On the site Petrus there is an interview by Bruno Volpe with His

Eminence Virgilio Card. No, [pronounced "No-eh"] "former papal MC,

the predecessor of Archbp. Piero Marini.
These are very interesting comments. He speaks of the phrase of Paul
VI that the "smoke of Satan" had entered the Church and what Paul VI
meant by that phrase.
My translation and emphases.
Exclusive: the revelation of Card. No:" When Paul VI denounced the
smoke of Satan in the Church, he was referring to liturgical abuses following
Vatican II."
by Bruno Volpe
CITTA DEL VATICANO - He speaks with a thread of a voice
and at times laboring for breath he it is so difficult he has to stop.
But his mind is lucid and his heart is sound.. The interview with
Virgilio Card. No, 86, Master of Liturgical Ceremonies during
the Pontificates of Paul VI, John Paul I, and John Paul II, once the
Archpriest of the Basilica of St. Peter and Vicar of the Pope for
Vatican City, showed himself to be at the same time both touching
and engaging. The Cardinal, who has very much abandoned
public life because of the infirmities of old age, helps us, taking us
my the hand, better to know a Pontiff wrongly forgotten in historys haste:
Giovan Battista Montini. He reveals for the first time what Paul VI was
referring to precisely when in 1972 he denounced the presence of the smoke
of Satan in the Church.
Your Eminence, who was Pope Paul VI?
A real gentleman, a saint. I remember still how he lived the Eucharistic
Mystery, with passion and participation. When I think of him I tear up, but
not in the way of a hypocrite. I am truly moved. I owe him a great deal, he
taught me a lot, he lived and paid a great price for the Church.
You had the privilege to be Master of Liturgical Ceremonies precisely
because of the assignment from Papa Montini in the time of the postConciliar reform. How do you remember those times?
Splendidly. Once the Holy Father said to me, personally, and in a very
tender way, how the MC ought to carry out his role in that particular
historical period. He came into the sacristy. I drew near and he said: "The
MC must foresee everything and taken everything on himself, he has the
task of making the Popes road smoother."

Did he add anything else?

He affirmed that the spirit of the MC must not be shaken up by anything,
large or small, that may be his own personal problems. An MC, he stressed,
must remain also the master of himself and be the Popes shield, so that
Holy Mass can be celebrated in a dignified way, for the glory of God and
His people.
How did the Holy Father take the liturgical reform desired by Vatican
II?
With pleasure.
It is told that Paul VI was quite a sad man, true or legend?
A lie. He was a good and gentle father, a gentleman and a saint. At the
same time, he was saddened by the fact of having been left alone by the
Roman Curia. But I would prefer not to talk about that.
As a whole, against the historians, You, as one of his closest and trust
collaborators, describe Papa Montini as a serene person.
He was. Do you know why? Because he also affirmed that whoever serves
the Lord cannot ever be sad. He he served Him especially in the Sacrifice of
the Mass.
Paul VIs denunciation of the presence of the smoke of Satan in the
Church is unforgettable. Still today, that discourse seems to be
incredibly relevant.
You from Petrus, have gotten a real scoop here, because I am in a position to
reveal, for the first time, what Paul VI desired to denounce with that
statement. Here it is. Papa Montini, for Satan, meant to include all those
priests or bishops and cardinals who didnt render worship to the Lord
by celebrating badly (mal celebrando) Holy Mass because of an errant
interpretation of the implementation of the Second Vatican Council. He
spoke of the smoke of Satan because he maintained that those priests
who turned Holy Mass into dry straw in the name of creativity, in
reality were possessed of the vainglory and the pride of the Evil One.
so, the smoke of Satan was nothing other than the mentality which
wanted to distort the traditional and liturgical canons of the Eucharistic
ceremony."
It is thought that Paul VI was the real culprit as the cause of all the ills of
post-Conciliar liturgy. But based on what you have revealed, Eminence,
Montini compared the liturgical chaos, even if in a veiled way, actually to

something hellish.
He condemned craving to be in the limelight and the delirium of almighty
power that they were following the Council at the liturgical level. Mass is a
sacred ceremony, he often repeated, everything must be prepared and studied
adequately, respecting the canons, no one is "dominus" [lord] of the Mass.
Sadly, in many after Vatican II not many understood him and Paul VI
suffered this, considering the phenomenon to be an attack of the Devil.
Your Eminence, in conclusion, what is true liturgy?
It renders glory to God. Liturgy must be carried out always and no matter
what with decorum: even a sign of the Cross poorly made is synonymous
with scorn and sloppiness. Alas, I repeat, after Vatican II it was believed
that everything, or nearly, was permitted. Now it is necessary to recover,
and in a hurry, the sense of the sacred in the ars celebrandi, before the
smoke of Satan completely pervades the whole Church. Thanks be to
God, we have Pope Benedict XVI: his Mass and his liturgical style are
an example of correctness and dignity.
A few observations.
First of all, I have good and bad memories of Card. No.
He was the one who tore out the altar of the Chair in the apse of St.
Peters. He was one of the main causes of the emasculation of the style
of papal ceremonies and the minimalism we experience still in many
places.
At the same time, I remember what a gentleman he was. I would from
time to time encounter him in the Basilica in the mornings. I said Mass
there everyday. In the corridor between the sacristy and the basilica he
would step reverently aside for any priest going to or coming from Mass.
He would say quietly to those going, "Memento" and to those returning,
"Prosit". Old school.
Also, he made sure the Basilica was clean, which was a real change in
those day that persists to today.
Still, while I take what His Eminence says about Paul VI cvm grano salis, I
was very interested to read his high praise of Pope Benedict, whom he
respects for his liturgical style.
Card. No wasnt a real fan of the Polish Popes style, for sure, and there
was some tension there. As a matter of fact No was just a little

impatient and bossy with him, who wasnt all that interested in the finer
points of liturgy. I remember a story from a papal MC who was present
one day toward the end of Msgr. Nos service as MC to John Paul II. The
Pope would descend using an elevator to the floor of the basilica and
then, after being greeted according to protocol by the MC and others,
would go to vest. One today, as I said close to the end of Nos time,
when the MC greeted the Pope, John Paul II responded "Oggi,
Monsignore, faccio io papa!.... Today, Monsignor, I think Ill be the Pope."
Msgr. No moved along to a new post in the Congregation not long after
that.
In any event, the comment Card. No made about decorum and the
need to celebrate Mass well are spot on and he gets WDTPRS kudos.
As a matter of fact, there is something in his remarks that echos very
strongly two of the main points I am trying to drive home on this blog.
First,

