Anti-Summorum Pontificum: Benedict’s Friends Turn Out to Be His Enemies - Surprised?
Francis’ furious Traditionis Custodes letter which cracks down on the Roman Rite “fearlessly hits the nail on the head," a sycophantic Archbishop Augustine Di Noia, secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith who owes his career to Benedict XVI, ranted in front of CatholicNews.com (July 20).
Without presenting facts, Di Noia alleges that the Roman Rite movement "hijacked" the initiatives of John Paul II and Benedict XVI to its own ends. Di Noia doesn't name these "ends."
Di Noia piles up gratuitous accusations, “What we have got now is a movement within the Church herself, seemingly endorsed by her leaders, that sows division by undermining the reforms of the Second Vatican Council through the rejection of the most important of them: the reform of the Roman Rite.”
In reality, division is sown by radicals like Bergoglio and Di Noia while the Roman Rite communities have been peacefully worshipping for decades. Further, Vatican II's "reform of the Roman Rite" was the 1965 Missal which was quickly overturned by Paul VI's [failed] Novus Ordo although a Commission of Bishops had rejected the latter.
According to Di Noia, since Benedict’s Summorum Pontificum “the thing has gotten totally out of control and become a movement, especially in the U.S., France and England—a movement that aggressively promotes the Traditional Latin Mass among young people and others as if this ‘extraordinary form’ were the true liturgy for the true church.”
The truth is the opposite: The Novus Ordo has "gotten totally out of control" and is only appealing to an overaged and dying public. Di Noia tries to resolve this problem by blaming those parts of the Church which have remained healthy. At least, he admits this by saying that “the way to address abuses is not by adopting the ‘extraordinary form,’ but by promoting the true renewal of the liturgy which, in many places, has simply not happened.”
It has become a common place in the Council church to claim that "Vatican II was not yet implemented" or "the true renewal of the liturgy didn't happen yet" while not doing anything about it.
According to Di Noia "many people with a desire for Latin in the liturgy (sic!) would have been better served by the ‘novus ordo’ in Latin than by the repristination of the pre-conciliar liturgy.” How could this happen if - as Di Noia just admitted - "the true renewal of the liturgy" never happened?
Picture: Augustine Di Noia, © wikicommons, CC BY-SA, #newsOpannchdgp
Without presenting facts, Di Noia alleges that the Roman Rite movement "hijacked" the initiatives of John Paul II and Benedict XVI to its own ends. Di Noia doesn't name these "ends."
Di Noia piles up gratuitous accusations, “What we have got now is a movement within the Church herself, seemingly endorsed by her leaders, that sows division by undermining the reforms of the Second Vatican Council through the rejection of the most important of them: the reform of the Roman Rite.”
In reality, division is sown by radicals like Bergoglio and Di Noia while the Roman Rite communities have been peacefully worshipping for decades. Further, Vatican II's "reform of the Roman Rite" was the 1965 Missal which was quickly overturned by Paul VI's [failed] Novus Ordo although a Commission of Bishops had rejected the latter.
According to Di Noia, since Benedict’s Summorum Pontificum “the thing has gotten totally out of control and become a movement, especially in the U.S., France and England—a movement that aggressively promotes the Traditional Latin Mass among young people and others as if this ‘extraordinary form’ were the true liturgy for the true church.”
The truth is the opposite: The Novus Ordo has "gotten totally out of control" and is only appealing to an overaged and dying public. Di Noia tries to resolve this problem by blaming those parts of the Church which have remained healthy. At least, he admits this by saying that “the way to address abuses is not by adopting the ‘extraordinary form,’ but by promoting the true renewal of the liturgy which, in many places, has simply not happened.”
It has become a common place in the Council church to claim that "Vatican II was not yet implemented" or "the true renewal of the liturgy didn't happen yet" while not doing anything about it.
According to Di Noia "many people with a desire for Latin in the liturgy (sic!) would have been better served by the ‘novus ordo’ in Latin than by the repristination of the pre-conciliar liturgy.” How could this happen if - as Di Noia just admitted - "the true renewal of the liturgy" never happened?
Picture: Augustine Di Noia, © wikicommons, CC BY-SA, #newsOpannchdgp