Here is what I found occupying space in my Inbox this morning:
The new DICI 292 is on line
When the exception disproves the rule
At the Second Vatican Council there were no plans—in principle—to abolish Latin from the liturgy, nor to authorize Communion in the hand, but some time afterward, in the name of the spirit of the Council, exceptions were introduced depending on the circumstances, the persons, the countries…. Which means that today the exception has become the rule: everywhere the liturgy is in the vernacular and Communion is received in the hand.
In keeping with this spirit, which makes it possible to obtain in practice what is not authorized in principle, Cardinal William Kasper, during the recent Consistory on the family, proposed exceptions to the rule that does not allow divorced-and-remarried Catholics to receive Communion. This is not a matter of changing the doctrine of the indissolubility of marriage, he assured his listeners, but only of authorizing some pastoral exceptions. In other words, marriage is doctrinally indissoluble but can be dissolved pastorally.
In a while we will see that these exceptions become the rule: all divorced-and-remarried Catholics will receive Communion on the hand during Masses celebrated in the vernacular. Because in reality, since the Council, doctrine itself can be dissolved in pastoral practice.
Fr. Alain Lorans
How can I avoid reading this MGL critically? (MGL = Most Gracious Letter)
Let's have a closer look, shall we? The new DICI 292 is on line
~ A simple announcement - neither offensive or amazing in its own right.
But actually, if you want to really SEE the new DICI 292, you have to download the PDF
.When the exception disproves the rule
~ Now we take a step up to the cynical, the clever, the subtlety of saying something without saying it. What is "the rule" to which Fr. Lorans refers? And what is this "exception?" Is he trying to get us to understand that Vat.II broke all the rules, or at least some of them? Does he ever say that? Is there anything to be found in this MGL that clearly pronounces any kind of criticism or condemnation of the UNCLEAN SPIRIT of Vat.II? Inasmuch as the more common saying, "the exception proves the rule" (a favorite of liberal doublespeak) is here turned around to at least SEEM to say the opposite, "When the exception DISproves the rule," one might be led to believe that Fr. Lorans is hereby announcing his SEPARATION and DISTANCING from liberalism. But is it all that obvious? Does he ever make any proposition or pronouncement in this MGL that unquestionably says as much?
If you can find one, please let me know! But in the present, let's approach this scientifically, with the hypothesis that Fr. Lorans is trying to demonstrate here that he is NOT a liberal, and if we can find any support for that hypothesis, we might then proceed to look for how he would be leading readers to imitate his non-liberal example, by not being liberals themselves. But one thing at a time!At the Second Vatican Council there were no plans—in principle—to abolish Latin from the liturgy, nor to authorize Communion in the hand,..
~ At this point, I'm beginning to seriously doubt that my hypothesis will find any support in this MGL. And it's only the first sentence! Does Fr. provide any reference data to back up his extremely liberal-leaning proposition here, that "at Vat.II there were NO PLANS to abolish Latin from the Liturgy?" Because I can provide, right now, proof positive that there WERE "plans—in principle—to abolish Latin from the liturgy," and it is quite simple to do so.
I know a priest who was in seminary during Vat.II. He was ordained the year after the Council closed, in 1966. He testifies, most vehemently, that all during his years studying to become a priest, that is, beginning in 1960, his professors told him regularly, that he had to learn this Latin stuff, but only to pass muster for ordination, because he would never need to actually USE it in real life. Does that sound like there were "no plans" to abolish—in principle—Latin from the liturgy?
Or, is this what Fr. Lorans means by "When the exception disproves the rule?"
And as for "...nor to authorize Communion in the hand," we have the historical fact that the protestants had been doing that for hundreds of years, already, and when combined with the historical fact that one Annibale Bugnini was hunting down protestant ministers who would take up the task with him of concocting out of whole cloth an entirely NEWMASS that Paul VI would approve of without officially promulgating it (because his theologians all assured him that promulgation of any "Newmass" would be in direct violation of Quo Primum,
and would be immediately opposed by informed theologians worldwide as Papal act of schism from the defined doctrine of the Church, and so, they chose another route), we don't have to wonder whether details like eventual communion-in-the-hand would be quasi-instituted. Making inroads with protestants was the driving principle of Vat.II, that is, the unclean spirit of Vat.II, even if it was not DESCRIBED as such at the time. To say otherwise is a bold-faced lie. ..but some time afterward, in the name of the spirit of the Council, exceptions were introduced depending on the circumstances, the persons, the countries….