Celebrate Mass well, participate properly affect the whole

world. Celebrate poorly affect the whole world.
What is most fundamental to celebrating Mass well?

Simply putting yourself aside and obeying the rules in the book, saying
the texts well and properly, is already a huge step in the right direction.
They are the sine quibus non of a sound ars celebrandi, which No
mentioned. This is the phrase that was used during the Synod on the
Eucharist in 2005 and then which Benedict explained in Sacramentum
caritatis.

93 Comments
1. Its surprising that he says the smoke of Satan comment was
about the liturgy, since as I remember the context, it was pretty
clearly in reference to the squabbling and fighting between

factions after the Council. Granted, that may have been inspired
by liturgical squabbles, but given the rest of the address in which
His Holiness said it, the Cardinals scoop doesnt seem to make
sense.
Comment by Antiquarian 15 May 2008 @ 2:30 pm
2. What does it mean that Paul VI was saddened by the fact of
having been left alone by the Roman Curia. Can anyone shed
some light on this for me?
Comment by Trey 15 May 2008 @ 2:47 pm
3. Can anyone tell me in what address the smoke of Satan
comment was made?
Comment by TJB 15 May 2008 @ 3:08 pm
4. Wasnt Card. No the one responsible for replacing St. Peters old
Altar of the Chair with the current ironing board?
Comment by Prof. Basto 15 May 2008 @ 3:11 pm
5. I am in the minority here no doubt, but I am a great lover and
admirer of Paul VI.
Servant of God, Paul VI, pray for us!
Comment by Jeff 15 May 2008 @ 3:12 pm
6. He would say quietly to those going, Memento and to those
returning, Prosit. Old school.
Wow, yeah.
Comment by LCB 15 May 2008 @ 3:43 pm
7. This really is amazing. First, Cardinal Noe seems to rely on some
private knowledge of Paul VIs mind. The context of the smoke of
Satan remarks refers to general confusion within the Church,
mainly concerned with matters of faith. Clearly, the liturgy is
related to the crisis of faith, but it is surprising to hear that the
Pope was thinking primarily of that at the time. I wonder what
reason he has to believe this.

Second, there seems to be little in Cardinal Noes career to

indicate that he believed in any such diabolical problem across the
Church. As a senior curial official, he had chance to exert
considerable influence on the celebration of the liturgy throughout
the world. Did he say or do anything publicly, as his current
successor at the CDW has, to try to correct this problem? To the
contrary, it would appear that Cardinal Noe was a full member of
the Consilium establishment, whose party line was that the
liturgical reform was a great success.
Are we then to interpret these remarks as a change of heart? Or
are they an assertion that the problems of creativity were the
sins of others, and that everything he did personally was strictly in
accordance with the mind of the Church? And, perhaps most
puzzling of all, if Paul VI and (apparently) his liturgical advisors
believed that there was a great liturgical crisis of diabolical
original, how are we to make sense of what they did to address it?
Comment by Cerimoniere 15 May 2008 @ 3:52 pm
8. Maybe he has been awakened. That really is all that matters now
regardless of past positions. If so, I thank God for it.
Comment by Dob 15 May 2008 @ 4:15 pm
9. Can you please tell us what Prosit means please father Z? I
presume Memento means remember me at Mass but I cannot
work out Prosit. Thank you.
Comment by elizabeth mckernan 15 May 2008 @ 4:18 pm
10.
Funny, during the almost 40 years that we wandered the
Novus desert, I did not recall Cardinal Noe mention the smoke of
Satan line even once. Now that Pope Benedict XVI issues SP,
freeing up the beautiful TLM, we get this dog and pony show from
Virgilio.
Comment by peretti 15 May 2008 @ 4:27 pm
11.

Prosit means cheers to you.

FrZ,
Did you have to get permission to say Mass at a side altar in the
Basilica? Was there a lot of red tape involved in that? It seems like
a neat privilege of the ordained.

Comment by RichR 15 May 2008 @ 4:28 pm

12.

Thank you RichR for translation.

Comment by elizabeth mckernan 15 May 2008 @ 4:33 pm

13.
I remember at Mount Saint Marys, MD, after the celebration
of the Holy Mass, all of us in the sanctuary would recess back into
the sacristy, line up before the crucifix, wait for the celebrant who
would bow to the Crucified and say PROSIT = May it benefit. Our
response would be: OMNIBUS ET SINGULIS = For all and for the
one.
Fr. Z: is my translation correct? Or is it too dynamic equivalent? :)
Comment by Ramil 15 May 2008 @ 4:35 pm
14.
Can anyone tell me in what address the smoke of Satan
comment was made?
Comment by TJB
It was given On 29 June, 1972 by His Holiness Pope Paul VI On the
feast of SS. Peter and Paul for the IX anniversary of his Coronation.
Comment by hugh 15 May 2008 @ 4:36 pm
15.
Can anyone tell me in what address the smoke of Satan
comment was made?
Comment by TJB
It was given On 29 June, 1972 by His Holiness Pope Paul VI On the
feast of SS. Peter and Paul for the IX anniversary of his
Coronation.
And an account of it, in Italian with extensive quotes, was available
on the Vatican website, but does not seem to be there any longer.
Comment by Antiquarian 15 May 2008 @ 5:06 pm
16.

