Pray for erring sheep - and shepherds, like Fr Jay Scott Newman

As we have seen, Fr Jay Scott Newman has one rule for himself and quite another for others (see earlier posts about him).

He has a blog which he calls Ecclesia Semper Reformanda

Where does this Latin tag come from?

It is a Protestant tag.

It is un-Catholic.

Ecclesia semper reformanda est (Latin for "the church is always being reformed", sometimes shortened to semper reformanda, "always being reformed") is one of the basic tenets of the Protestant Reformation, particularly in the ideas of German theologian Martin Luther.

The phrase itself comes from the Nadere Reformatie movement in the seventeenth century Dutch Reformed Church and widely but informally used in Reformed and Presbyterian churches today (for example, the French Reformed Church use "Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda" as motto).

It refers to the conviction of certain Reformed Protestant theologians that the church must continually change itself in order to maintain its purity of doctrine and practice.

The term first appeared in print in Jodocus van Lodenstein, Beschouwinge van Zion (Contemplation of Zion), Amsterdam, 1674, a Dutch Protestant work.

The phrase is also put into the mouth of the fictional Pope Gelasius III in Mary Doria Russell's 1998 novel The Children of God.

The term was also used by ecclesiastical reformers of the Roman Catholic Church who were caught up in a false interpretation of Vatican II. And we know where that has led!

To counter the diabolic itch for novelty that this phrase represents, Pope Benedict XVI has re-introduced the concept of “the hermeneutic of continuity”.

Thus, we see that Fr Jay Scott Newman is at odds with the spiritual head of the Church he claims to belong to.

It is fitting, perhaps, that we should pray this Holy Week for sheep - and shepherds - who are straying from the true path.

Let us pray for them.

Fr Newman responds - on MY blog - but censors out others on HIS blog. Fair?

Fr Jay Scott Newman responds.

But on MY blog - not HIS.

He continues to censor out those he cannot answer on his own blog.

I, on the other hand, have posted his comments to my blog.

They do him no credit, however.

He simply descends into bad grace.

For those who missed it:

"I have nothing for which to apologize, and that's why there has been no apology. Before the promulgation of Summorum Pontificum (SP), I expressed my thoughts on the matter of a wider use of what is now the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite, and all in the Church were free to do do. Since the promulgation of SP, I have neither written nor spoken on the subject, precisely because I am obedient to the Roman Pontiff. Would that we could say the same for the bishops and priests of the SSPX. And by the way, I always publish under my real name so that I am accountable for everything I write. I suggest you try the same."

So - although he has traduced, mocked, jeered and jibed at lovers of the traditional mass and made ridiculous prognostications about the motu proprio ("invisible", "kinda sorta" etc - see earlier posts) which fell flat on their face once, very shortly after his fatuous diatribes, the Pope issued Summorum Pontificum, he thinks he need not apologise.

Perhaps, being a priest, he thinks he has no call to apologise to anyone.

So "obedient" is he to the Roman Pontiffs that he mocked Veterum Sapientiae of Blessed Pope John XXIII calling it "dead on arrival".

Obedient, eh?

And he thinks that, with Summorum Pontificum, Pope Benedict XVI, "threw a spanner in the works".

Yes. He thinks it is "loyal and obedient", to accuse the Pope of trying to destroy the "works" of the Church.

Well, it's a point of view. Just not a very rational one.

Note, too, how he attacks the SSPX for "disobedience" but says nothing whatever about the far greater disobedience of the liturgical, moral and doctrinal anarchists who now occupy so many key posts in the Church and are busily white-anting it from within.

Never mind the massive apostasy caused thereby for the last 40 years.

And appreciate, too, the note of self-righteousness: he is loyal and obedient but they are not. "I thank God that I am not as other men..." said the unjustifed Pharisee. Moreover, Fr Newman, as we have seen, is not loyal and obedient, but rather chooses to be loyal only to those parts of Catholic tradition of which he approves.

The words of our Lord spring to mind:

"But woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men, for you yourselves do not enter in; and those that are going in, you suffer not to enter.

Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you go round about the sea and the land to make one proselyte; and when he is made, you make him the child of hell twofold more than yourselves.

Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you tithe mint, and anise, and cummin, and have left the weightier things of the law; judgment, and mercy, and faith. These things you ought to have done, and not to leave those undone.

Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you are like to whited sepulchres, which outwardly appear to men beautiful, but within are full of dead men's bones, and of all filthiness."

Matt 23:13-27

But seemingly, Fr Newman is not concerned about the great apostasy or the Pharisees who have brought it about. Those who do not condemn evil, thereby tolerate and accept it.

What's next:

" 'Tribunus', if you visit my blog, you'll see under the Comments Policy that Rule 2 stipulates no anonymous comments will be published. That is why none of your comments appear on my blog. Give you real name, and that will change. Until then, may the LORD be gracious to you."

Oh, right.

So there you have it, folks. He does not need to apologise because that would be to respond to anonymous comments. And he is too grand to do that. Never mind that Tribunus is openly connected to this blog. He is to be treated as if he were just some anonymous blogger who happened to check in from nowhere.

Well, folks. It's a point of view. Just not a very rational one.

And next:

"You attack my character, hide behind the shield of anonymity, and then refuse to post my reply to your charge. If you do not post my first comment from earlier today, I shall be forced to conclude that you are either a coward or a man of no honor. Please post my first reply, or take down your attack on me."

Attack his character? No. I pointed out what he had said. It was already self-rebutting. If he didn't like it, then he must blame himself.

Then, having complained about attacks on character, what does the Parish Priest of St Mary's, Greenville, South Carolina do next?

Yep, he launches a character-attack!

But he goes further:

"You are a coward, sir, and I pity you.

I do not publish anonymous comments -- as my blog notice makes clear -- and you offer only anonymous comments. Hence, I shall not publish your remarks on my blog.

Then you assault my character, and I offer a rational defense. And your response? Pretend that you did not see my reply and double down on your anonymous attack.

Tell me. Do you live in your mother's basement?"

Yes, really, folks!

He thinks this is appropriate language for a Catholic priest.

A rational defence? Er, no, Father. The whole point is that you offered NO defence of your seamy, sordid attacks on those whose only offence is to love the traditions of our fathers.

His only excuse is to hide behind his "policy" of not answering the "anonymous".

And then he who so deprecates "attacks on my character" hypocritically launches further character-attacks, not forgetting to add some fatuously childish snipes.

Well, father, I need add no more. Your own words defy you.

Pity, if it need be mentioned, is all I can commend others to have for your rather sad and silly posts.

I am at least glad that you no longer foolishly criticise the "kinda sorta" motu proprio. That, I suppose, is something. But, oh no, you won't be withdrawing your previous attacks on it.

Perhaps, and may God grant it, you might even come to learn what folly it is for you to criticise the traditions of our Holy Mother the Church, traditions stretching back not, as you absurdly suppose, to Pope St Pius V, but, as Pope Benedict XVI has taught us, to Pope St Gregory the Great and earlier.

Lord, open the eyes of the blind, that they may see....

+++

Fr Jay Scott Newman rejects natural justice, hearing the other side and fair play

Well, I guess that proves it, folks. Whatever Fr Jay Scott Newman may be, he is not a believer in natural justice, hearing both sides or fair play.

And he simply will not recognise his own failure of charity and justice toward those who have a preference for the traditional Roman rite.

He shot his mouth off before the motu proprio of Pope Benedict XVI, Summorum Pontificum, came out claiming that it was "invisible" and predicting it would not come and then engaged in the usual cheap and insulting offensive against lovers of the traditional Roman rites that we have had to put up with for 40 years from people who ought to know better.

That was already unworthy.

But next, he would tolerate no attempt to put the alternative view. He simply censored out any comment critical of his position by blanking it from his blog or website.

Father Newman recently apologised for his comments that those voting for President Obama should repent before taking communion. But, folks, you can be sure he won't be apologising any time soon for his offensive comments against lovers of the traditional Roman rites.

Well, Father, you can fool your readers but you cannot fool God.

...

Summorum Pontificum 5 years on: have the detractors like Fr Jay Scott Newman apologised?

Well, we are now 5 years down the track from Summorum Pontificum (long enough time to beatify Blessed John Paul II) and there is still no sign of any apology from Rev Jay Scott Newman for his intemperate and disloyal remarks made against it, and the Pope, at the time the decree came out.

