Mother Teresa "Beatified" with Idolatrous Rites

It was a triumphant day for paganism. Simon Cardinal Lourdusamy had reached the zenith of his career of Hinduizing the Catholic Church, whilst his opponent, the late Indian Resistance leader Victor Kulanday, was resoundingly defeated. It was October 19th, 2003, and in front of an audience of millions (courtesy of television), Mother Teresa of Calcutta was allegedly beatified in a Hinduized papal Mass in St. Peter’s Square.

The seeds of this false worship were sown back in 1969 by the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of India and the chairman of its Liturgy Commission, Archbishop Lourdusamy of Bangalore. Their subversion of the Faith in India is exposed in Kulanday’s book, The Paganization of the Church in India.1

Briefly, in the name of inculturation, and with much subterfuge, Lourdusamy incorporated twelve Hindu gestures and rituals into the Sacrifice of the Mass, thus effectively Hinduizing it. Yet, since the pantheistic hodgepodge was termed “Indianization” instead of “Hinduization,” and a means of “adapting the Indian peoples’ own way of expressing reverence and worship to God the Father and to Our Lord Jesus Christ,” it received Vatican approval within ten days.

In 1963, Vatican II’s Sacrosanctum Concilium (nos. 37-40) approved inculturated liturgies, but the Tridentine Mass could not be paganized because Latin, as noted by Pius XII, was “an effective safeguard against the corruption of true doctrine.”2 Inculturation must involve the language of a particular culture. On April 3rd, 1969, Pope Paul VI, disregarding previous magisterial condemnations of Mass in the vernacular as “easily productive of many evils,”3 promulgated

the vernacular Novus Ordo Mass. Twelve days later, on April 15th, Archbishop Lourdusamy personally performed the Hinduized “Mass,” with its occult mantras and idolatrous rituals, for Vatican officials, including Freemason Father (later Archbishop) Annibale Bugnini. It was Bugnini, then-Secretary of the Consilium and main architect of the Novus Ordo Mass, who illegally approved the “Twelve Points” on April 25th.4 India had taken the lead in the syncretization of the Church.

Hinduization was rapidly expanded to all aspects of the Church in India — its theology, spiritual life and moral teachings — to produce an Indian Catholic Church. Kulanday describes the intense indoctrination of priests, religious and laity by Lourdusamy, his brother, Fr. D. S. Amalorpavadass, Director of the bishops’ National Biblical, Catechetical and Liturgical Centre (founded by Lourdusamy5), and their disciples. They taught that Christ is present, though hidden, in Hinduism. Hence, He has blessed Hinduism, so all its superstition can be grafted onto Catholicism.6

Victor Kulanday and his wife Daisy founded a newspaper and the All India Laity Congress to expose the paganization and defend the Faith, which they did for about two decades. A petition against inculturation signed by more than 7,000 Catholics was ignored by the Bishops’ Conference, so a Congress delegation went to Rome in 1984 to petition Pope John Paul to stop the paganization. They had documented the Hindu nature of the Twelve Points, the illegality of their approval, and the exodus of disgusted Catholics to Pentecostalism. Yet Rome also did nothing, although Kulanday was a prominent Catholic who had officially represented the Holy See at international meetings.7

Pope John Paul elevated Lourdusamy to Cardinal in 1985 and appointed him Prefect of the Congregation for Oriental Churches. Yet Kulanday still believed Lourdasamy and his allies could not fool Rome for ever, and Pope John Paul would “do the right thing to save the Church in India.”8

However, universal approval for the Hinduization and syncretization of the Church was growing, thanks to the consciousnessraising Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences, founded in 1970 and supported by Paul VI and John Paul II. Cardinal Lourdusamy observes that FABC publications, the fruit of its many seminars, “have had considerable influence in the thinking of non-Asian episcopal conferences.”