CorrectionI found it.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/homilies/1972/document
s/hf_p-vi_hom_19720629_it.html

Asd you see, it isnt a transcript, more of a description of the

address, but there are passages quoted. I leave to our Italianists to
give more details.
Comment by Antiquarian 15 May 2008 @ 5:10 pm
17.

Thanks be to God, we have Pope Benedict XVI

Ill second that! :-)

Deo gratias! Vivat Benedictus XVI!
Comment by techno_aesthete 15 May 2008 @ 7:13 pm
18.
Prosit indeed means may it be of benefit [to you] and the
response is some form of saying to you also, and this can be in
the form we heard about above, such as omnibus et singulis, or
tibi quoque, vobis quoque etc.
Comment by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf 15 May 2008 @ 7:23 pm
19.
Jimmy Akin has the full translation of the homily or
description with quotes, as someone else has pointed out that it
actually is, and the context of the remark is nothing remotely close
to what Cardinal Noe suggests:
Referring to the situation of the Church today, the Holy Father
affirms that he has a sense that from some fissure the smoke of
Satan has entered the temple of God. There is doubt, incertitude,
problematic, disquiet, dissatisfaction, confrontation. There is no
longer trust of the Church; they trust the first profane prophet who
speaks in some journal or some social movement, and they run
after him and ask him if he has the formula of true life. And we are
not alert to the fact that we are already the owners and masters of
the formula of true life. Doubt has entered our consciences, and it
entered by windows that should have been open to the light.
Science exists to give us truths that do not separate from God, but
make us seek him all the more and celebrate him with greater
intensity; instead, science gives us criticism and doubt. Scientists
are those who more thoughtfully and more painfully exert their
minds. But they end up teaching us: I dont know, we dont know,
we cannot know. The school becomes the gymnasium of
confusion and sometimes of absurd contradictions. Progress is
celebrated, only so that it can then be demolished with revolutions
that are more radical and more strange, so as to negate
everything that has been achieved, and to come away as

primitives after having so exalted the advances of the modern

world.
http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/11/the_smoke_
of_sa.html
Comment by Shane 15 May 2008 @ 8:23 pm
20.
I interpret it as an awakening, a change of heart. And Im
happy for His Eminence, that he now sees things as he does, that
he understands how important is the work of our Holy Father Pope
Benedict in the field of Liturgy, and how essential is the recovery,
in a hurry, of the sense of the sacred regarding the sacred
mysteries.
And the fact that he recognizes that the sweeping movement of
creativity in the liturgy that was so harmful to catechesis, that
seemed to erode the sense of the sacred, the sense of an actual
belief in the Real Presence and the Sacrificial nature of the Mass,
and that lead many among the faithful to believe that everything
in the Church was subject to change, including Faith itself was
actually diabolical, is a very important thing.
He played an part important part in all the bad that happened,
since papal liturgy is a model for every liturgical celebration. He
was the first MC of bad quality vestments, of inauguration Mass
for Popes instead of Coronations, of the obliteration of every
special aspect that distinguishes a papal Mass, etc. Although that
process was started by Bugnini as MC from 1968-1970, it was
really accelerated by No as MC from 1970-1982. In spite of all the
bad that he did in his important and influential role as Papal MC, it
is good to see that he shows signs of a change of heart regarding
the promotion of rupture. He is still alive, and is still capable of
contrition and of receiving Gods forgiveness for any sin, no matter
how great.
And I dont think that a Cardinal, or any person, who is at that
stage in life, already with difficulty breathing, would say what he
said just for diplomatic purposes vis a vis Benedict XVI. As an
elderly Cardinal holding no office, he doesnt need anything at the
present stage, and wouldnt suffer any consequence on the part of
the Pope even if he was opposed to Pope Benedicts plan. So, I
interpret his statement as a sincere statement of an elderly man
who is looking back at, his times and his deeds, and by the grace
of the Spirit of Truth, has come to realize the harm that was done

to the Church by those who allowed the smoke of Satan to creep

into the sanctuary.
May God forgive the Cardinals sins, as well as mine, and those of
us all, that we may all one day contemplate Him face to face, in
the joy of His kingdom.
And may our Blessed Mother ever Virgin, together with her Spouse
St. Joseph, patron of the Universal Church, with the holy apostles
Peter and Paul, and with St. Michael the Archangel, pray for the
Church to God and protect and defend us against the evil one and
his smoke, so that it be completelly expelled from the sanctuary,
for the benefit of all mankind, and for the greater recognition of
Gods glorious name. Sub tuum praesidium confugimus, Sancta
Dei Genetrix. Intercede pro Papa nostro Benedicto. Intercede pro
Ecclesia.
Comment by prof. basto 15 May 2008 @ 8:25 pm
21.
The Smoke of Satan entered the Church in the holes made in
the floor when the altars were removed and replaced by picnic
tables.
Comment by RBrown 15 May 2008 @ 9:16 pm
22.
The reference to being left alone by the Roman Curia is
interesting. Was it not said that Montini was made archbishop of
Milan in part because he was disliked in the Curia? Then too there
is the comment made by Archbishop Lefebvre that Annibale
Bugninni had unusually good access to Pope Paul such that even
Cardinal Villot, the Sect. of State, was amazed. Bugninni himself
speaks of long conversations with the Pope in the late afternoon
appointments In his book on the processs of the Reform.
Then we have the fact that the Implementation of the Liturgical
Reform was taken out of the hands of the Curia and given to
Bugninni and the Consilium. Could this be connected to a feeling of
being isoated by the Curia?? Was Bugninni perhaps able to take
advantage of the loneliness of the Pope? There is, of course the oft
repeated tale that on the Monday after Pentecost Pope Paul
entered the sacristy expecting to see red for the Octave. But
instead all was green and when he asked about the Octave he was
told, You abolished it Holiness, at which point he is said to have
wept.