That is, I suggest, is a little ungracious.

It may be instructive to repeat now what I said then, in August 2007, on the Roman Christendom blog.

Here it is repeated:

...

“Before the motu proprio was issued Fr Jay joined in with the 'Latin Questions' discussion on his blog and made this unhelpful comment:

"...The long-rumored and still invisible motu proprio notwithstanding, there is simply no interest in the Church beyond the statistically insignificant world of specialists and bloggers in retrieving what 99.999% of the Catholic people (and hierarchy) consider a noble part of our heritage but not a living part of our future (think of the papal navy!)..."

Where does he get his stats? Wake up and smell the coffee, Father!

And this:

"...All of which leads to my conclusion that those who harbor hope that the general liturgical life of the Church will be improved by a few more celebrations of the Pian Mass have simply and profoundly misunderstood the situation of the Church in our time..."

Yep. Pretty offensive and ill-informed stuff. It's not the Pian mass. It is much, much older. He has simply 'profoundly misunderstood'!

Someone replied to him thus:

'Your over-emphasis on numbers might lead an observer to think that you put a higher premium on popularity than truth or right practice...

If you want to get with what is 'serious' then you need to concern yourself less with numbers and more with truth and tradition.

Otherwise you may find yourself numbered with those disciples who got with the numbers by running away, rather than with those who stood at the foot of the Cross.

I know it is difficult for a priest these days to give any favour to the traditional rite without incurring trouble with his bishop but do not let that skew your vision or compromise your intellectual impartiality.'

He got cross with that and replied:

'...Based on 20 years of experience, I believe that such folk will be sadly disappointed, no matter what the yet-to-be published (or even seen) motu proprio may or may not say...'

Someone replied to him beginning:

'I catch a glimpse of a straw man in your last comment...'

Well, indeed!

There were other replies to Fr Newman but - mysteriously - they were removed from his blog.

US-style "free speech"?

See how it works?

I am free to say whatever I like but if you say something I don't like, I just erase it.

This is called "free speech". Apparently!

But then, all of a sudden, and within only a few weeks, out came the motu proprio.

Whoops! Now the boot was on the other foot. The 'long-rumoured and yet invisible' and the 'yet to be published (or even seen)' had suddenly been seen, published and hugely exceeded the expected minimalist concessions that unnecessarily aggressive Novus Ordo priests like Fr Jay had expected.

And it came from the Pope himself!

Golly! What to do, now? Um, err, aaah....

You guessed it - back-peddle. Fast! (But without apologising to anyone - never apologise, never explain, apparently!).

Here's an extract from Fr Jay's very grudging back-peddle:

'In any event, last Saturday, Pope Benedict XVI threw a spanner in the works with his long-awaited, much-rumored, and oft-debated Apostolic Letter Summorum Pontificum, which more or less (kinda, sorta) gives any priest of the Latin Rite the choice of which Mass to offer: the Mass codified by Pope Pius V after the Council of Trent or the Mass codified by Pope Paul VI after the Second Vatican Council. It remains to be seen what effect, if any, this document will have on the life of the Church as it is lived in parishes, religious houses, seminaries, etc...'

Get that, folks? The Pope 'threw a spanner in the works'.

The Pope did it!

And this from a priest who thinks himself a papal loyalist. And Paul VI apparently only 'codified' the new mass - no new Eucharistic prayers or anything like that...err...

But let's read on:

'In February 1962, Pope John XXIII promulgated an Apostolic Constitution called Veterum Sapientia, mandating very specific requirements for the teaching and preservation of Latin in the Church, but because of the radical changes taking place in the world at the time, this authoritative document was Dead On Arrival and had zero effect in the life of the Church. Today, if this document is read at all, it is usually read with mirth. Well might we all mourn the passing away of Latin from wide use in the Church, but pass away it has....'

Oh really?

So we should rejoice in our ignorance of our own history, culture and the language in which most of our theology is written, should we? We should think it's all 'DOA'? And we should read 'with mirth' the writings of a beatified pope, should we?

More papal loyalism? Err, sorry Father, I don't think so!

But there's more...

'Will Summorum Pontificum be DOA in the same way as Veterum Sapientia? I honestly don’t know, and to tell the truth, I don’t much care one way or the other...'