~ My hypothesis quickly fades into the realm of ridiculous, and impossible to support!! It was merely "some time afterward" that these things began to happen, was it? What about in 1955 when Bugnini started attacking Holy Week under Pius XII, who did nothing to stop him, but who actually followed the marching orders of his Freemason appointee and conducted the REVISED Holy Week liturgy -- changing the most ancient rites of the Church for NO REASON AT ALL, but for the sake of novelty, to test the waters, to see what people would tolerate, to float a trial balloon, as the liberals of later, more honest vocabulary, would say?
"Exceptions were introduced depending on the circumstances, the persons, the countries" --------------- all that was AFTER the Council? Fr. Lorans, have you ever READ the documents of Vat.II? You're practically quoting them here, so you must know that this was part of the Council itself, not merely what came in its wake!!
Take a second look at the previous sentence, and see, that SC 22.2
lays down the PRINCIPLE of local bishops having total authority over every possible manner of novelty and change in liturgy and the daily practice of the faith, worldwide.Which means that today the exception has become the rule:
~ Are we playing a game of musical chairs now? The title of this MGL is "When the exception disproves the rule,"
but suddenly "the exception has become the rule." Did I miss something? Or is Fr. Lorans just having fun being self-contradictory, like some kind of sport? Or, musical chairs -- a game?
Or, is Fr. Lorans getting his readers accustomed to the application in practice of the "hermeneutic of continuity" of Benedict XVI, whereby a thing can be AND not be, all at the same time? First we have A, then we have NOT A, and both shall live in peace and harmony, correct? First we have "the exception disproves the rule," and then we have "the exception has become the rule."
As Bill Clinton said, "It all depends on the meaning of the word, 'is'
."..everywhere the liturgy is in the vernacular and Communion is received in the hand.
~ It was their plan all along! Every voting member of Vat.II was fully aware of how important doctrine is, after seeing what had happened in the 16th century and with the rise of protestantism and the calling of Trent. They all fully knew that "If you give a liberal an inch, he'll take a mile." So they knew that there could be no such exceptions lest they become the new rule. They knew that would happen before they voted! Nobody had to wait until "TODAY"
to find out whether it would happen or not. In the early 1980s, only a few years into the papacy of JPII, the "Missalettes" in the pews of NovusOrdo parishes had printed inside the cover, INSTEAD OF QUO PRIMUM
(which used to be printed inside the cover of all altar missals since A.D. 1570) noted in BOLD TYPE that inroads were being made to promote intercommunion of protestants with the Catholic Newmass. That was when the 1983 Newcode of Canon Law was being finalized which contains a canon that provides for protestants receiving communion at the Newmass, and does not exclude Catholics from receiving communion at protestant services.
It was over this very issue, in 1973, that Fr. Frederick Schell was expelled from the diocese, because he refused the local bishop's direct command to distribute Communion in the hand. That was when Paul VI still had 5 more years to go! Does Fr. Lorans have a pulse? Notice, too, that he does NOT SAY that this "everywhere" that the liturgy is in the vernacular and Communion is in the hand is a BAD thing. He does not say that it is NOT being done this way in SSPX chapels. He does NOT say that it will NOT be done this way in SSPX chapels. He does NOT condemn this insidious error of Vatican II, the Newmass and the Newcode of Canon Law. He DOES NONE OF THESE THINGS.
In fact, I dare anyone to prove to me, by the words on this page, that Fr. Lorans is NOT telling his readers that the SSPX still pursues a 'deal' with modernist Rome while knowing full well that the Society's future would necessarily entail having the liturgy in the vernacular and receiving Communion in-the-hand.
I think at this point, my hypothesis is ENTIRELY DECEASED. We can pull the plug now.In keeping with this spirit, which makes it possible to obtain in practice what is not authorized in principle, Cardinal William Kasper, during the recent Consistory on the family, proposed exceptions to the rule that does not allow divorced-and-remarried Catholics to receive Communion.