This is not to imply that Pope Paul had no input. He appears to

have intervened and saved the first four days of Lent including Ash
Wednesday and I believe that he insisted on the reference to Our
Lady in all of the Eucharistic Prayers and yet one wonders what
kind of influence Bugninni might have had on an isolated Pope.
Now I hssten to remind readers that the picture I have pieced
together here is very much a matter of speculation but it could
possibly shed some light on a very big mystery which is why did
Paul VI approve the reform.
Comment by David O'Rourke 15 May 2008 @ 9:35 pm
23.

Father,

I think in Germany it is (or was) more common to say proficiat

instead of prosit. Have you heard that, too?
Comment by Gregor 16 May 2008 @ 2:29 am
24.
Sad to be taught 36 years after, the exact meaning of a
papal quote.
I would have prefered Paul VI to say clearly in 1972:
The current liturgical abuses are truly inspired by the Devil
That sounds better dont you think so?
And that would have possibly avoided a lot of further abuses.
Comment by Jacques 16 May 2008 @ 3:30 am
25.
Where I occasionally serve Mass, the priest concludes his
prayers in the sacristy after the completed celebration by saying:
Prosit nobis sacrificium. To which the servers respond: Deo gratias.
I have also heard the form Proficiat nobis sacrificium being used by
a visiting priest.
Comment by Tobias H 16 May 2008 @ 3:43 am
26.
Regarding the the dichotomy smoke of Satan meaning:
a) liturgical abuse
b) loss of faith.
Might they not have been uttered by Pope Paul more than once,
in different contexts?
Comment by mpm 16 May 2008 @ 5:58 am

27.
Now I hssten to remind readers that the picture I have
pieced together here is very much a matter of speculation
but it could possibly shed some light on a very big mystery
which is why did Paul VI approve the reform.
Comment by David ORourke
Im not so sure much light can be shed on it. Paul VI was an
enigmaa man who loved the Church but who knowingly signed
off on things that he knew who do it harm.
Comment by RBrown 16 May 2008 @ 6:41 am
28.
Gregor: I think in Germany it is (or was) more common
to say proficiat instead of prosit. Have you heard that,
too?
Now that you mention it, I have a vague recollection of proficiat.
Means pretty much the same this as prosit. Perhaps in German
speaking lands proficiat is used because of common use of prosit
when drinking beer, et al?
Comment by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf 16 May 2008 @ 6:50 am
29.
Having lived through and closely observed these events, I
see no dichotomy between the liturgical abuse and loss of
faith interpretations of the smoke of Satan. It has been apparent
all along that the former implied the latter.
Indeed, it is clear from the autobiography of Ab. Annabale Bugnini
and the more recent book of Ab. Piero Marini that the alteration of
faith was a principal prior motive for alteration of the liturgy. They
understood from the beginning that the sure way to change
peoples beliefs was to change the liturgy. Because, for pre-Vatican
II Catholics the liturgy was the fixed lodestar. If it was subject to
change, then so were all the fundamentals of faith.
So perhaps it is no surprise that, by 1972 only 3 years after his
promulgation of the Novus Ordo, Pope Paul VI might already have
come to realize that Lose the liturgy, Lose the faith. According to
some (not well documented) accounts, this realization was
responsible for the depression into which he allegedly fell during
the remaining years of his life.
However, some here may be unaware that the principal seeds for
a 40-year disintegration of the liturgy had already been sown prior
to the 1969 promulgation. For instance, vernacular and versus

populo celebration, together with the elimination of some opening

penitential prayers and the final Gospelpaving the way, some
would argue, for the deletion of the offertory oblationwere
approved by the 1965 missals that were issued by various
national bishops conferences (including the U.S.) and were
presented as the definitive fruit of the Council. A simplification and
loosening of the formerly inflexible rubrics was issued in 1967. The
three alternative Eucharistic prayers were approved in 1968. So
much of what many assume to be later Novus Ordo innovations
were, in fact, already in place, both officially and generally in
practice.
Comment by Henry Edwards 16 May 2008 @ 7:22 am
30.
Of course you can read this cvm grano salis but I was once
told by Fr. John Hardon a story concerning Paul VI and the New
Mass. Fr. Hardon related to me and another lady that Paul VI had
become distressed by the abuses of the liturgy after Vatican II and
was determined to have the Novus Ordo said in Latin. Apparently
he planned to issue some sort of direction to this effect. Cardinal
Suenens got wind of what the Pope wanted to do and orchestrated
a world wide response of bishops. Cardinal Suenens chose a day
and on that day a majority of the worlds bishops telegrammed the
Vatican protesting the Popes hoped for Latin requirement with
threats to disobey.
The story was told to me and my friend in response to our query
concerning just how powerful Cardinal Suenens was in the 1970s. I
was wondering if anyone else had heard of this?
Comment by Ruthy Lapeyre 16 May 2008 @ 7:48 am
31.
Similarly, Paul VIs publication of the Jubilate Deo would
seem to indicate that he had the use of Latin and Gregorian Chant
in mind.
Comment by Chironomo 16 May 2008 @ 8:22 am
32.
Cardinal Suenens,according to Iota Unum,was very influential
with Pope PaulVI and knew it.However his constant travelling all
over the world led the Bishops of Belgium and the leaders of his
own dioces to ask him tosstay home and run his diocese.Emile
Cardinal Leger,a late Archbishop of Montreal who resigned his post
to become a missionary in Africa,issued a plea to Suenens to keep
his mouth shut for several years so that the church could
advance.It seems the further from Vatican II the lesss influence

with other bishops he had.Towards the end of his life he was totally
absorbed with the Charismatic Renewal and became more
orthodox.Remember he had dissented from Humanae Vitae,
Comment by fr.franklyn mcafee 16 May 2008 @ 8:24 am
33.

