Showing posts with label Traditionalist. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Traditionalist. Show all posts

Thursday, August 21, 2025

St. Pope Pius X: The Pope of the Eucharist and Liturgical Renewal

St. Pope Pius X: The Pope of the Eucharist and Liturgical Renewal

St. Pope Pius X, born Giuseppe Melchiorre Sarto, is a towering figure in the history of the Catholic Church, revered for his humility, pastoral zeal, and profound contributions to liturgical reform. His papacy (1903–1914) was marked by a deep commitment to fostering holiness among the faithful, particularly through increased participation in the liturgy and frequent reception of the Eucharist. 

Often misunderstood by some traditionalist Catholics who criticize the modern Ordinary Form of the Mass, Pius X’s vision laid the groundwork for the liturgical reforms later codified at the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II). This blog post explores his life, rise to the papacy, beatification and canonization, his liturgical reforms, and why traditionalist critiques of lay participation and the Ordinary Form are at odds with his legacy.


 Early Life and Biography

Giuseppe Sarto was born on June 2, 1835, in Riese, a small village in the Veneto region of Italy, to a humble family. His father, Giovanni Battista Sarto, was a postman and municipal worker, while his mother, Margherita Sanson, raised their ten children under modest circumstances. Giuseppe was the second eldest, and despite the family’s poverty, his parents recognized his intelligence and piety early on. He walked miles to school daily, often barefoot to preserve his shoes, a testament to his resilience and determination.

From a young age, Giuseppe felt a calling to the priesthood. At 15, he entered the seminary in Padua, where his academic excellence and spiritual devotion stood out. Ordained in 1858 at age 23, he began his ministry as a curate in Tombolo, a small parish where he earned a reputation for his compassion, teaching catechism to children, and ministering to the poor. His early career included roles as a parish priest in Salzano and later as chancellor of the Treviso diocese, where he demonstrated administrative skill and pastoral care.

In 1884, Sarto was appointed Bishop of Mantua, a diocese plagued by financial troubles and lax clergy discipline. His reforms—improving seminary education, enforcing clerical standards, and promoting catechesis—revitalized the diocese. In 1893, Pope Leo XIII named him Cardinal and Patriarch of Venice, a prestigious but challenging post due to tensions between the Church and the Italian state. Sarto’s humility shone through; he reportedly hesitated to accept, feeling unworthy. As Patriarch, he continued his focus on catechesis, charity, and fostering devotion to the Eucharist, setting the stage for his papacy.


 Rise to the Papacy

On August 4, 1903, following the death of Pope Leo XIII, Giuseppe Sarto was elected pope after a contentious conclave. The cardinals sought a pastoral figure to balance Leo’s intellectual and diplomatic legacy. Sarto, reluctant to accept, reportedly wept upon his election, but he took the name Pius X, inspired by popes who had faced challenges with faith. His motto, Instaurare Omnia in Christo (“To restore all things in Christ”), encapsulated his mission to renew the Church through spiritual and moral reform.

Pius X’s papacy was defined by his pastoral approach. Unlike his predecessor, he avoided heavy involvement in geopolitics, focusing instead on internal Church matters. He tackled modernism—a theological movement he viewed as undermining Catholic doctrine—through the 1907 encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis and the syllabus Lamentabili Sane. These documents condemned modernist ideas, emphasizing the Church’s unchanging truths. While some criticized his approach as rigid, Pius saw it as protecting the faith from relativism.

His most enduring legacy, however, lies in his liturgical and sacramental reforms, particularly his efforts to make the Eucharist and sacred music central to Catholic life. He believed that active participation in the liturgy was essential for the spiritual growth of the laity, a vision that would resonate decades later at Vatican II.


 Liturgical Reforms and Lay Participation

Pius X is often called the “Pope of the Eucharist” due to his transformative decrees on Eucharistic practice and liturgical participation. At the time, infrequent Communion was common, with many Catholics receiving the sacrament only a few times a year, often due to overly scrupulous views on worthiness or Jansenist influences. In 1905, Pius issued Sacra Tridentina Synodus, a decree encouraging frequent, even daily, Communion for those in a state of grace. This was revolutionary, as it shifted the Eucharist from a rare event to the heart of Catholic spiritual life.