The FABC’s goal is inculturation and the formation of national churches independent of Rome. It developed a “theology of inculturation” rooted in the heresy of universal salvation. It teaches that inculturation means one must adopt the spiritual rites of indigenous religions, i.e., their “popular expressions of faith and piety,” because the “seeds of the Gospel have been planted in [them] previous to evangelization.” “If the church is truly to be a ‘sign [not the means] of salvation,’ it needs to be local, for it will only communicate God’s saving love when it ceases to be structured, governed and symbolized in a foreign way.”9

Lourdusamy was further able to spread his ideas by serving as Prefect for Oriental Churches and as Secretary of the Congregation for Evangelization of Peoples, and as a member of numerous Curial bodies. At the Asian Bishops’ Synod in 1998, in the presence of the Pope, he opined, “If Christianity in Asia is to take root and bear fruit, inculturation is a necessity. But inculturation must begin with the roots and not with the branches.” The Church in Asia “needs to listen to what the Spirit is saying to her through faiths other than Christian, where the ‘seeds of the Word ... lie hidden.’” The Church in Asia must “inculturate the faith to allow Christ to be reborn and reveal His Asian face....”10

But for a Mass incorporating pagan rites to be accepted by the whole Church, it would require a papal “imprimatur.” For this, the Hinduizers needed a man in the Vatican, and they found him: the Pope’s Master of Ceremonies since 1987, Archbishop Piero Marini. His credentials for actually Hinduizing a papal Mass would stem from his being personal secretary to Archbishop Bugnini,11 the prelate who gave Lourdusamy permission to Hinduize the Mass in India.

Marini is Bugnini’s protégé. According to Inside the Vatican,12 Bugnini personally recruited him from a small-town seminary to continue his ordination studies at St. Anselm Liturgical Institute in Rome. Immediately after ordination in 1965, Marini entered the Curia and was “involved in implementing” Vatican II’s liturgical revolution.

Marini is personally responsible for “creative” papal Masses. He does not seem to see the Mass as the Sacrifice of Calvary re-enacted by Jesus — i.e., God — Himself. He sees it as a “celebration” planned “with a view toward the result one wants to obtain.” The celebration is “acting upon a stage. Liturgy is also a show.”13 Unfortunately, “[m]ore people have watched Masses planned by Marini than by any other liturgist in the world, which gives him enormous power to shape the public idea of what Catholic worship is all about.”14Undoubtedly, the Holy Father enjoys Marini’s confections because he consecrated him bishop in 1998 and archbishop in October 2003.

Remember that inculturation, as defined by the Asian Bishops, means using the popular means of expression of indigenous religions. Marini thanks Vatican II and the Pope’s travels for aiding the cause of liturgical inculturation. He makes the novel claim that native dances express the “universal” character of papal liturgies.15 Nationalistic liturgies, however, not only fracture the unity and true universality of the Church’s worship, but they also introduce the element of paganism.

An important step in paganization was to get “liturgical” dance into the Mass. But the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship, with Bugnini as Prefect, had said the following in 1975:

“Dance has never constituted an essential part in the official liturgy of the Latin Church. If local Churches have introduced the dance, at times even in the temples, this was on occasion of feasts in order to show feelings of jubilation and devotion. But the dance always took place outside the liturgical actions.16 Conciliar decisions have often condemned the religious dance, as not befitting worship, and also because it could degenerate into disorders ... hence, it is not possible to introduce something of that sort in the liturgical celebration; it would mean bringing into the liturgy one of the most desacralized and desacralizing elements; and this would mean the same as introducing an atmosphere of profanity”....17

Nevertheless, an implicit imprimatur for profanity has been given by papal Masses featuring dancing. For Marini, inculturation means integrating the music, language and physical movement of a certain culture or religion,18 so native dance has become de rigueur, not only “outside the liturgical actions,” but also during Mass. Once the profanity was explained away as a culture’s “expression of jubilation” on special occasions (like papal visits), then dance as an element of pagan rites could be introduced without anyone suspecting their true significance.

The dry run for Mother Teresa’s beatification was the Pope’s Mass in New Delhi in November 1999. Secular news reports stated the event was “laced with Hindu [not Indian] symbolism” and involved “traditional temple rituals.”19 Indeed, with papal approval, the podium, altar, decorations, vestments, the Mass, and speeches were all linked to Diwali, the Hindu “Festival of Lights” being celebrated that day. According to Father Ignatius, an organizer, the theme of the service was Diwali.

Parallels were drawn between Christ, the Light of the World, and this pagan feast20 whose major aspect is the worship of Lakshmi, the goddess of wealth. (There is heavy gambling at this time.)