Should be:

Paul VI was an enigmaa man who loved the Church but who
knowingly signed off on things that he knew would do it harm.
Comment by RBrown
Comment by RBrown 16 May 2008 @ 8:31 am
34.
No matter where one might stand on the issue of the
appropriateness of a papal coronation today, we should only look
at the letter of Sacrosanctum Concilium to see that the Council
Fathers themselves called for at least some moderate
simplification of the rites. Cardinal Noe wasnt responsible for bad
quality vestments, you might not like them because they are alot
simpler, but that doesnt mean theyre of bad quality. For ugliness
in vestments I think we have Archbishop Marini to thank. Most of
the gothic chasubles used at the Vatican (since the mid-60s
according to many photographs, at which point Cardinal Dante I
believe was still on board) are of high quality satin or silken
material, some of fine damask. Even the concelebrants vestments
were of very decent quality before the later years of Marini Is
tenure (all of which Marini II seems to have immediately stopped
using) Perhaps Noe was responsible for alot of the sobriety and
simplification we see, but I would prefer him a thousand times over
to Archbishop Marini Cardinal Noe never brought in liturgical
dancers or shirtless men banging drums or even an indigenous
limpia of the Pope by an Aztec WITCH. Please remember that it
was Noe who kept the sedia gestatoria in use, all the way through
John Paul I and it was Noe who did not think to remove the public
obissance of the College of Cardinals in the Papal Mass of
Inauguration. Oh and musically, Cardinal Noes liturgies were still
graced by the genius of Monsignor Bartolucci, disgracefully
removed by Noes aforementioned successor. Thank God for this
apparent and very public change davis from the Cardinal. I too
believe in his sincerity. Its important, I think, to retain some
perspective before judging him too harshly, maybe he too, like the
Pope he served so well, was a bit of an enigma.Mr. ORourke, I
had heard stories attributed to Paul VI similar to yours
particularly one that alleges that the Pope overruled Bugninis

desire to alter the words of the Roman Canon, though he

succeeded in eliminating several of its gestures.
Comment by EJ 16 May 2008 @ 8:44 am
35.
Simply putting yourself aside and obeying the rules in the
book is a multifaceted gem by itself, intentionally or not
Comment by Memphis Aggie 16 May 2008 @ 9:13 am
36.
This was a very interesting interview . God Bless Cardinal
Noe!
So when I return to the sacristy I always say Benedicite Pater
Reverende??
Fr.Z or anyone who knows was it Msgr. Noe the one who created
clasped hands vs
prayer position for the Master of Ceremonies??
God Bless!
Comment by MC 16 May 2008 @ 9:49 am
37.
...particularly one that alleges that the Pope
overruled Bugninis desire to alter the words of the Roman
Canon
My recollection is that Bugnini and the Consilium actually hoped to
ditch the Roman Canon entirely, but were scotched by Paul VI, in
one of his finest actions as pope, this being the thread by which
hung the historic canon dating (at least in part) back to apostolic
times, in which not a single Latin word had been changed since the
6th century when Gregory the Great added the final clause (save
us from damnation) of the Hanc igitur, until 1962 when John XXIII
inserted St. Joseph in the Communicantes.
Comment by Henry Edwards 16 May 2008 @ 9:58 am
38.
Jeff said: I am in the minority here no doubt, but I am a
great lover and admirer of Paul VI.
I honestly dont know very much about him other than bits and
pieces here and there. I read he wore a hair shirt daily for
mortification. Is there a good biography of him anywhere?
Comment by Geoffrey 16 May 2008 @ 10:06 am

39.
MC: was it Msgr. Noe the one who created clasped
hands vs prayer position for the Master of Ceremonies?
That may indeed be the case.
Comment by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf 16 May 2008 @ 11:01 am
40.
The thing I find hard to grasp is if Paul VI was deeply
disturbed by the abuses why did he not do whatever it took
to stop them or at least speak out against them forcefully and
unequivocally. Why has it taken 40+ years to define what he
meant by smoke? The shepherd lays down his life for the sheep
not watch the wolf enter and wring his hands. I am no fan
of Paul VI but I feel his ticket to heaven was Humanae Vitae. For
that, God bless him a thousand times.
Comment by Victor 16 May 2008 @ 11:35 am
41.
My recollection is that Bugnini and the Consilium actually
hoped to ditch the Roman Canon entirely, but were scotched by
Paul VI. . .
Not true, according Louis Bouyers Eucharist.
Comment by Patrick Rothwell 16 May 2008 @ 2:40 pm
42.
This entire discussion is superb. Thank you FrZ.
I was only 20 when Paul VI died, but I believe he carried his cross
bravely and with dignity through the treacherous theological
conflagrations and Church politics of his time. Thank God for his
tremendous spirit and intellect. He was a gift from Heaven.
Comment by Gerry 16 May 2008 @ 2:42 pm
43.
Pope Paul VI refused to meet with the religious superiors who
led the Consortium Perfectae Caritstis,the organization of
traditional women religious orders because he considered them to
be opponents of the Council.He was told this falsehood by those
around him especially Cardinal Villot.The priest from my diocese
who accompanied them to Rome was a close confidante of
Cardinal Raimondi,who told him that Pope Paul did not know what
was really going on in the church.When Pope Paul started to find
out what was really happening he asked the Sulpician theologian
and friend (although extrememly conservative)bishop Eduard
Gagnon to investigate the curia and find out if there were
enemiesthere.Gagnon told me that the Pope meant Masosns.He