In 1910, through the decree Quam Singulari, Pius lowered the age for First Communion to around seven, the “age of reason,” arguing that children should receive Christ’s grace early. This change fostered a culture of Eucharistic devotion among the young, encouraging families to engage more deeply with the Mass.

Pius also sought to enhance the laity’s role in the liturgy. In his 1903 motu proprio Tra le Sollecitudini, he reformed sacred music, promoting Gregorian chant and polyphony over operatic or secular styles. He believed that music should elevate the soul toward God, and he encouraged the faithful to sing chants and hymns during Mass, fostering active participation. He wrote, “It is not fitting that the faithful assist at the sacred mysteries as spectators, but rather that they take an active part.” This emphasis on active engagement—through singing, responding, and understanding the liturgy—challenged the passive attendance common in his era.

These reforms were not merely aesthetic or disciplinary; they were rooted in Pius’s conviction that the liturgy was the source of Christian life. By encouraging the laity to participate actively, he sought to make the Mass a communal act of worship, not just a clerical ritual. His efforts to simplify and purify liturgical practices laid the foundation for the 20th-century Liturgical Movement, which sought to deepen the faithful’s understanding and involvement in the Mass.


 Path to Beatification and Canonization

Pius X died on August 20, 1914, shortly after the outbreak of World War I, reportedly heartbroken by the conflict he had tried to prevent through diplomatic efforts. His death was mourned widely, and stories of his humility—such as personally teaching catechism to children or giving his possessions to the poor—fueled calls for his canonization.

The process began in 1923, when his cause for sainthood was introduced. Miracles attributed to his intercession, including healings verified by medical experts, advanced his case. On June 3, 1951, Pope Pius XII beatified him, declaring him “Blessed Pius X.” Three years later, on May 29, 1954, Pius XII canonized him, making him the first pope saint since Pius V in the 16th century. His feast day is celebrated on August 21.

Pius X’s canonization was based not only on miracles but also on his heroic virtue—his humility, charity, and unwavering commitment to the Church’s mission. His reforms, particularly in Eucharistic devotion and catechesis, were seen as enduring contributions to the faith.


 Pius X and Vatican II: A Liturgical Legacy

The Second Vatican Council (1962–1965), convened by Pope John XXIII and continued by Pope Paul VI, is often seen as a turning point in modern Catholicism, particularly through its liturgical reforms in the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium. The council called for “full and active participation” of the laity in the liturgy, simplified rites to make them more accessible, and promoted the use of vernacular languages alongside Latin. These changes, which led to the Ordinary Form of the Mass (often called the Novus Ordo), have been controversial among some traditionalist Catholics, who argue they deviate from tradition.

However, Pius X’s reforms were a clear precursor to Vatican II’s liturgical vision. His encouragement of frequent Communion, early First Communion, and active lay participation through singing and responses aligned with the council’s goals. Sacrosanctum Concilium echoed Pius’s belief that the liturgy should be the “summit and source” of Christian life, accessible to all. His promotion of Gregorian chant and simplified liturgical music influenced the council’s call for preserving sacred music while making it participatory.

Pius X also supported the Liturgical Movement, which gained momentum in the early 20th century. Figures like Dom Prosper GuĂ©ranger and Lambert Beauduin built on Pius’s reforms, advocating for a liturgy that engaged the faithful intellectually and spiritually. By the time Vatican II convened, Pius’s emphasis on the Eucharist and lay involvement had shaped decades of liturgical scholarship, culminating in the council’s reforms.


 Traditionalist Critiques and Misunderstandings

Some traditionalist Catholics, particularly those who prefer the Extraordinary Form of the Mass (the Tridentine Rite), criticize the Ordinary Form for its vernacular language, simplified structure, and emphasis on lay participation. They often invoke Pius X as a defender of tradition, citing his condemnation of modernism and his preservation of Latin in the liturgy. However, this view misunderstands Pius X’s legacy and his contributions to liturgical reform.