Besides material wealth, the goddess also brings the spiritual wealth of occult “inner illumination” and “self-enlightenment” into the darkness of spiritual ignorance, and this light is symbolized by the lit clay lamps that give the feast its name. Hindus worship light as the symbol of inner consciousness or knowledge, and they worship this knowledge as “the Supreme Lord,” the god within, the greatest form of wealth. Thus, “all auspicious ceremonies commence with the lighting of the lamp.”21 So the papal Mass began with five people lighting an oil lamp.22

Equating Christ with this idolatry in which business account books are worshipped and cows receive special adoration as incarnations of the goddess Lakshmi23 is blasphemy and pantheism, the heresy condemned by Blessed Pius IX, that teaches God is one with the universe, falsehood with truth, evil with good.24 It is disingenuous for Abp. Marini to allege that the Hindu Diwali is a “non-sectarian feast of lights to celebrate life and thank God [which one?] for all his blessings and the righteousness of his dealings with human beings.”25

Now, during the Canon of the Mass, at the Doxology, with the Holy Father holding aloft the Sacred Species — i.e., with Jesus present on the altar — a triple arati ritual was performed by young ladies (Marini) or seven nuns (The Tribune).26 This involved a pushpa arati, the waving of a tray of flowers with a burning light in the centre, and the showering of flower petals; dhupa arati, the homage of incense; and deepa arati, the homage of light, waving of camphor fire, and the ringing of bells, accompanied by a Hindu Tamil hymn.27

Camphor symbolizes the purifying cycle of reincarnations needed until one becomes divine. Hindus believe the ringing of the bell produces the “auspicious sound” OM, “the universal name of the Lord.”28 OM is also the supreme Hindu god Krishna and it has sexual and black magic meanings. In 1980, Wladislaw Cardinal Rubin, Lourdusamy’s predecessor as Prefect of the Congregation for Oriental Churches, forbade the use of OM in Christian worship because it is “an essential, integral part of Hindu worship.”29 So OM was slid into the papal Mass, disguised as bells!

The lamp lighting and arati rituals were also done at the beatification Mass of Mother Teresa. (The meaning of arati will be explained shortly.) Cardinal Lourdusamy, chief architect of Hinduizing the Church in India, was a co-celebrant with Pope John Paul at the Hinduized Mass of Beatification. Although taking place in Rome, not India, it was inculturated following another rule of Abp. Marini. Monsignor Michael Wren, a commentator on the Knights of Columbus-funded EWTN broadcast of the ceremonies, said Marini “has explained that there is an attempt to incorporate cultural expressions from the nations from which new saints or blessed come.” The matter-of-fact patter of Monsignor Wren and co-host Raymond Arroyo added a surreal air to the broadcast as they seemed anaesthetized, unable even to express surprise at the obvious novelties. Their nonchalance helped tranquillize viewers into accepting paganism as a nice cultural touch. The mark of a Modernist is his love of novelty. In his condemnation of Modernism, Pope St. Pius X exclaimed, “Far, far from the clergy be the love of novelty! God hateth the proud and the obstinate mind.”30

After the Kyrie of the Mass and the beatification, a Hindu puja (worship) ceremony commenced. Puja has varying steps, but always includes the welcoming of the deity and offerings of gifts of flowers, incense and lighted lamps to it, accompanied by prostrations and bows. Worship with these gifts is demanded by the gods, for their gratification and the prosperity of the offerer, in the classical Hindu epic poem, the Mahabharata.31 The temple lamp is lit wick after wick, following the placement of flowers at the foot of the idol. As explained above, lamp lighting denotes the worship of light and the beginning of a Hindu ceremony; it is also fire worship, fire being a god. The type, colour and scent of the flowers chosen are particular to each deity. To appease angry deities, especially females, gifts include the blood and flesh of sacrificed animals. The puja is also part of the worship of a guru, saint or honored guest, “as representative of the deity.” The ceremony ends with an arati.32