also ordered him to investigate the Gregoran University.When Paul

died Gagnon fled Rome because he had made many enemies
there because of the investigation.He went to the seminary at Cali
Columbia in South America and vowed never to return to
Rome.Then came JPII who ordered him back to Rome and named
him president of the Pontical Council for the family and then
created him a Cardinal. Pope Paul made some bad moves when he
retired early Cardinals Oddi and Pallazini.Theyy were considered
too rigid andpre-conciliar and outspoken.JPII called them back to
head dicasteries in the Curia.Poor Pope Paul.He was not theman to
implement the council if anyone at that time could do so without
mistakes.He had doubts about the Novus Ordo but came to defend
it.I remember when growing up reading how he was a protoge of
Pius XII who said upon appointing him to Milan,This is my gift to
the people of Milan.
Comment by fr.franklyn mcafee 16 May 2008 @ 3:30 pm
44.
My own copy of Bouyers Eucharist is not ready to hand for
me to check the date but if memory serves me correctly it was
published before the Liturgical Reform. In his post reform book,
The Decomposition of Catholicism, Bouyer was, as I remember,
bitterly critical of the New Liturgy.
Comment by David O'Rourke 16 May 2008 @ 3:40 pm
45.
In the entire story of the Reform, one thing that has always
interested me is the contents of the first schema on the Liturgy
which was rejected by the bishops at the first session of the
Council. This was during the reign of Bl. John XXIII. My
understanding was that a lot more than the Pope was new by the
time of the second session. Surely the first schema must be
around somewhere.
Comment by David O'Rourke 16 May 2008 @ 3:53 pm
46.
I was only 7 years old when Paul VI died. He was my first
Pope.
Science exists to give us truths that do not separate from God,
but make us seek him all the more and celebrate him with greater
intensity; instead, science gives us criticism and doubt. Scientists
are those who more thoughtfully and more painfully exert their
minds. But they end up teaching us: I dont know, we dont know,
we cannot know. The school becomes the gymnasium of
confusion and sometimes of absurd contradictions.

Sounds like the Dictatorship of Relativism of Pope Benedict XVI.

I live in Belgium and Cardinal Suenens was my first Cardinal. I was
only 9 years old when he retired.
It is true that Belgium was too small for him. Belgium, and
especially Flanders (the Dutch speaking part of Belgium), was one
of the most Catholic countries in the world (99%). We were famous
for our missionaries.
When you look at the Catholic church in Belgium today, it is a
complete disaster. It is even worse than in Holland.
We have legal abortion, gay marriage, legal euthanasia, a divorse
avalanche, the sacraments being neglected, fewer and fewer
Catholics have their children baptised (many young unmarried
catholic couples are hostile to it), Catholic Youth Movements (see
Card. Cardijn) openly supporting and applauding gay-prideparades. Last year, 4 dioceses closed the doors of their
seminaries. They have opened a new one. They only have 10 or so
candidates to become priest in that new seminary (4 dioceses!).
Yesterday, I had a discussion with a 22-year old catholic teacher.
He could not understand why according to Belgian law, minors are
not allowed to use illegal soft-dugs. Within certain limits adults
can use illegal soft-drugs (compare to Holland).
They are creating a nihilistic society Beyond Good and Evil in the
Heart of Europe. Today, more than 50% of the inhabitants of
Belgian capital Brussels, the so-called Capital of Europe, are
muslim.
They are destroying Europe and Western Culture and Civilisation. It
is an act of sheer self-destruction.
Belgium is probably the country in which the most bitter fruits of
Vatican II are gathered. But I am not sure, whether we have seen
the worst. It is probably not a coincidence that Card. Suenens was
our Archbishop.
Although it is difficult to be optimistic, I still believe that Liturgy is
the tip of the spear. Only Liturgy can save the World.
Because Jesus Christ is our Lord and because God is Love.
We in Belgium need your prayers.

Comment by Dr. Bart Vanmontfort 16 May 2008 @ 6:56 pm

47.
For the last 40 years and more, our
heirarchy, from the Popes on down, have cared for absolutely
everything
and everyone, (especially being accepted by the woderful new
world order) EXCEPT the spiritual welfare of their OWN sheep,(WE
CATHOLICS!)
God help them, and God help us!
Comment by Mike O'Brien 16 May 2008 @ 8:23 pm
48.
This is very interesting and, to me at least, puts the lie to the
rad-trad claim that the smoke of satan ought be understood to
mean the Magisterium had been corrupted and turned from the
truth due to the influence of satan.
Comment by I am not Spartacus 17 May 2008 @ 6:54 am
49.
Oh, I forgot to add that ever since I first heard that quote I
understood it to mean disobedience generalised and specific.
From the Bishops to the laity, we Catholics have been co-opted by
the secularised liberalism our lives are suffused with.
It is not odd that so many in the Body of Christ would have had our
Faith and obedience weakened by such a powerful pathogen but to
turn around and blame the Church as the source of that pathogen
was to add scandal to illness.
The fault is in ourselves not Holy Mother Church. Pray this news
will cause a metanoia in the rad-trads and schismatics.
Comment by I am not Spartacus 17 May 2008 @ 7:04 am
50.

Spartacus wrote:

From the Bishops to the laity, we Catholics have been co-opted by

the secularised liberalism our lives are suffused with.
It is not odd that so many in the Body of Christ would have had our
Faith and obedience weakened by such a powerful pathogen but to
turn around and blame the Church as the source of that pathogen
was to add scandal to illness.

The fault is in ourselves not Holy Mother Church. Pray this news
will cause a metanoia in the rad-trads and schismatics.
)(
This is a false argument. The hierarchy of the Church is responsible
for the horrible changes occurring over the past forty years, and
ultimately Paul VI, not the laity. How dumb! If you think the laity
had that much ability to be at fault, do you not realize we would
not even be going through this? We would have restored things
long ago.
Comment by Matt Q 17 May 2008 @ 11:15 am
51.
When GK Chesterton responded to the London Times call for
commentary on what is wrong with the world he wrote..
I am.
That was the shortest and best response.
Comment by I am not Spartacus 17 May 2008 @ 11:23 am
52.