First, Pius X was not opposed to liturgical adaptation. His reforms in Tra le Sollecitudini and Quam Singulari show a willingness to adjust practices to meet the spiritual needs of the faithful. He simplified music and encouraged lay singing, which required adapting traditional forms to make them accessible. His push for frequent Communion broke with centuries of restrictive practices, demonstrating that he valued spiritual vitality over rigid adherence to custom.

Second, Pius X’s emphasis on active participation directly contradicts the traditionalist ideal of a silent, passive laity. In Tra le Sollecitudini, he explicitly called for the faithful to engage in the liturgy, not merely observe it. The Ordinary Form’s inclusion of congregational responses, hymns, and vernacular prayers aligns with this vision, making the Mass a communal act of worship rather than a clerical performance.

Third, Pius X’s fight against modernism was about defending doctrine, not freezing liturgical forms. He condemned theological relativism, not liturgical renewal. Traditionalists who claim Pius would oppose Vatican II’s reforms overlook the fact that his own changes were revolutionary for their time, challenging the status quo to deepen the faithful’s connection to the liturgy.

Finally, the Liturgical Movement, which Pius supported, directly influenced Vatican II. Scholars like Beauduin and Pius Parsch, who built on Pius X’s reforms, advocated for a liturgy that was both reverent and participatory. The Ordinary Form, while different in execution, embodies the principles Pius championed: accessibility, engagement, and Eucharistic centrality.

Traditionalists who criticize lay participation or the Ordinary Form as “modernist” often fail to engage with Pius X’s writings or the historical context of his reforms. His vision was not about preserving every detail of the Tridentine Mass but about making the liturgy a living encounter with Christ for all Catholics. To claim otherwise is to misread his legacy.


 Conclusion

St. Pope Pius X was a pastor, reformer, and saint whose life and papacy left an indelible mark on the Catholic Church. Born into poverty, he rose through the ranks with humility and dedication, becoming a pope who prioritized the spiritual welfare of the faithful. His reforms—encouraging frequent Communion, lowering the age for First Communion, and promoting active lay participation in the liturgy—transformed Catholic practice and paved the way for Vatican II’s liturgical renewal. His beatification and canonization recognized his holiness and enduring impact.

Traditionalist critiques of the Ordinary Form and lay participation often invoke Pius X’s name without fully understanding his contributions. Far from opposing liturgical reform, Pius X was a pioneer of it, seeking to make the Mass a vibrant, communal act of worship. His legacy reminds us that tradition and renewal are not mutually exclusive but can work together to bring the faithful closer to Christ. As we celebrate his feast day, let us honor Pius X by embracing his call to “restore all things in Christ” through active, heartfelt participation in the liturgy.


 Sources

1. Tra le Sollecitudini, Motu Proprio of Pope Pius X, 1903.

2. Sacra Tridentina Synodus, Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, 1905.

3. Quam Singulari, Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments, 1910.

4. Pascendi Dominici Gregis, Encyclical of Pope Pius X, 1907.

5. Sacrosanctum Concilium, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Second Vatican Council, 1963.

6. Faggioli, Massimo. True Reform: Liturgy and Ecclesiology in Sacrosanctum Concilium. Liturgical Press, 2012.

7. Reid, Alcuin. The Organic Development of the Liturgy. Ignatius Press, 2005.

8. Lamberts, Jozef. “Pius X and the Liturgical Movement.” Studia Liturgica, vol. 33, no. 2, 2003, pp. 151–167.

9. Acta Apostolicae Sedis, Beatification and Canonization of Pius X, 1951, 1954.

10. Cekada, Anthony. Work of Human Hands: A Theological Critique of the Mass of Paul VI. Philothea Press, 2010. (For traditionalist perspectives, though critically assessed.)


 

Saturday, August 16, 2025

The Hacking of Bishop Joseph Strickland’s X Account: A Tale of Digital Vulnerability

The Hacking of Bishop Joseph Strickland’s X Account: A Tale of Digital Vulnerability

In the digital age, even prominent religious figures are not immune to cybercrime. Bishop Joseph Strickland, the former bishop of Tyler, Texas, and a well-known voice in traditionalist Catholic circles, has faced multiple incidents of his X account being compromised. These events, occurring in 2025, highlight the growing threat of cyberattacks targeting influential individuals and the broader implications for online security within religious communities. This blog post explores the timeline of the hacking incidents, their impact, and the lessons they offer for safeguarding digital identities.


