Be Careful Who You Trust! Not Everyone in a Roman Collar Is Reliable!

I recently read several articles on substack defending the Novus Ordo by Msgr. Arthur Holquin, a retired priest of the Diocese of Orange in California. I don't subscribe to his account and won't. Once I realize someone isn't trustworthy, I shake the dust off my feet and move on. I left one comment and that's it. Someone else can argue with him. He writes a dissertation responding to anyone who disagrees with him and mentions over and over how educated he is. 

Let me clarify. I do not question the validity of the Novus Ordo and certainly it can be said reverently as Bishop Athanasius describes with the priest facing the tabernacle, in Latin, etc. Nevertheless, I agree with those who say there are serious deficiencies in the form and I mainly avoid it except for weddings, funerals, and the sacraments of our grandchildren.

Actually, I agree with some of what the monsignor writes. Is there anyone who has opinions with which one disagrees 100%. I doubt it. And he's no doubt a very friendly man with whom one could have a pleasant visit with non-controversial chit chat; but after perusing Fr. Holquin's articles on substack and looking at his Facebook page where he holds many of the worst and most unfaithful clerics in apparent high regard, I won't be looking to him for any advice.

I disagree with Msgr. Holquin's articles on the NO which pretty much follow those of others who say the development of the Traditional Latin Mass was a medieval construction that deviated from ancient practices. He points out that, at Vatican II, the Council Fathers voted overwhelmingly to reform the liturgy. That is true, but does anyone really believe they wanted the disaster that followed? Why the orthodox among them, which was probably a significant number at the time, caved in wholesale is a mystery to me. They let the iconoclasts run roughshod over the Church leading to the massive crisis in faith we have today. How many souls have been lost, especially in the American Church where people have left in droves? And isn't it funny that all the progressives working for novelty and change claim it in the name of ancient practices from the early Church. Makes you shake your head and laugh!

Monsignor's article on the defense of the NO lost me early on when he wrote this about the men leading the charge for radical change:

The actual revision of the Roman Missal was entrusted to the Consilium, led by Archbishop Annibale Bugnini and including distinguished liturgical scholars like Josef Jungmann, Cipriano Vagaggini, and Louis Bouyer (the latter a convert from Protestantism who wrote one of the finest books on the Eucharist in the 20th century).

These men were not vandals or heretics. They were serious scholars who worked from ancient sources: early Christian texts, the writings of the Church Fathers, manuscript evidence from various liturgical families. Their work was reviewed and approved at every stage by Pope Paul VI, who promulgated the new Missal in 1969 with the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum.

The opposite is actually true of at least two of these "experts" who participated in the wreckovation of the liturgy and whose dark shadows linger over it like ghosts. They were, in fact, vandals as surely as Thomas Cranmer, England's mass assassin.

Let's take a look at Bugnini first. More and more evidence is coming out that Bugnini was a freemason. Fr. Charles Murr in his book, Murder in the 33rd Degree offers evidence that Cardinal Edouard Gagnon had the proof, but the only pope willing to act on it was John Paul I who died shortly after being elected. While the evidence presented by Murr is mostly his eyewitness testimony from his relationship with Gagnon as his secretary, it seems compelling to me. An eyewitness to a murder doesn't need to present documentation. So the man charged with the reform of the liturgy was, very likely, an enemy of the Church, and this is one of the "experts" praised by Fr. Holquin. Fr. Z has an interesting post about Bugninicare accompanied by a series of photos showing exactly what Bugnini brought to the Mass. I recommend you have a barf bag handy if you read his post. Bugnini was, indeed, a vandal!

Next, take a look at Jungmann. Tradition in Action has an extensive, well documented
expose of Jungmann who had no problem twisting Church history to support his agenda. He worked to insert his preferred novelties into the Mass one of which was to eliminate the ad orientem position and turn the priest to face the people with his back to Jesus in the tabernacle. Welcome to the showman Mass where the priest often becomes a standup comic who dresses up like Barney the dinosaur, wears butterfly vestments, or blesses the flock with a guitar. 

Jungmann said facing the people was the way the early Church worshiped. Later on he repudiated that position as an error saying, "The claim that the altar of the early Church was always designed to celebrate facing the people, a claim made often and repeatedly, turns out to be nothing but a fairy tale." Ya just gotta laugh. Did he forget that he promoted it? 

Regardless, the damage was already done. One wonders whether Jungmann's repudiation was an attempt to save his reputation as the great scholar of the Mass. Was the truth coming out from other liturgy experts, and he had to minimize the damage? "Nothing to see here, folks. It was just a mistake. Mea culpa. Everything else I wrote was gospel truth!" 