~ In keeping with this unclean spirit? the unclean spirit of Vat.II? is that what you're talking about, Fr. Lorans? Is that what makes it possible to obtain in practice what is not authorized in principle? How would Fr. Schell have been ordered to distribute Communion in-the-hand if it had not been "authorized in principle?" It was COMMANDED in principle!
Are you going to say that being commanded is unrelated to being authorized? The entire fiasco of Vat.II and the Newmass and the Newcode were AUTHORIZED by the fact that the Pope at the time would have it NO OTHER WAY. Beginning with John XXIII, anyone who opposed the changes was PUNISHED. The erstwhile banned Modernists were specifically trucked in to positions of power by John XXIII, and he was only upping the ante of the example shown by the fact that Pius XII appointed Bugnini, a known Freemason, to the post that would reform the liturgy. This was nothing new!!This is not a matter of changing the doctrine of the indissolubility of marriage, he assured his listeners, but only of authorizing some pastoral exceptions. In other words, marriage is doctrinally indissoluble but can be dissolved pastorally.
~ Now, we're switching topics. We were talking about the Newmass and intercommunion, but now we're suddenly talking about marriage. Okaaaaayyyy.. Why not? Let's be versatile, shall we? Does anyone else here see that Fr. Lorans is speaking out AGAINST Kasper's error? How does this condemn anything: "In other words, marriage is doctrinally indissoluble but can be dissolved pastorally?"
If my hypothesis still had any life left in it, I would wonder if Fr. Lorans is merely getting us acclimated to the bad doctrine of Newchurch by speaking and pronouncing the bad doctrine of Cardinal Kasper, that "Marriage can be dissolved pastorally." What else could he hope to accomplish by putting such words in his MGL? But since my hypothesis is DEAD, I don't have to wonder!
If you look at the words themselves, it appears obvious that Fr. Lorans is literally giving his APPROVAL to what Kasper promotes,
that is, he approves his error. Are we supposed to understand that what Fr. Lorans literally says is the opposite of what he wants us to believe and to practice? Is this how any father or mother teaches their child, to tell them the opposite of what they want them to believe?
(Johnny asks his mother) "Mother, my friend at school want me to accompany him to the market where he will proceed to steal cigarettes from the shelves. Should I go with him to watch him do that?"
(Mother replies) "Oh, sure, that's a great way to learn proper morality, and how to stay out of jail."
No? Which mothers reading this would talk that way to their child, expecting him to learn the right thing to do, and how to preserve his innocence?
How is that different from, "In other words, marriage is doctrinally indissoluble but can be dissolved pastorally?"In a while we will see that these exceptions become the rule: all divorced-and-remarried Catholics will receive Communion on the hand during Masses celebrated in the vernacular. Because in reality, since the Council, doctrine itself can be dissolved in pastoral practice.
Fr. Alain Lorans
~ Is Fr. Lorans warning about dangers to come, or, like the professors of my friend in seminary of 1962 (when the Newmissal of John XXIII emerged), is he telling his charges what is going to come soon, because he is involved in bringing it about,
without having to divulge the means or secret game plan, by which the change in practice is taking place?
You see, dear friends, we have been worrying that the SSPX is slipping into liberalism, and that there is some kind of danger that the Great One, the subtle
bishop, will sign some kind of agreement with the Modernists in Rome, but in fact, it does not matter. Because, thanks to screeds like this MGL of Fr. Lorans, the subtle
change is taking place in the hearts of the faithful pew-sitters, and they don't even know it. At some point, and it could come very soon, the XSPX will simply be recognized while everyone still "in it" will already be digested by Modernism, even if they don't know what's happened to them. Modernism is a subtle
disease, because one of the symptoms of Modernism is that you don't know you're infected.
And then all the XSPX real estate will belong to the local bishop, or, even if some other arrangement is agreed upon or shoved down the collective throats of the faithful, it won't matter. Because The Great One, the subtle
bishop, will have what he covets most of all: jurisdiction! Or, that is, even if he doesn't have jurisdiction, he will at least have jurisdiction-at-the-end-of-a-string-tied-to-a-stick, leading him on to bigger, greater horizons.