The beatification’s puja followed this pattern! There was a procession of “gifts” of flowers, candles in clay lamps, lit glass lamps, and a large framed heart icon and ampoule containing the blood of Mother Teresa. This reliquary was placed on a small table near the altar. (Monsignor Wren “believed” the blood “was extracted at the exhumation of the body.” This was either sloppy reporting or deliberate disinformation as it was well known that the body was not exhumed.) With deep bows, sari-clad women did a deepa arati with the clay lamps to the altar area, crowd and reliquary, accompanied by Indian chanting and drumming. Young girls laid blue and white flowers (signifying the colours of Mother’s habit?) at the foot of the icon on the table, and other people placed the glass lamps, one by one, on the lamp stand in front of it. A Hindu might be forgiven for thinking Mother Teresa — or her blood — was worshipped, perhaps in solidarity with those Hindus who consider her a goddess, and even equivalent to the bloodthirsty goddess Kali, who also embodies compassion.33

Monsignor Wren found what he termed the “gifts ceremony” “extremely moving,” and the chants “a very, very special treat for all of us.” He did not name the recipient of the gifts or explain why they were needed. The gifts ceremony is Point 10 of Lourdusamy’s Twelve Points for Hinduizing the Mass.34

Now, in the most solemn part of the Mass, the Canon, the faithful contemplate Jesus crucified. In the Tridentine Mass, the prayers are recited silently by the priest in memory of the awful hours during which Jesus hung on the cross, bearing in silence the scoffs and blasphemies of the Jews.35 But, as in Delhi, just before the Our Father in the Beatification Mass, Jesus had to endure a blasphemous Hindu ritual.

Whilst two clerics held aloft the consecrated Host and Wine (i.e., Jesus Himself), after the Great Amen, a troupe of middle-aged-to-elderly women, dressed in saris the colours of the Indian flag, sashayed along the foot of the altar to the beat of a hokey tune. They held metal trays covered with flowers. Some trays had flames in the middle, others had incense sticks. Monsignor Wren (or Arroyo?) announced a “special liturgical rite, arati, according to the Indian cultural custom.” (Zenit News later reported that arati is an “Indian rite of adoration and reverence and intimacy with God, used in solemn Masses.”36)

Suddenly one was jolted by the abrasive discordant wails of a Tamil chant and Indian instruments as the women went to work. The trays with flames were held aloft and circled around clockwise, flowers and petals were strewn (deepa and pushpa arati), and the incense sticks were offered up (dhupa arati). Viewers were told the chant was, “Lord, we adore you with light, we adore you with incense, we adore you with flowers.” Enthusiastic clapping and cheering greeted this “entertainment” that disguised a Hindu ritual.

As explained above, adoration with flowers, incense and light is demanded by the Hindu gods. Arati is defined as a temple ritual in which a fire on a plate is waved in front of a deity in a clockwise direction.37 We have already seen that light is worshipped as the Supreme Lord of inner consciousness. The one who burns the arati becomes divine and escapes the purifying cycle of reincarnation.38 The clockwise direction symbolizes one’s divinity, worshipped in the exterior idol.39

Now, an early-nineteenth century French Missionary, Abbé Dubois, who spent thirty years in south India, wrote a highly-acclaimed book, Hindu Manners, Customs and Ceremonies. Like Sts. Thomas and Francis Xavier, he discovered no seeds of the Word (i.e., Christ) hidden in Hinduism; rather, he found that Hindus “appear to have surpassed all the other nations ... in the unconscionable depravity with which so many of their religious rites are impregnated.” Regarding Hindu music, he said, “Every note of the Hindu scale has a mark characteristic of some divinity, and includes several hidden meanings....”40

Arati, he reported, is performed only by married women (which might explain the mature age of the women during the Canon) and courtesans (dancing girls and prostitutes of the temples).41 Arati is the most important Hindu ritual, performed during almost all ceremonies. Arati, meaning misfortune or pain, is also worshipped as the goddess Arathi, to appease her anger. The invocations are to her.42 The ritual is done “to please the deity with bright lights and colours and also to counteract the evil eye.” It is thus also performed in public or private on idols, important people, children, new property, crops, animals and anything valuable, to prevent harm from the evil eye. The plate takes on the power of the deity and itself becomes an idol.43

Does Jesus Christ, True God, need protection from the evil eye? Or did the arati symbolize that Jesus is not the true living God, but a mythological idol on par with Hindu deities? Or was the ceremony done to protect the Pope and his concelebrants? In the Hinduized Mass in India, the celebrant is greeted with arati (Point 10).44 But in Hinduism itself, women never perform the arati on a priest inside the sanctum sanctorum. It is considered an abomination. Women are not allowed near the sacred precincts of the temple altar.45

The triple arati is Point 12 of the Twelve Points.46 Therefore, it is misleading to claim that arati is an Indian way of worship. Indian Catholics never did arati or puja. These ceremonies were imposed on them in 1969. Now, 34 years later, the world is conned into believing arati is a solemn rite they have always used on special occasions.