 The First Incident: March 2025

On March 3, 2025, Bishop Strickland found himself locked out of his X account, which boasted over 215,000 followers at the time. A fraudulent account began using his name to promote a fake cryptocurrency called “$CHRIST coin.” This scam was particularly insidious, leveraging the bishop’s reputation as a trusted religious figure to deceive followers into investing in a nonexistent digital currency. In a statement to LifeSiteNews, Bishop Strickland clarified, “I have been locked out of my X account since March 3, 2025. I am attempting to resolve the issue with X but in the meantime I’ve been informed that there is a post on X claiming that I am promoting a bit coin. It is NOT ME and I have no knowledge of this bit coin promotion.” He urged his followers to spread awareness of the fraud and emphasized his efforts to resolve the issue to prevent anyone from being defrauded.

This incident underscored the vulnerability of public figures to impersonation scams, particularly those involving cryptocurrencies, which have become a common tool for cybercriminals. The use of Bishop Strickland’s identity to promote a fake coin not only threatened financial harm to his followers but also damaged his reputation as a figure of moral authority.


 The Second Incident: August 2025

Just months later, on August 16, 2025, Bishop Strickland’s X account was hacked again. This time, the breach was even more egregious, with the account posting blasphemous messages, cryptocurrency promotions, and other content clearly not authored by the bishop. According to InfoVaticana, these posts were a stark departure from Strickland’s usual messages of faith and doctrine, reflecting an “evident hackeo” (evident hacking). The content was described as escalating in severity over several days, with some posts containing explicit material, as noted by an X user who observed a worsening trend in the hacked content.

The August hack prompted swift reactions from supporters. One X user, @KeithFournier7, posted on August 16, 2025, stating, “Bishop Joseph Strickland’s X (twitter) account has been both hacked and impersonated by someone who is obviously an evil person seeking to harm this holy, good successor of the Apostles. This impostor needs to be found and exposed. Please, report it.” The outcry from Strickland’s followers highlighted the emotional and spiritual toll of the hack, as many saw it as an attack not only on the bishop but also on the values he represents.


 Context: Who is Bishop Joseph Strickland?

To understand why Bishop Strickland’s account might be a target, it’s important to consider his background. Joseph Strickland served as the bishop of Tyler, Texas, from 2012 until his removal by Pope Francis in November 2023. Known for his outspoken defense of traditional Catholic teachings, Strickland gained a significant following on X, where he frequently commented on matters of faith, morality, and church governance. His removal from the Tyler Diocese, following an apostolic visitation prompted by his criticisms of Pope Francis, made him a polarizing figure. Despite his ousting, Strickland maintained a strong online presence, with his X following growing to over 215,000 by late 2024, far surpassing the Catholic population of his former diocese.

Strickland’s prominence in conservative Catholic circles likely made his account an attractive target for hackers. His large, engaged audience provided a platform for scammers to reach potential victims, while his controversial status may have drawn the attention of malicious actors seeking to undermine his influence or sow discord among his followers.


 The Broader Implications

The hacking of Bishop Strickland’s X account is part of a larger trend of cyberattacks targeting public figures and institutions. For comparison, in January 2024, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) X account was compromised through a SIM-swapping attack, leading to a false announcement about Bitcoin Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) that temporarily spiked Bitcoin prices. This incident, which resulted in the arrest of an Alabama man, demonstrates how hackers exploit trusted accounts to manipulate markets or public perception.

For religious communities, these incidents raise unique concerns. Social media platforms like X are increasingly vital for clergy to communicate with their followers, share spiritual guidance, and counter misinformation. However, they also expose religious leaders to risks such as reputational damage, financial scams targeting their audiences, and the spread of content that contradicts their values. The blasphemous posts on Strickland’s account, for instance, could alienate followers or fuel distrust in online religious discourse.