David,

Eucharist: Theology and Spirituality of the Eucharistic Prayer was

first written in 1966, with a 1968 English edition, which is the copy
I have. At the end of the book, he discusses the Consilium and
provides his own translation of the three new eucharistic prayers
that, a year later, would be authorized by Paul VI. He is, in fact,
quite complementary and positive in his evaluation of these new
prayers. In any event, this is what he had to say about the
Consilium and the Roman Canon:
Along the way, the Consilium naturally came across those
pseudo-critical interpretations of the Roman Canon which tended
either to cast it aside altogether or to refashion it fancifully. We
have demonstrated the vanity of such ideas, and the Consilium
rightly refused to involve itself in such a disastrous deadlock. p.
446.
Elsewhere in the book, he denounces ecumencial masses and
do-it-yourself liturgies and warns of the malign influence of liberal
pressure groups on liturgical reform.

I have not read his book denouncing liturgical reform, so it would

be interesting to know where he thought that it started to go amiss
and whether he changed his mind on some things he said just a
few years earlier.
Comment by Patrick Rothwell 17 May 2008 @ 4:17 pm
53.
In The Destruction of the Traditional Roman Rite, a review
of the book The Liturgical MovementGuranger to Beauduin to
Bugnini by Fr. D. Bonneterre, Michael Davis writes:
What the experts had been planning was made clear on 24
October 1967 in the Sistine Chapel, when what was described as
the Missa Normativa was celebrated before the Synod of Bishops
by Father Annibale Bugnini himself, its chief architect. ..... The
Missa Normativa was imposed on Catholics of the Roman Rite in
1969 as the Novus Ordo Missae, with a few changes, the most
important of which was the restoration of the Roman Canon
on the explicit instructions of Pope Paul VI.
And in regard to the views of Bouyer:
It would have been useful had [Bonneterre] quoted the reaction of
a priest such as Father Louis Bouyer, whom he cites quite often, to
the actual reform that has been foisted upon us. He stated in 1969
that We must speak plainly: there is practically no liturgy worthy
of the name today in the Catholic Church[12]; and Perhaps in no
other area is there a greater distance (and even formal opposition)
between what the Council worked out and what we actually
have[13]; and that, in practice, those who took it upon
themselves to apply [?] the Councils directives on this point have
turned their backs deliberately on what Beauduin, Casel, and Pius
Parsch had set out to do, and to which I had tried vainly to add
some small contribution of my own.[14]
In 1975, Father Bouyer stated: The Catholic liturgy has been
overthrown under the pretext of rendering it more acceptable to
the secularized masses, but in reality to conform it with the
buffooneries that the religious orders were induced to impose,
whether they liked it or not, upon the other clergy. We do not have
to wait for the results: a sudden decline in religious practice,
varying between twenty and forty per cent among those who were
practicing Catholics. Those who were not have not displayed a
trace of interest in this pseudo-missionary liturgy, particularly the
young whom they had deluded themselves into thinking that they
would win over with their clowning.[15]

The references in the first paragraph above are to Bouyers 1970

book The Decomposition of Catholicism; the 1975 book is his
Religieux et clercs contre Dieu.
Comment by Henry Edwards 17 May 2008 @ 5:36 pm
54.
In Dutch we say Proficiat. My parish priest also says it to
me at the end of Confession. For some reason I always thought it
meant congratulations (gefeliciteerd) but I guess its not too
off the mark :)
Comment by puella 18 May 2008 @ 7:23 am
55.
Regarding the Monday-after-Pentecost story, its a shame
that Paul VI didnt have the same confidence in his royal authority
that Franz Josef did in Amadeus. Well, lets hear it with the
music anyway. But, Sire Oblige me!
Comment by Qoheleth 18 May 2008 @ 9:17 am
56.
Whichever way it is studied, the arrival of the new liturgy in
the 1960s which was intentionally stripped of its specifically
Roman Catholic atmosphere and content, was mainly responsible
for the confusion together with the resultant tragic un-Catholic
liturgical norms and values we witness today. There was no excuse
for the wholesale overthrow of The Holy Mass in Latin. The
vernacular only edition is contrary to the essential liturgical
Roman Catholic tradition. This has already been demonstrated.
Mgr Luigi Villa called it The Ecumenical Mass and it certainly is
that. It has permitted all forms & permutations allowing liturgical
interface with protestant and non-christian groups. This has to be
recognised as it represents one of its significant outcomes.
Furthermore, disillusionment with the post-conciliar church, with
the NO liturgy and its consequences on parish life have led to the
growth of numerous small near-independent ecclesial
communities and movements like the Neo-Catechumenal Way,
charismatics, Focolare and so on who have sought to reconstruct a
novel approach to the doctrinal and liturgical orientation of the
modern church. Without the NO liturgy this would not have been
possible. Anyone who has attended, for example, Neocatechumenal catechesis could hardly escape the negative view
the catechists have of the official church liturgy & the churchs
pastoral approaches.
The consequent policy of inculturation is the enfant terrible of
the new liturgy. It is from within the NO liturgical movement that