Professor J. P. M. van der Ploeg, OP, Doctor of Sacred Theology and Sacred Scripture, said the Hinduized Mass is a “syncretistic liturgical blend” that “will break the Church’s unity. In this way, a new sect will be born: a Hindu-Christian one, and it remains to be seen whether this will be predominantly Christian or Hindu.”47Catholicism mixed with Hinduism is pantheism, not Catholicism. Therefore, was the syncretic ceremony a valid beatification?

Our first parents also worshipped the light of forbidden “inner” knowledge in order to become divine. All idolatry is worship of Satan. Jesus died on the Cross to redeem mankind from the damnation deserved by such an abominable sin. In Delhi and in Rome, whilst hanging on the Cross, He was once again subjected to man’s worshipping the light of knowledge, proclaiming his divinity. Could the worship of Lucifer blended into a papal Mass constitute the “abomination unto desolation” of the last days?48

The late Valerian Cardinal Gracias of Bombay stated that Hindu pujas and mantras are “alien” to Catholic ceremonies. “In adopting forms of expression alien to our Liturgy,” he asked, “have they made sure of the specific Hindu ideology underlining those forms?” Another Indian bishop bluntly declared, “People who Indianize ... are out to destroy the Catholic Church.”49

“Unless the present mad craze to paganise [sic] the Faith is ... given up, the 21st century will only see a hybrid form of Christianity, hardly alive but suffocated and perishing. God forbid that such a catastrophe should happen. But happen it will unless the Holy See realises [sic] the danger and acts firmly and quickly.”50

Mercifully, he did not live to see a Hinduized Papal Mass of Beatification, which gave a papal imprimatur to the abomination that will surely spread worldwide. As Archbishop Marini notes, “The liturgy of the pope has always been imitated.... the papal liturgy has always been a point of reference for the entire church.”51

The goal of syncretism is the universal brotherhood of the Luciferian Masonic New World Order. One of the intentions of the Prayers of the Faithful, at the Offertory of the Beatification Mass, was: “Lord, ... [f]avor a universal brotherhood, the promotion of ... cultures, dialogue among religions. We pray to the Lord.”

2. Mediator Dei Christian Worship, 1947, no. 62. The Pope condemned the “deliberate introduction of new liturgical customs” in the same section.

3. Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei, 1794, cited in Denziger: The Sources of Catholic Dogma (St. Louis, MO: B. Herder Book Co., 1957), no. 1566. See also nos. 1533 (Pius VI) and 956 (Council of Trent); Mediator, ibid.

4. Kulanday, pp. 16-21, 23, 37-38, 66. The experts quoted by Kulanday asserted that permission should have been given by the Congregation of Rites, not the Consilium, which was only a consultative body without legislative power.

9. Father Stephen Bevans, SVD, “Twenty-Five Years of Inculturation in Asia: The Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences, 1970-1995,” FABC Paper No. 78, Part II, ucanews.com, 22 November 2003. Christ’s Gospel was spread through evangelization; so the allegation that seeds of the Gospel were planted prior to evangelization is a reformulation of the heresy that Christ has always been present, but hidden, in paganism.

10. “Speeches in the Synod Hall,” Third General Congregation, 21 April 1998, zenit.org.

11. John L. Allen, Jr., “The Papal Liturgist,” nationalcatholicreporter.org, 20 June 2003.

13. La Civiltà Cattolica interview, cited in Sandro Magister, “New Liturgies. Bishop Piero Marini Doesn’t Like TV,” www. chiesa.espressonline.it, 29 November 2003.

15. Ibid.; “Pope’s Chief Liturgist Defends Use of Dance in Papal Masses,” catholicnews.com, 16 October 2003.

16. When was there dancing in churches? It would seem these first three sentences were inserted to be used in the future by inculturators.

