaim and to follow that which is true, but there is no right at all to proclaim or follow that which is false.
Gaudium et Spes (Decree on the Church in the Modern World): promotes integration with, fruitless dialogue with, and compromise with the modern world–rather than recognizing and continuing to proclaim that the modern world must conform to God, it insinuates that the church must instead conform God to the modern world.
I hope that sheds light on things.
Pope Leo XIII, in his 1894 apostolic letter, Praeclara Gratulationis, speaks of the separated Eastern Churches as “Ecclesiae Orientales.” Vatican II was following the usage of Leo XIII.
Here is the paragraph in Leo XIII’s letter:
“First of all, then, We cast an affectionate look upon the East, from whence in the beginning came forth the salvation of the world. Yes, and the yearning desire of Our heart bids us conceive and hope that the day is not far distant when the Eastern Churches (Ecclesiae Orientales), so illustrious in their ancient faith and glorious past, will return to the fold they have abandoned. We hope it all the more, that the distance separating them from Us is not so great: nay, with some few exceptions, we agree so entirely on other heads that, in defense of the Catholic Faith, we often have recourse to reasons and testimony borrowed from the teaching, the Rites, and Customs of the East.”
The many young Catholics who flock to the TLM probably have no thought of VII, except possibly having heard repeatedly what a Great Thing it was. What they no doubt have noticed and taken to is the Beauty of Holiness which the TLM affords, and which they have never experienced in the liturgical banality with which they came of age. If anyone wants to call this phenomenon a “rejection of VII,” then I ‘d say he’s missed the obvious by a wide margin.
A Bishop with an actual spine. Nice. As for the current situation, we will have to hope the next Pope takes a leaf from Francis’s page and undoes this mess when he is gone. I go to a NO Mass everyday. I find Jesus there , which is my only interest.So, no problem. That being said I dont have a problem with the Latin Mass being celebrated for people, and I think the pope’s time would be better spent dealing with the Schism he is about to have in Germany. I think “blessing” gay couples is a lot more serious an issue for the church than celebrating a legitimate Mass in Latin.
Brineyman, thanks for your response. I think we’re on the same page. Here it is 50 years on and I have only a vague idea of what the documents actually say. And I know I’m very far from alone. Maybe this is part of the failure in catechesis in the last 50-plus years?
No doubt, Gilberta. The failure of catechesis has been absolute.
As has the failure of media.
Not surprising that cartoon thinking rules our age.
Indeed – “…cartoon thinking rules our age.” You said it!
What is keeping you from reading them?
My wife and I attend a NO Mass each Sunday morning at one of the parishes mentioned in this article.
The NO mass is in English, celebrated ad orientem and we receive the Eucharist at a communion rail (one may kneel or stand and receive either on the tongue or in the hand). The church building itself is lovely and has been lovingly maintained and restored. The homilies are solidly orthodox. Confession is available before every Mass.
The NO is very beautiful when it is properly celebrated.
I’m keenly envious – in my experience, that is no more likely to happen than that the TLM will be celebrated. Very vehement clerical hostility to both.
Kevin, the Novus Ordo can be beautifully celebrated, yes. But it is worth noting that the Novus Ordo is often most beautifully celebrated by priests who also regularly celebrate the traditional Latin Mass (and it seems you are referring to a Cantius parish, so that would be the case). In other words, these priests bring the ethos of the traditional Mass to the celebration of the New Mass, and so even Catholics who prefer a “reverent Novus Ordo” should still want the old Mass to be part of the life of the Church and for priests to celebrate it widely. The fact still remains, however, that even when the New Mass is offered with a traditional style (and we should be grateful to priests who do this), the TEXTS of the missal are still very different, and the old prayers which clearly express the Catholic doctrine concerning the sacrificial nature of the Mass have been removed. No one (even a pope) can rewrite history, and the fact is that the liturgical reform had the goal of making the Mass more palatable to Protestants by making it less distinctively Catholic.