'Don't much care...'!

Does this sound like loyalty to the Pope? I doubt that many would see it that way!

So whilst Fr Jay has been forced to back off he has done so with singularly bad grace. That is a great shame because he is a priest who made much of his loyalty under Pope John Paul II but is acting rather differently under Pope Benedict. But even more so because he is not a bad guy. Indeed, he is basically a good guy but he has allowed his thinking and theology to get sloppy and complacent.

Come on now, Fr Jay. You're basically a good priest but you can do better. Don't cheat yourself or your parishioners!"

...

Fr Jay for a long time refused to receive any further comments on his blog. He clearly wanted it all just to go away. Of course, burying your head in the sand like that does no-one any good.

His penultimate post was, aptly but sadly, entitled "Liturgy Wars". But the simple truth is that it was not traditional-rite Catholics who started the war. It was anti-traditionalists who started it.

There should, of course, be no wars over liturgy. We should all be on the same side, not divided internally.

Unfortunately, it is the kind of statement that appeared in Fr Jay's Parish newsletter that can sometimes tend to prolong the war. I publish it below as it is in the public domain and a commentator has sent it to me.

If any priest is going to claim to be loyal to the Pope and to say "Where Peter is, there is the Church", then he needs to be open and willing to implement the motu proprio, and should avoid minimising it by suggesting that it "kinda, sorta" gives wider permission for the traditional rites.

The reality is that the motu proprio gives extremely wide and extensive permission for the use of the traditional rites.

But here is Fr Jay's advice to his parishioners on 1 July 2007, just before the publication of the motu proprio:

"When this document is finally published, there will no doubt be a circus of media attention of the most sensational kind, but please do not be confused or disturbed by what you read in the papers or see on television. Whatever else may be the case, there will certainly be no changes made in the present way we celebrate the Missal of 1970 in our scheduled liturgies, and pending a careful study of the document, I do not anticipate that a regularly scheduled Tridentine Mass will be celebrated here at St. Mary’s. For now, simply know that a document will probably appear this summer, and when it does, we will study it together."

To be fair to Fr Jay, he clearly did not anticipate the breadth and width of the rights granted by the motu proprio and, I suspect, is still slightly in denial about it all. On his blog, he certainly admits to being a bit confused by it all.

I had hoped that when he had had time to digest it all, reflect upon it all and pray about it, he would take a more balanced view.

No sign, I’m afraid.

He remains, it seems, stuck in his arrogance toward those whose only “fault” is to want to preserve the traditions of prayer of the Roman Catholic faith.

I also wrote this then which I believe is still apposite:

...

“I cannot help recalling that Cardinal James Knox, when he was still alive, brutally and carelessly ordered a forward altar and mass versus populum at the Chiesa Nuova in Rome despite the strong opposition of the protectress of the Church, Princess Borghese, and the strong feelings of the Faithful, not to mention the Fathers (they are Oratorians).

This was all too typical of those times - brutal, senseless, unjust and uncharitable actions were all too common in liturgical matters. That is partly why Pope John Paul II felt it necessary to apologise for them in 1988 and after, and the present pope likewise in Summorum Pontificum.

Too many of those with authority rode roughshod over the deeply-held traditions, and religious beliefs and sensibilities of all too many of the Faithful without a word of apology or sympathy.

Those of the Faithful who had been deeply loyal and loved the Church to the uttermost, politely asked if they could worship as they always had and were brushed aside like so much chaff. Heedless of age, sex or sensibility, decent and humble people were arrogantly treated.
No wonder so many people left the Church!

The sheep looked up to be fed and what happened?

They were clouted on their snouts even by their own shepherds!

It was particularly odious to witness the ill-treatment of elderly people who often had the greatest difficulty adapting to the liturgical changes. What did this behaviour say about the attitude that Christians should have to old people?

Personally, I think it added to the general decline in proper behaviour toward the elderly in our society. It was a scandalous bad example.

Thank God we have had two popes who finally understood and sympathised with the Faithful who have been so bruised, battered, scandalised and horrified by the senseless uncharity of so many of those in authority in relation to liturgical issues in the recent past.

Still, there are too many who, whilst abusing and insulting those whose tastes are for the traditional, nevertheless accuse them of being sour, cross and abusive.