17. Notitiae, June-July 1975, p. 202, trans. Clementine Lenta, Liturgical Directives (Duluth, MN: Nina Publications, 1984), p. 2.

19. “Pope Defends Conversions in India,” (BBC), uga.edu/bahai/News, 7 November 1999; Pamela Constable, “Pope’s India Visit Ends on Note of Unity” (Washington Post), ibid., 8 November 1999.

20. Smeeta Mishra Pandey & Sunetra Choudhury, “ Pope Prays for Peace as Piety Takes Centrestage,” indianexpress.com, 7 November 1999; “Indian Elements in Holy Mass,” tribuneindia.com, 2 November 1999; Constable, ibid.; Bishop Piero Marini, “Pastoral Visit of His Holiness Pope John Paul II to New Delhi,” search.vatican.va, 5 November 1999.

21. “All About Hindu Rituals,” saranam.com, 15 November 2003; “Deepavali,” hinduism.co.za, 22 November 2003.

23. Explanations of Diwali were obtained on 22 November 2003 from: “Deepavali,” ibid.; “About Diwali,” diwali.indiangiftsportal.com; “History of Diwali,” indiaexpress.com; Sakshi, “Diwali — A Festival of Lights,” issuesmag.com; “Diwali,” www.3kumc.edu.

28. “Hindu Symbols,” hindutrac.org.au, 14 November 2003; “All About Hindu Rituals.”

29. Abbé J. A. Dubois, Hindu Manners, Customs and Ceremonies, 3d ed., trans. Henry K. Beauchamp (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1906), pp. 533, 616-17; Kulanday, pp. 68-72.

32. Ibid.; “All About Hindu Rituals”; Kulanday, pp. 33, 36, 75, 163; Dubois, pp. 147-48; Benjamin Walker, Hindu World: An Encyclopedic Survey of Hinduism, 2 vols., (London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1968), 2:608- 9; “Puja” and “Flowers,” gurjari.net, 14 November 2003.

33. Paul McKenna, “Mother Teresa was an Ecumenical Catalyst,” The Catholic Register (Toronto), 8 December 1997, p. 5; “News of Women,” The Globe and Mail (Toronto), 18 August 1997, p. A26.

35. Father Michael Müller, CSSR, The Blessed Eucharist, Our Greatest Treasure (Baltimore: Kelley & Piet, 1868; reprint ed., Rockford, IL: Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., 1973), p. 320.

37. “Kamat’s Potpourri,” kamat.org, and “Arati,” anekant.org, 14 November 2003.

41. Ibid., pp. 148-49, 584-86. This is why dancing is not done by respectable Hindu women (p. 586).

42. Ibid., p. 149; Kulanday, pp. 32-33, 35-36, 164. Hindus worship everything that is useful or hurtful, whether animate, inanimate or abstract: cf. Dubois, p. 548.

43. Dubois, pp. 148-49, 584-88; Walker, p. 609; “Arati,” gurjari.net, 14 November 2003.

48. Cf. Dan. 12:11: “... the continual sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination unto desolation shall be set up....” The interpretation in the traditional Haydock Commentary on the Douay-Rheims Bible is: “... the abolishing of the Mass as much as possible, and the practice of heresy and abomination, unto the end of antichrist’s persecution....” The commentary on Dan. 11:31 points to idolatry in the temple of Jerusalem as the abomination. That on Matt. 24:15 says Antichrist and his precursors will attempt to abolish the Sacrifice of the Mass.

This will be deemed Catholic-bashing, which I guess it probably is, but it's only intended as an observation.

Catholics beat each other over the head more than any denomination I've observed. You can't reach any other conclusion as a frequent visitor to FR. Not to mention history books.

Catholics beat each other over the head more than any denomination I've observed. You can't reach any other conclusion as a frequent visitor to FR.

Correction, Dog.

It is the radical traditionalists (otherwise known as "integrists") who take every opportunity to trash the Church, Pope John Paul II and the vernacular Mass that was instituted in 1970.

If you were here more often, you would notice that those who worship at most Catholic parishes today are not here. Those of us who are here never post anything nugatory about the Traditional Latin Mass.