Moreover, the hacks highlight the sophistication of modern cyberattacks. While the exact methods used to compromise Strickland’s account are unclear, techniques like phishing, SIM-swapping, or password breaches are common in such cases. As one X user noted in a unrelated post about hacking, even decentralized systems are vulnerable if users fall prey to social engineering attacks like phishing, which manipulate individuals into revealing sensitive information.


 Lessons for Online Security

The repeated targeting of Bishop Strickland’s X account offers several lessons for individuals and organizations, particularly those in the public eye:


1. Strengthen Account Security: Public figures should use strong, unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication (2FA) to protect their accounts. Avoiding SMS-based 2FA, which is vulnerable to SIM-swapping, in favor of app-based or hardware-based authentication can enhance security.


2. Educate Followers: Religious leaders and their communities should educate followers about recognizing scams, such as cryptocurrency promotions or posts that deviate from a figure’s usual tone or content. Quick reporting of suspicious activity, as urged by Strickland’s supporters, can help mitigate damage.


3. Monitor and Respond Promptly: Regularly monitoring account activity and having a plan to address hacks—such as public statements or collaboration with platform support—can limit the impact of a breach. Strickland’s proactive communication through LifeSiteNews in March 2025 helped clarify the situation for his followers.


4. Raise Awareness of Cyber Risks: Religious institutions should invest in cybersecurity training to protect their leaders and members from phishing, impersonation, and other digital threats. As Strickland himself noted in the August 2025 hack coverage, he would need to seek “the advice of a good computer expert” to safeguard his online presence.


 Conclusion

The hacking of Bishop Joseph Strickland’s X account in 2025 serves as a stark reminder of the vulnerabilities inherent in our digital world. For a figure like Strickland, whose influence extends far beyond his former diocese, these incidents threaten not only personal reputation but also the trust of a global online community. By understanding the nature of these attacks and taking proactive steps to enhance security, religious leaders can better protect their digital platforms and continue their missions without disruption. As cyberattacks grow more sophisticated, the faithful and their shepherds must remain vigilant to ensure that their voices of truth are not silenced or distorted by malicious actors.








UPDATE August 19, 2025 8:40 PM, Bishop Strickland has created a new X account:

 

https://x.com/BishStrick














Sources  

- InfoVaticana. “Hackean la cuenta de X del obispo Strickland.” August 16, 2025.  [](https://infovaticana.com/2025/08/16/hackean-la-cuenta-de-x-del-obispo-strickland/)

- LifeSiteNews. “WARNING: Fraudulent X account is attempting to use Bishop Strickland’s identity to sell crypto.” March 6, 2025.  [](https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/warning-fraudulent-x-account-is-attempting-to-use-bishop-stricklands-identity-to-sell-crypto)

- X Post by @KeithFournier7. August 16, 2025.  

- X Post by @SarahisCensored. August 7, 2025.  

- United States Department of Justice. “Alabama Man Arrested for Role in Securities and Exchange Commission X Account Hack.” October 17, 2024.  [](https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/alabama-man-arrested-role-securities-and-exchange-commission-x-account-hack)

- Catholic Review. “Ousted Texas bishop attacks Pope Francis, accuses U.S. bishops of silence amid ‘false messages’.” November 13, 2024.  [](https://catholicreview.org/ousted-texas-bishop-attacks-pope-francis-accuses-u-s-bishops-of-silence-amid-false-messages/)

- Wikipedia. “Joseph Strickland.” May 13, 2025.[](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Strickland)

Thursday, June 12, 2025

Refuting Claims of the Term “Novus Ordo” in Reference to the Mass of Paul VI: A Response to @pluant ’s Assertions

Refuting Claims of the Term “Novus Ordo” in Reference to the Mass of Paul VI: A Response to 

@pluant
’s Assertions
The X account
@pluant
has repeatedly claimed that Pope Paul VI used the term “Novus Ordo” to refer to the post-Vatican II Mass, often contrasting it with the “Traditional Latin Mass” or Tridentine Mass as a distinct and inferior rite. These claims contribute to a broader narrative among some Catholic traditionalists that the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1969, represents a rupture from Catholic tradition. This post refutes
@pluant
’s assertions, specifically addressing their exchanges with
@Sacerdotus
, by examining the historical, theological, and documentary evidence surrounding the terminology of the Mass. It demonstrates that Paul VI did not use “Novus Ordo” as an official title for the Mass, that the term is informal and not found in key liturgical documents, and that the Mass, by default, is traditional within the unified Roman Rite, as clarified by the Church.