They never seem to stop and think about the insults, calumnies, detractions and abuse that the Faithful who love the traditions of the Church have had to put up with over the recent past.

If, as the calumniators claim, the Faithful who love the traditions of the Church are but a small number of disaffected people, then why abuse and insult them?"

...

In fact, of course, the traditional movement is now inundated with youngsters. The movement Juventutem is but one example of many new traditional youth movements filled with youngsters who want the authentic and ancient Catholic tradition, not mere pap and pope music from the 1960s.

I say to all priests your loyalty should be primarily to JESUS CHRIST and the long traditions of His Church. If you abandon the past then you abandon the present also, for, as St Thomas Aquinas teaches us:

“It is absurd, and a detestable shame, that we should suffer those traditions to be changed which we have received from the fathers of old"

The Decretals (Dist. xii, 5) cited in the Summa Theologica, II, I, Q. 97, art. 2.

To do so is to follow the traditions of men, not the traditions of God, something St Paul expressly warned us against:

"Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle"

2 Thessalonians 2:15

"Now I praise you, brethren, that in all things you are mindful of me: and keep the traditions as I have delivered them to you."

1 Corinthians 11:2

So, my dear Fathers. Don’t dissemble, dissent or detract but, instead, keep the traditions handed on from of old. That is your noble task. Be worthy of it.

+++

Credit where credit is due...

Fr Jay Scott Newman's letter on facing God ad orientem at mass is well worth reading.

Since I've had to challenge him in the past quite strongly, I think it is only fair that I should praise him when it is due.

So, well done , Father, keep it up!

You can read his letter here:

http://www.stmarysgvl.org/ourparish/2008-fourth-sunday-of-lent

I cannot help recalling that Cardinal James Knox, when he was still alive, brutally and carelessly ordered a forward altar and mass versus populum at the Chiesa Nuova in Rome despite the strong oppositon of the protectress of the Church, Princess Borghese, and the strong feelings of the Faithful, not to mention the Fathers (they are Oratorians).

This was all too typical of those times - brutal, senseless, unjust and uncharitable actions were all too common in liturgical matters. That is partly why Pope John Paul II felt it necessary to apologise for them in 1988 and after.

Too many of those with authority rode roughshod over the deeply-held religious beliefs and sensibilities of all too many of the Faithful without a word of apology or sympathy.

Those of the Faithful who had been deeply loyal and loved the Church to the uttermost, politely asked if they could worship as they always had and were brushed aside like so much chaff. Heedless of age, sex or sensibility, decent and humble people were arrogantly treated.
No wonder so many people left the Church!

The sheep looked up to be fed and what happened?

They were clouted on their snouts even by their own shepherds!

It was particularly odious to witness the ill-treatment of elderly people who often had the greatest difficulty adapting to the liturgical changes. What did this behaviour say about the attitude that Christians should have to old people?

Personally, I think it added to the general decline in proper behaviour toward the elderly in our society. It was a scandalous bad example.

Thank God we now have a Pope who finally understands and sympathises with the Faithful who have been so bruised, battered, scandalised and horrified by the senseless uncharity of so many of those in authority in relation to liturgical issues in the recent past.

Still, there are too many who, whilst abusing and insulting those whose tastes are for the traditional, nevertheless accuse them of being sour, cross and abusive.

They never seem to stop and think about the insults, calumnies, detractions and abuse that the Faithful with traditional preferences have had to put up with over the recent past.

If, as they claim, the Faithful with traditional preferences are but a small number of disaffected people, then why abuse and insult them?

There is nothing easier than for the majority to pick on a small minority.

And there is nothing easier than swimming with the tide.

Dead fish do it all the time.

...

Fr Dwight: the grapes of wrath?

Fr Dwight decided to let off more steam on his blog Standing on My Head (a very good blog, by the way) having discovered Roman Christendom and its criticism of some of his views on the traditional liturgy.

Fair enough! I think that is his right. We shouldn't begrudge it. I like him and that's why I'm engaging with him. So please read the below in that spirit.

First, under a heading "Watzablog" he gives a lecture on what a blog should be like, accusing some people of bad manners and then claiming to know who was the author of Roman Christendom and seeking to "out" us.