I'm not familiar with Vagaggini so I'll move on to Fr. Louis Bouyer who wasn't a fan of what the Consilium did and spared no criticism in his 2014 memoir about it. If there's a good guy in the story, Bouyer gets the role:

I should not like to be too harsh on this commission's labours. It numbered a certain number of genuine scholars and more than one experienced and judicious pastor. Under different circumstances they might have accomplished excellent work. Unfortunately, on the one hand a deadly error in judgment placed the official leadership of the committee in the hands of a man who, though generous and brave, was not very knowledgeable: Cardinal Lercaro. He was utterly incapable of resiting the manoeuvres of the mealy-mouthed scoundrel that the Neapoltan Vincentian, Bugnini, a man as bereft of culture as he was of basic honesty, soon revealed himself to be....

The worst of it was an impossible Offertory, in a Catholic Action, sentimental / workerist style, the handiwork of Fr Cellier, who with tailor-made arguments manipulated the despicable Bugnini in such a way that his production went through despite nearly unanimous opposition....

I prefer to say nothing, or so little of the new calendar, the handiwork of a trio of maniacs who suppressed, with no good reason, Septuagesima and the Octave of Pentecost and who scattered three quarters of the Saints higgledy-piddledy, all based on notions of their own!

Because these three hotheads obstinantly refused to change anything to their work and because the Pope wanted to finish up quickly to avoid letting the chaos out of hand, their project, however insane, was accepted!...

After all of this, it is not much surprise if, because of its unbelievable weaknesses, the pathetic creature we produced was to provoke laughter or indignation ... so much so that it makes one forget any number of excellent elements it nevertheless contains, and that it would be a shame not to salvage as so many scattered pearls, in the revision which will inevitably be called for. 

I guess Bouyer didn't have the same glowing regard for Bugnini that Fr. Holquin has. I suspect Fr. Holquin is among the prelates who will happily join the morticians attempting to bury the Traditional Latin Mass. He is not a fan of the SSPX. In fact, in one article he claims the SSPX are anti-semitic because they opposed Nostra Aetate, the Vatican II document on non-Christian religions. He didn't accuse them of being anti-Hindu or anti-Buddhist though.

In view of the Assisi meetings, the Abu Dhabi accords, and the Abrahamic Family House, I think it is more accurate to say the SSPX opposes syncretism and the movement to abandon evangelization which was so prominent in both the Amazon synod and the Assisi meetings. And, of course, Pope Francis's statement that all religions are a path to God simply magnified and mainstreamed the errors. And who can forget the Pachamama plant on the altar in St. Peter's? 

Holquin is also a fan of Jesuit sodomy supporter, Fr. James Martin. He also frequently attacks Donald Trump, sometimes legitimately, as, for example when Trump posted the meme of the Obamas as apes. That was despicable! But Holquin totally ignores all the good things Trump has accomplished including many of his policies on pro-life [Sadly, his in vitro position is awful!], opposing the trans insanity, and reducing the power of the drug cartels. The Epoch Times recently ran an article on 30 Ways Trump Impacted the Us, World in 1st Year. They are extensive and most people would likely agree with many of them, e.g., removing artificial dyes from food, lowering drug and gas prices, and resolving some of the global conflicts. [Those with Trump Derangement Syndrome, of course, including many bishops, won't give the president credit for anything!] 

Monsignor is clearly in the same club as Cupich, Tobin, Roche, McElroy whom he praises. None of them is a bastion of orthodoxy. In fact, they and many of their brethren (Did I forget to mention Fernandez?) all undermine the faith and defend even those Democrats who champion sins that call to heaven for vengeance. That's surely true of Cupich who seems to have plenty of clout at the Vatican, which may be why the Vatican bureaucracy these days seems to mirror the Democrat party.

Choose the clerics you listen to wisely, especially among the bishops, but pray for them all. As John Chrysostom preached, "I do not think there are many among Bishops that will be saved." [Homily 3 on Acts of the Apostles] He especially referred to those whose actions caused the loss of souls. How many bishops today fall into that category through scandal and undermining the faith? We need them so the devil attacks them relentlessly. Unfortunately, he seems to be doing a pretty effective job of neutering our clergy. 

In charity we must pray and sacrifice for them: "for Thy faithful and fervent priests, for Thy unfaithful and tepid priests." Let us pray for all the clergy: the pope, all the bishops of the Church, and for the gift of holy priests, especially those who serve in our own parishes. What a gift to them and to ourselves if we dedicate ourselves this Lent to praying for our priests. We owe them that in gratitude for bringing us the Eucharist and forgiving our sins.

Lord Jesus, High Priest, have mercy on us.