Not so, the radical traditionalists (also known as "raddie-traddies"). The Good News is that the number of raddie-traddies on FR is not proportional to their numbers in the Church at large.

The bad news is that all of them who are in the Church at large seem to be here.

A civil war has erupted in the Catholic Church between those who ascribe to Catholic Tradition and those who would follow the Pope in rejecting Tradition. There is no resolution in sight--and the conflict you find on these threads only reflects that reality.

"If you were here more often, you would notice that those who worship at most Catholic parishes today are not here."

Guess the people on your side of the fence, well, they're just too disinterested to defend Catholicism.

Maybe it the Catholic Faith just isn't real important to them. Or something.

First, the New Mass was illicitly and deceptively imposed. There never was any abrogation of the old rite, nor any official promulgation of the new. It is not trashing the Church to bring this and other revolutionary innovations to public attention. Second, it is amusing that allowing Mother Teresa to be beatified in a Hinduized ritual is now considered normal Catholic behavior, whereas it is deemed radical to oppose such abominations. This is the topsy-turvy travesty the New Order Church has become.

A civil war has erupted in the Catholic Church between those who ascribe to Catholic Tradition and those who would follow the Pope in rejecting Tradition.

Do not flatter your efforts, UR.

There is no "war" of any kind in the Catholic Church today. There are the 99% who worship at the Novus Ordo Mass and follow Pope John Paul II.

Then, there are the other 1%--raddie-traddies-- who aim their spitballs at the 99%.

Dog, 98% of Catholics are oblivious to the raddie-traddies. They don't even know they exist.

There is no resolution in sight--and the conflict you find on these threads only reflects that reality.

FR is reflective of nothing. There is no resolution because the raddie-traddies insist on turning back the clock. You have no leverage, thus you burn bandwidth on public websites ranting and raving at the sky.

Sink, I'll defer to your judgment on these matters because I am woefully ignorant regarding anything other than mainstream history involving the Catholic Church.

I've followed some, but not all, of the debates during my lifetime, but I'm an outsider who's only interested in what happens from a political and historical perspective.

I do understand that there are several splits in the Catholic Church, not only over Mass, but also the ideological leanings, not to mention the priest scandals.

None of this would be important to me at all except that it does affect my life. The Catholic Church is a global political force. And that's what keeps me interested. That, and tantalizing headlines like this thread has.

Anything in the article you want to address there, sink, or what?

Absolutely not.

Guess the people on your side of the fence, well, they're just too disinterested to defend Catholicism.

Maybe it the Catholic Faith just isn't real important to them. Or something.

They don't know the raddie-traddies exist. They really don't.

And, if they did, the last thing they'd want to do is fight with a bunch of angry, surly people. They don't have time for it.

The Catholic Church IS a global force. And those of us in the Church are working mightily to bring the Church's influence to the world.

The "tantalizing headline" is written by a carping raddie-traddie and is meant to malign a woman who influenced more pagans, and brought more of them to God, than any human being in the latter half of the 20th century.

She also worshipped at the "New Mass", which causes major diaper rash around here and elsewhere. Thus, if any Hindu custom or symbol is brought into a Mass which honors Blessed-soon-to-be-Saint Mother Teresa (Hindus being the religious preference of those she labored among), it must be maligned or ridiculed.

The Catholic Forum is not a pleasant place, Dog, because there are unpleasant people here.

It is so unlike the real world that it is, well, unreal.

I'm not sure who the radical traditionalists are, and how they differ from most catholics.

I'm probably interjecting myself into something I shouldn't. I want to know and understand everything I possibly can learn, but I don't particularly want to offend anyone in that effort.

Here's my nutshell limited knowlege of the current Catholic Church, which is undoubtedly wrong. If you choose to correct me, I'll be appreciative, but you can ignore me as well.

The church is administered out of the Vatican, which I've visited on three occasions. Neat place, but highly political.

There are several "orders", or something like that, of the Church which have their own special rules of conduct.

Then there's something called a Dicocese which covers a geographical area. A bishop, or some other church politician for lack of better terminology heads. Finally, you get down to the actual places where ordinary people interact with the church.

I doubt, but don't know, whether the spitball fight is taking place at the lowest levels.

I'm trying to understand, but please don't go to any extra efforts to explain. This ain't my fight, and I know it.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.