@pluant
’s Claims and Context
In a series of X posts,
@pluant
has engaged with
@Sacerdotus
, asserting that the term “Novus Ordo” is an appropriate designation for the post-Vatican II Mass and implying its use by Paul VI. For example:
  • On May 24, 2025,
    @pluant
    tweeted, “The Novus Ordo is already hyper clericalist. It is overloaded with options, all at the cleric’s discretion. The genius of the Old Rite is that everyone is equally a servant of the rite” (
    @pluant
    , May 24, 2025). This post uses “Novus Ordo” to contrast the Ordinary Form with the “Old Rite,” suggesting a fundamental difference in nature.
  • On May 26, 2025,
    @pluant
    stated, “It’s always really been about eliminating anything vaguely traditional from the Novus Ordo” (
    @pluant
    , May 26, 2025), reinforcing the notion that the “Novus Ordo” is a deliberate departure from tradition.
  • In response to
    @Sacerdotus
    ’s challenge on May 31, 2025, that “Novus Ordo Missae” does not mean “Novus Ordo Mass” and is absent from the 1970 Roman Missal,
    @pluant
    persisted in defending the term’s usage, citing Paul VI’s alleged endorsement (
    @pluant
    , May 31, 2025).
These claims align with a traditionalist narrative that the post-Vatican II Mass, often called “Novus Ordo,” is a modernist innovation, distinct from the traditional Mass.
@pluant
’s posts reflect a misunderstanding of liturgical terminology and Church teaching, as well as a rejection of the unity of the Roman Rite, which comprises two expressions: the Ordinary Form and the Extraordinary Form.
Refutation: The Term “Novus Ordo” in Official Usage
Contrary to
@pluant
’s assertions, the term “Novus Ordo” is not an official title used by the Church or Pope Paul VI to designate the revised Roman Missal of 1969. The following points clarify this:
  1. Official Documents and Paul VI’s Terminology:
    • The apostolic constitution Missale Romanum (April 3, 1969), promulgated by Paul VI, does not use “Novus Ordo” or “Novus Ordo Missae” to describe the revised Mass. Instead, it refers to the “Roman Missal, renewed by decree of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council” (Missale Romanum ex decreto Sacrosancti Oecumenici Concilii Vaticani II instauratum) (Paul VI, 1969). This emphasizes continuity with the Roman Rite, not a new or separate liturgy.
    • In his November 26, 1969, general audience address, Paul VI described the revised Mass as a “new rite of the Mass” but clarified, “It is not a new Mass, but a new form of celebration” (Paul VI, 1969). This statement, cited by
      @Sanothomas
      , underscores that Paul VI viewed the reform as a development within the existing Roman Rite, not a novel creation. The phrase “novus Ordo Missae” appears in a 1976 address, but only descriptively, as “the new Order has been promulgated” (novus Ordo promulgatus est), not as an official title (Paul VI, 1976).
    • The General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) and other liturgical documents, such as the 1970, 1975, and 2002 editions of the Missal, consistently use “Roman Missal” or “Order of Mass” (Ordo Missae), without adopting “Novus Ordo” as a formal term (GIRM, 2002).
  2. Origin of “Novus Ordo”:
    • The term “Novus Ordo Missae” emerged in the context of the 1969 Ordo Missae (Order of Mass), a liturgical book outlining the revised rite. However, it was not an official title but a shorthand used by some liturgists and critics, notably in the “Ottaviani Intervention” (1969), where Cardinals Alfredo Ottaviani and Antonio Bacci critiqued the “Novus Ordo Missae” as a departure from Trent’s theology (Ottaviani & Bacci, 1969). The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith responded on November 12, 1969, calling their critique “superficial, exaggerated, inexact, emotional, and false,” and Paul VI incorporated some of their feedback into the final Missal, indicating responsiveness rather than endorsement of the term (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 1969).
    • Yves Chiron notes that the term gained traction among traditionalists as a pejorative label, not as an official designation, and was rarely used by Paul VI except in passing (Chiron, 2021). The Church’s preference, as clarified by Benedict XVI in Summorum Pontificum (2007), is to refer to the 1969 Missal as the Ordinary Form and the 1962 Missal as the Extraordinary Form, emphasizing their unity within the Roman Rite (Benedict XVI, 2007).
  3. Church Teaching on the Unity of the Roman Rite:
    • The Church teaches that the Roman Rite has one Mass with two valid expressions, both traditional by nature. Benedict XVI stated, “The two Roman Missals, although four centuries have intervened, embrace one and the same tradition” (GIRM, 6). The Ordinary Form retains the essential structure of the Tridentine Mass, including the Penitential Rite, Gloria, Scripture readings, Roman Canon, and Communion Rite, with adaptations for accessibility and inculturation (Faggioli, 2012).
