20 thoughts on “Jesuits worried about disproportionate emphasis on God”

  1. They should stop tiptoeing and just come out and say they want to place their throne above God’s already.

    1. The authors of the Novus Ordo, the members of the Consilium, admitted in various writings that they purposely sought to elevate man above God. They felt that the Mass of Ages gave too much reverence for God, and not enough for man. That is reflected in the 1969 GIRM, as well as the 1970 GIRM.

  2. Fr. Louis Bouyer, who assisted Fr. Annabale Bugnini in creating the Novus Ordo, argued the same thing. He held a Lutheran conception of the Liturgy. He and Fr. Josef Jungmann argued that the TLM was thoroughly corrupted by Eucharistic piety, and emphasis must be placed on the “real presences” in the assembly and in the “liturgy of the Word”. Paul VI, as Archbishop of Milan, agreed with those assessments and as Paul VI, SPECIFICALLY ordered that the “Mystery of Faith” exclamations NOT reference the Real Presence, as they would be inappropriate.

    The 1969 GIRM was quite clear on emphasis on the assembly, and post-Concilium writings of those in the Concilium agreed that the ENTIRE POINT of the NO was the shifting of emphasis from God and the Real Presence of the Eucharist to the assembly. The Jesuits are only being accurate in their assessment of the NO.

    1. But then they came up with tne New American Bible instead of the venerable Vulgate and translations. They don’t believe the Bible is true. Neither do the majority of the Lutherans.

      When was the last time you heard a homily on the first three commandments? Or the Scripture “the fear of God is the beginining of Wisdom”.

    2. “Paul VI, SPECIFICALLY ordered that the ‘Mystery of Faith’ exclamations NOT reference the Real Presence, as they would be inappropriate.”
      Do you have a reference for that? It seems exceedingly likely to any who have eyes of course, but I am interested in having a specific citation for use in dialoguing with normiecath friends.

  3. This is only made worse by the authorship of the article. While it appears in a Jesuit publication, the author is none other than “Bishop” Michael Fors Olson, of Carmelite-nun-harassment imfamy. So, rather than reserve this message to for his diocesan newsletter, the prelate opted to pronounce it on a notorious Jesuit rag with a wider reach.

    By the way, remember that this was the same man who, although possessing a doctorate in moral theology, couldn’t tell whether the nuns he alienated had incurred excommunication.

    Also, if it’s worth anything, on an anecdotal level, I recall a bizarre and scandalous incident when I attended a Novus Ordo Mass (years ago), offered by a visiting Jesuit priest. The dude literally pointed at the tabernacle and said that that wasn’t the Eucharist; that the Eucharist was in our hearts.

    May God grant us the ability to discern these fake shepherds from authentic Catholicism. Let us do as the Arlington Carmelite nuns have already done and refuse the acknowledgement of illegitimate prelates such as Mr. Olson. NOTE: this doesn’t require 1958-Style-Sede-Gibberish to do so, either. One needs only reason, evidence, logic, and the Catholic religion.

  4. My further reading of this sounds like a stealth campaign to get the laity primed and ready for the upcoming priest shortages. But they still want you coming to Church and putting money in the basket.


    Eucharist-free Sunday services! Fulfill your Mass obligation, without the Mass! Works for the Prottys!

        1. Nulla salus extra EcclesiAm, Cynthia. If you want to suggest half my family is in hell, at least get the Latin right.

          1. Autocorrect 😏
            Not insinuating anything, just stating the obvious about Catholic beliefs.
            And half ( or more) of my family is probably in hell and they were in the Church

    1. We can’t rule out the fact that most of these people don’t care one wit about valid consecrations at all. I have read a good deal of excuses concerning the Novus Ordo, and the only justification for their arguments is the schismatic concept of “epiclesis” being necessary for validity. Form, matter, and intention are irrelevant, as long as there is an epiclesis.

      This is not to say that the NO is invalid, but the “authorities” on the matter don’t even know sacramental theology.

        1. I’m not sure I understand the point he was making, but the epiclesis is the point in the canon of the Mass when the priest brings his hands over the chalice and calls down the Holy Ghost to initiate the sacrifice; the bells sound once.

    1. I would run! No kidding. When the NO priests start messing with the Eucharistic prayers, I’m done with that parish.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.