He launched into an attack on James Bogle, whose letters I have borrowed from, even accusing him of being "insulting" and "arrogant" and this blog of making "senseless and weird" attacks, whilst claiming himself to be "objective and cheerful" and to give those who favour the traditional rites (or Mass of John XXIII as he insists on calling it when it is, of course, the oldest rite in the Church), the "benefit of the doubt".

He then gives us a treatise on how we're all wrong when we think we are right and thinking you're right, even if you are right, is self-righteous. Well, if we all followed such a principle there would, of course, never be any debate at all.

To add spice, the whole is interlaced with choice references to "fundamentalism", "little fortresses", "aggressive", "belligerent", "martyr complexes", "self-pity", "sick kind of mentality", "obsession", "mania", "self-righteous", "extreme", "suspicious", "intolerant", "the seriousness of Satan", "demented terrier with a slipper", "sulk", "infected wound" and the like.

No prizes for guessing, folks, that this is at least partly aimed at Roman Christendom for daring to defend the traditional rite in the face of some pretty ill-informed opposition.

I need say no more: Fr Dwight is not "standing on his head" over this one but on his own dignity by over-reacting somewhat.

Well, at least he is engaging, now. That's a good start!

Fr Dwight is, I consider, actually a very good guy, but both he, and his Parish Priest, Fr Jay Scott Newman, also a good guy, ought to exercise a little caution when using sacerdotal authority particularly on anything that might be interpreted as undermining the Church's traditions (Latin, Chant etc) or the manifest and proper wishes of the Pope and use scorn sparingly against others who simply point this out.

Targeting Catholics who prefer the traditional Roman rite is a recreation that is past its sell-by date. It's done great harm these past 40 years and the Pope has quite rightly called time on it.

Fr Dwight erased most of the comments on his blog that criticised his view of liturgy and Fr Jay now won't receive any further comments on his blog. His penultimate post was, aptly but sadly, entitled "Liturgy Wars". It was not traditional-rite Catholics who started the war.

There should, of course, be no wars over liturgy. We should all be on the same side not divided internally.

Unfortunately, it is the kind of statement that appeared in Fr Jay's Parish newsletter that can sometimes tend to prolong the war. I publish it below as it is in the public domain and a commentator has sent it to me.

If any priest is going to claim to be loyal to the Pope and to say "Where Peter is, there is the Church", then he needs to be open and willing to implement the motu proprio, and should avoid minimising it by suggesting that it "kinda, sorta" gives wider permission for the traditional rites.

The reality is that the motu proprio gives extremely wide and extensive permission for the use of the traditional rites.

But here is Fr Jay's advice to his parishioners on 1 July, just before the publication of the motu proprio:

"When this document is finally published, there will no doubt be a circus of media attention of the most sensational kind, but please do not be confused or disturbed by what you read in the papers or see on television. Whatever else may be the case, there will certainly be no changes made in the present way we celebrate the Missal of 1970 in our scheduled liturgies, and pending a careful study of the document, I do not anticipate that a regularly scheduled Tridentine Mass will be celebrated here at St. Mary’s. For now, simply know that a document will probably appear this summer, and when it does, we will study it together."

To be fair to Fr Jay, he clearly did not anticipate the breadth and width of the rights granted by the motu proprio and, I suspect, is still slightly in denial about it all. On his blog, he certainly admits - actually I think rather courageously and even humbly - to being a bit confused by it all. That actually rather endeared him to me, I have to say. My heart went out to him!

I suspect that when he and Fr Dwight have had time to digest it all, reflect upon it all and pray about it, they will take a more balanced view.

So let's give 'em a chance, folks, and pray for them and for what I have a feeling is a very important and influential parish in that part of the US of A and two potentially very influential priests.

Fr Jay Scott Newman also joins the muddle...

Fr Jay Scott Newman is another PP who has a good blog which is well worth reading. I don't know him but he seems a good enough fellow.

But...once, again, but...

Yep, the liturgy.

Before the motu proprio was issued he joined in with the "Latin Questions" discussion and made this unhelpful comment:

"...The long-rumored and still invisible motu proprio notwithstanding, there is simply no interest in the Church beyond the statistically insignificant world of specialists and bloggers in retrieving what 99.999% of the Catholic people (and hierarchy) consider a noble part of our heritage but not a living part of our future (think of the papal navy!)..."