    • @pluant
      ’s claim that the “Novus Ordo” is “hyper clericalist” or a modernist deviation (
      @pluant
      , May 24, 2025) ignores the sacrificial nature of the Ordinary Form, explicitly affirmed in the GIRM (e.g., “my sacrifice and yours”) and the Catechism (1366-1367). The flexibility of the Ordinary Form, such as multiple Eucharistic Prayers, reflects Vatican II’s call for active participation and cultural adaptation, not a rejection of tradition (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 37-40).
Why
@pluant
’s Claims Are Incorrect
@pluant
’s assertions are flawed for several reasons:
  • Misattribution of Terminology: By claiming Paul VI used “Novus Ordo” as an official title,
    @pluant
    misrepresents the historical record. Paul VI’s rare use of “novus Ordo Missae” was descriptive, not titular, and his primary focus was on the Mass’s continuity with tradition (Paul VI, 1969). The 1970 Roman Missal and subsequent documents avoid the term, favoring “Roman Missal” or “Order of Mass” (GIRM, 2002).
  • False Dichotomy:
    @pluant
    ’s contrast between the “Novus Ordo” and the “Old Rite” (
    @pluant
    , May 24, 2025) perpetuates a false dichotomy, ignoring the Church’s teaching that both forms are expressions of the same Roman Rite. This view aligns with traditionalist narratives that reject Vatican II’s legitimacy, resembling the Pharisaical legalism critiqued in Matthew 23:23 for prioritizing ritual over charity and obedience.
  • Lack of Canonical Support: The insistence on “Novus Ordo” as a distinct, inferior rite lacks support in Church documents.
    @Sacerdotus
    correctly notes, “The correct term for the Mass of Paul VI is the ORDINARY FORM” (
    @Sacerdotus
    , May 31, 2025), aligning with Summorum Pontificum and the GIRM.
    @pluant
    ’s rejection of this terminology reflects a broader disobedience to Church authority, a trait noted in traditionalist circles (Ripperger, 2019).
Psychological and Ideological Context
@pluant
’s persistence in using “Novus Ordo” pejoratively may reflect psychological tendencies observed in some traditionalists, such as neurotic fixation on liturgical purity or narcissistic grandiosity in claiming superior understanding of Catholic tradition (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). These traits can foster a siege mentality, where traditionalists view themselves as defenders against a “modernist” Church, as described by Naumescu (2002). This mindset may drive
@pluant
’s dismissal of the Ordinary Form as “hyper clericalist” or a tool to “eliminate” tradition (
@pluant
, May 24-26, 2025), despite the Church’s affirmation of its validity and traditional roots.
Conclusion
The claims by
@pluant
that Pope Paul VI used “Novus Ordo” to designate the post-Vatican II Mass as a distinct rite are incorrect. Official documents, including Missale Romanum (1969) and Summorum Pontificum (2007), confirm that the term is informal, not titular, and that Paul VI emphasized the Mass’s continuity with tradition. The Roman Rite comprises one Mass with two expressions—Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms—both traditional and valid.
@pluant
’s rhetoric, as seen in their X posts to
@Sacerdotus
, perpetuates a divisive narrative that contradicts Church teaching and may reflect underlying ideological or psychological rigidity. Catholics are called to unity and obedience, recognizing the Mass’s sacrificial essence across both forms, as affirmed by the Magisterium.
References
  • American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). Arlington, VA: APA.
  • Benedict XVI. (2007). Summorum Pontificum. Vatican City.
  • Catechism of the Catholic Church. (1994). Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana.
  • Chiron, Y. (2021). How the Novus Ordo Mass Was Made. Church Life Journal.
  • Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. (1969). Response to the Short Critical Study. Vatican City.
  • Faggioli, M. (2012). Vatican II: The Battle for Meaning. Paulist Press.
  • General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM). (2002). United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
  • Ottaviani, A., & Bacci, A. (1969). Short Critical Study of the New Order of Mass. Rome.
  • Paul VI. (1969). Missale Romanum. Vatican City.
  • Paul VI. (1969). General Audience Address, November 26. Vatican City.
  • Paul VI. (1976). Address at Consistory, May 24. Vatican City.
  • Ripperger, C. (2019). 10 Problems in the Traditional Catholic Movement. Tumblar House.
  • Sacrosanctum Concilium. (1963). Vatican City: Second Vatican Council.
  • Wikipedia. (2002). Traditionalist Catholicism.
  • X Posts:
    @pluant
    , May 24-31, 2025;
    @Sacerdotus
    , May 31, 2025;
    @Sanothomas
    , May 30, 2025.

