The doctoring of a council document, the one on worship, from which important footnotes disappeared

Mysterious . . . unless . . .

Dominus Vobiscum: Notes from a massgoer's underground

Why important? Because they referred to council fathers’ reasoning behind liturgical changes, positioning them in the history of such change, from Pius X to Pius X.

From the article pointing this out, by Dr. Susan Benofy, in the Adoremus Bulletin, June of 2015, cited here:

[T]he idea that the council was a continuation of work already begun was obscured by numerous commentaries that treated [Sacrosanctum
, the document in question] as a departure from the past, the beginning of a “new” liturgy for the “new” post-Vatican II church.

This brave new world concept, was declaimed happily by Joseph Gelineau, S.J., in his book The Liturgy: Today and Tomorrow (New York: Paulist Press, 1978): “the Roman rite as we knew it exists no more. It has gone. Some walls of the structure have fallen, others have been altered; we can look at it as a ruin or…

View original post 216 more words

‘Metropolitan model’ may not answer question of abusive bishops

Cupich of Chicago’s idea, “looks like it is gaining favor in Rome,” does it?

Why wouldn’t it? He’s Pope Francis’ man in the U.S., defeated in last election for head of the conference but locked in to where it matters in today’s HQ-dominated church:

The so-called “metropolitan model” was first suggested by Cardinal Blase J. Cupich of Chicago during the USCCB meeting in November, after the vote on the original plan of a national lay review board was stopped by the Vatican.
Cupich gave more details of the proposal on Feb. 22, during a press conference at the Vatican summit.

Basically, the metropolitan archbishop – now a largely symbolic role – would be in charge of investigating abuse complaints against the bishops in his territory, called a province.


4) The biggest problem facing the model is the lack of trust people have in the bishops right now. The national review panel originally proposed by the U.S. bishops was an acknowledgement of this fact. The “metropolitan model” is, in effect, the bishops saying, “Don’t worry. You can trust us.”

I doubt if there’s a bishop in Illinois who would trust his future to Cupich, who being a metropolitan (primate, as it were, of the Illinois church), whose heavy- if not high-handedness has shown itself in at least two highly public defenestrations — Fr. Frank Phillips, peremptorily ousted from his pastorate before an independent panel had even convened, much less exonerated him, as happened later, and Fr. Paul John Kalchik, effectively chased out of town for allowing parishioners to burn a rainbow flag hung over the altar by a previous pastor,

But his idea of resolving bishops-accusations would put the matter in his hands.

Note also the studied naivete displayed by Crux in this story. Tsk.