Where does he get his stats? Wake up and smell the coffee, Father!

And this:

"...All of which leads to my conclusion that those who harbor hope that the general liturgical life of the Church will be improved by a few more celebrations of the Pian Mass have simply and profoundly misunderstood the situation of the Church in our time..."

Yep. Pretty offensive and ill-informed stuff. It's not the Pian mass. It is much, much older. He has simply "profoundly misunderstood"!

Someone replied to him thus:

"Your over-emphasis on numbers might lead an observer to think that you put a higher premium on popularity than truth or right practice...

If you want to get with what is 'serious' then you need to concern yourself less with numbers and more with truth and tradition.

Otherwise you may find yourself numbered with those disciples who got with the numbers by running away, rather than with those who stood at the foot of the Cross.

I know it is difficult for a priest these days to give any favour to the traditional rite without incurring trouble with his bishop but do not let that skew your vision or compromise your intellectual impartiality."
He got cross with that and replied:

"...Based on 20 years of experience, I believe that such folk will be sadly disappointed, no matter what the yet-to-be published (or even seen) motu proprio may or may not say..."
Someone replied to him beginning: "I catch a glimpse of a straw man in your last comment..."
Well, indeed!

There were other replies to Fr Newman but - mysteriously - they were removed from Fr Dwight's blog. US-style "free speech"? See how it works? I am free to say whatever I like but if you say something I don't like, I just erase it. This is called "free speech". Apparently!

But then, all of a sudden, and within only a few weeks, out came the motu proprio.

Whoops! Now the boot was on the other foot. The "long-rumoured and yet invisible" and the "yet to be published (or even seen)" had suddenly been seen, published and hugely exceeded the expected minimalist concessions that aggressive Novus Ordo priests like Fr Jay had expected.

And it came from the Pope himself!

Golly! What to do, now? Um, err, aaah....

You guessed it - back-peddle. Fast! (But without apologising to anyone - never apologise, never explain, apparently!).

Here's an extract from Fr Jay's very grudging back-peddle:

"In any event, last Saturday, Pope Benedict XVI threw a spanner in the works with his long-awaited, much-rumored, and oft-debated Apostolic Letter Summorum Pontificum, which more or less (kinda, sorta) gives any priest of the Latin Rite the choice of which Mass to offer: the Mass codified by Pope Pius V after the Council of Trent or the Mass codified by Pope Paul VI after the Second Vatican Council. It remains to be seen what effect, if any, this document will have on the life of the Church as it is lived in parishes, religious houses, seminaries, etc..."
Get that, folks? The Pope "threw a spanner in the works". And this from a priest who thinks himself a papal loyalist. And Paul VI apparently only "codified" the new mass - no new Eucharistic prayers or anything like that...err...But let's read on:

"In February 1962, Pope John XXIII promulgated an Apostolic Constitution called Veterum Sapientia, mandating very specific requirements for the teaching and preservation of Latin in the Church, but because of the radical changes taking place in the world at the time, this authoritative document was Dead On Arrival and had zero effect in the life of the Church. Today, if this document is read at all, it is usually read with mirth. Well might we all mourn the passing away of Latin from wide use in the Church, but pass away it has...."
Oh really? So we should rejoice in our ignorance of our own history, culture and the language in which most of our theology is written, should we? We should think it's all "DOA"? And we should read "with mirth" the writings of a beatified pope, should we? More papal loyalism? Err, sorry Father, I don't think so! But there's more...

"Will Summorum Pontificum be DOA in the same way as Veterum Sapientia? I honestly don’t know, and to tell the truth, I don’t much care one way or the other..."
"Don't much care..."! Does this sound like loyalty to the Pope? I doubt that many would see it that way!

So whilst Fr Jay has been forced to back off he has done so with singularly bad grace. That is a great shame because he is a priest who made much of his loyalty under Pope John Paul II but is acting rather differently under Pope Benedict. But even more so because he is not a bad guy at all. Indeed, he is basically a very good guy but he has allowed his thinking and theology to get sloppy and complacent.

Come on now, Fr Jay. You can do better. Don't cheat yourself or your parishioners!

Pray for him, folks, and for all our clergy!