Labels

Catholic Church (1206) God (534) Jesus (526) Bible (446) Atheism (377) Jesus Christ (355) Pope Francis (302) Atheist (259) Liturgy of the Word (256) Science (195) Christianity (165) LGBT (147) Apologetics (106) Gay (92) Abortion (89) Liturgy (88) Pope Benedict XVI (86) Rosa Rubicondior (82) Blessed Virgin Mary (80) Philosophy (80) Prayer (72) Theology (65) Physics (63) Vatican (60) President Obama (57) Psychology (55) Christian (54) Christmas (53) New York City (53) Holy Eucharist (52) Traditionalists (51) Biology (43) Health (41) Women (39) Politics (37) Baseball (34) Supreme Court (34) Vatican II (31) Protestant (30) Racism (30) Pope John Paul II (29) Gospel (28) NYPD (28) Religious Freedom (27) Space (27) Illegal Immigrants (26) priests (26) Death (25) Priesthood (24) Astrophysics (23) Evangelization (23) Donald Trump (22) Christ (20) Evil (20) First Amendment (20) Eucharist (19) Pro Abortion (19) Child Abuse (17) Pro Choice (17) Morality (16) Pedophilia (16) Police (16) Divine Mercy (15) Easter Sunday (15) Marriage (15) Jewish (14) Gender Theory (13) Pentecostals (13) Autism (12) Blog (12) Holy Trinity (12) September 11 (12) Cognitive Psychology (11) Muslims (11) Poverty (11) CUNY (10) Pope Paul VI (10) Sacraments (10) academia (10) Hispanics (9) Massimo Pigliucci (9) Personhood (9) Big Bang Theory (8) Evidence (8) Human Rights (8) Humanism (8) Barack Obama (7) Condoms (7) David Viviano (7) Ellif_dwulfe (7) NY Yankees (7) Podcast (7) Spiritual Life (7) Gender Dysphoria Disorder (6) Hell (6) Babies (5) Catholic Bloggers (5) Cyber Bullying (5) Eastern Orthodox (5) Evangelicals (5) Pope Pius XII (5) The Walking Dead (5) Angels (4) Donations (4) Ephebophilia (4) Plenary Indulgence (4) Pope John XXIII (4) Death penalty (3) Encyclical (3) Founding Fathers (3) Pluto (3) Baby Jesus (2) Dan Arel (2) Freeatheism (2) Oxfam (2) Penn Jillette (2) Pew Research Center (2) Cursillo (1) Dan Savage (1) Divine Providence (1) Fear The Walking Dead (1) Pentecostales (1)