are contained the seeds of disunity and discord which bedevil the
contemporary church since there are now dozens of groups acting
out their own liturgical forms every Sunday & on weekdays in
many vernacular languages. This situation can no longer be
construed, strictly speaking, as catholic neither can be seen in
many cases as holy. Indeed, it is an objective testimony to the
smoke of Satan in the sanctuary which itself has disappeared
from many venues of such liturgies along with the red lamp
indicating Real Presence. Did not the late Cardinal Pacelli, later
Pope Pius XII (RIP) state this would happen one day? The suicide of
altering the faith in the liturgy calls to mind Pope St Pius Vs
invocation in Quo Primum to the wrath of Almighty God for such
alterations.
Nearly every aspect of the imposition of the NO liturgy and the
supposed abrogation of The Latin Mass that never actually was,
has often been shrouded in obfuscation and dishonesty. While one
part of the hierarchy has been looking the other way not noticing
another part has been involved in actively propagating the abuses
that abound today. The SP of Pope Benedict XVI has done much
generally speaking, to open the doors to the fresh air of honesty
about this entire affair. Finally, we can discuss issues without being
threatened with accusations of schism and excommunication.
Finally, we can set about liturgical restoration if the anti-traditional
liberal wing of the hierarchy will permit. It really is time to be
honest. Please, have we not suffered enough?
Comment by LeonG 18 May 2008 @ 10:23 pm
57.
When will we get the altar rails back? So we can kneel down
to receive our Lord on the tongue. Without having to say Amen
before.
What are they thinking in the Vatican? Where is the reform of the
reform? Do the Cardinals care? What are they waiting for? Dont
they see what happened with all the liturgical abuses? Is this still
considered important to them?
Comment by SM 19 May 2008 @ 6:40 am
58.
The Smoke of Satan Paul VI was refering to was the New
Order of Mass aka the novus ordo facing man, changing words,
the guitar mass, the clown mass, the dancing mass, the feather
mass, the mess of mass etc.
Comment by Michael 19 May 2008 @ 7:06 am

59.
As a 58 year old man, I was there before and after the smoke
of satan had entered the Church. Lets see, how can I catalogue
the results of tis infiltration:
In high school after Vatican II, our teachers- lay and brothersbegan to tell us that the Bible was a myth. One teacher told us in
Freshman year that there was no Flood, no Adam and Eve. Another
took the rosary at the end of a ruler and w/ disdain on his face
tossed it in the trash can saying: We dont need this junk
anymore.
In sophomore year, teachers taught us that primacy of
conscience was now paramount. translated, this meant that if we
really loved the girl then pre-marital sex could be sanctioned.
This to 15 year old boys!
Convents emptied out along w/ rectories. Now we are short of
priests and nuns. 2000 of transmitting the Deposit if Faith were
destroyed. In 1973, Cardinal Suenens of Belgium began
distributing Communion in the hand, an abomination until the
spirit of Vatican II, whatever that is, took charge. Before
communion, the priest washes his hands. If you take communion
on the hand, where were your hands before touching Or Lord? On
a filthy steering wheel, a soiled handkerchief, shaking hands w/ a
neighbor.
In college, I attended a Mass that was to celebrate the Rite of
Spring???? It began w/ a young man dressed in a loincloth,
barefoot, sparkles in his hair, twirling a fan and dancing down the
aisle. This in a Catholic college. It was about as pagan as you could
get.
In his brilliant book, Windswept House, Malachi Martin, in novel
form, describes the enthronement of Satan at the Vatican,
precisely as warned by Our Lady of LaSalette. Pope Paul VI was a
sad man who oversaw the self-demolition of the Church that
opened the dors to the rectories of Communists, Masons,
pedophiles, active homosexuals, heretics and Modernists. We were
warned by prior Popes especially Saint Pope Pius X not to mention
Our Lady of Fatima, whose request to consecrate Russia awaits
obedience while Rome seeks to exercise Pride instead and impose
a human solution on a spiritual malady.
I am afraid that God has more housecleaning to perform. The grip
of Modernists is very strong and they will not give up easily and
will drag many more souls to Hell along with themselves

unfortunately. However, they are aging and dying. Without a

miracle, it will be up t another Pope to consecrate Russia and then
all of the smoke will dissipate and God will be worshipped again.
Our Lady of Fatima pray for us.
Comment by Gene Tullio 19 May 2008 @ 7:11 am
60.
As the father of a seminarian who was homeschooled
through high school, I can tell you assuredly that the future of our
Holy Catholic Church is solidly in the hands of Almighty God. There
is very much reason for hope! So many of these young
seminarians are on fire for the Catholic faith and will bring about
the renewal for which we all pray. After so many, many years of
zero vocations to the priesthood, our parish now has 4 young men
studying for the priesthood in addition to one who was ordained
last year. All of these men are from solid, Catholic, homeschooling
families. All of these men have a parish behind then who adore our
Lord in perpetual adoration. This is our future, and it is bright
indeed.
Comment by Charles Gill 19 May 2008 @ 8:16 am
61.
A Hebrew family had seven sons. Every single one of them
became a High Priest to the Temple. The elders were interested in
how this family ended up with every son becoming a High Priest,
and holy ones at that. The elders asked the father. He didnt knowhe raised his family as every other Hebrew did. So they asked the
mother Do you know why your sons all became High Priests? She
said, Yes. The rafters of my house never saw my hair.
We have so little that we can give to God. We give Him our sins,
our love, our prayer and our worship. The little bit extra we can
give for reverence at the Liturgy, for the benefit of the priesthood,
is what little glory we have. Scripture tells us that mans glory is
the woman; the womans glory is her hair. To return that little tiny
bit of glory to God, during mass, by putting on a mantilla, on
behalf of the priesthood, is a ridiculously easy sacrifice to make
but in my experience God blesses this little bit very much.
Perhaps in areas where things have gotten so desperate, God will
accept that offering from consecrated virgins or widows, or even
just laywomen like myself; to help return the priesthood to its best,
liturgy to its most beautiful and reverent.

Joseph got Mary up in the middle of the night when the angel
warned him that the Divine Child was in great danger. She picked
up and left with him without argument. In todays world, no woman
would accept being woken in the night to pick up and flee without
some proof that she could accept, especially if she was facing
danger, homelessness, and inconvenience. Women in general are
NOT submissive in the slightest anymore. If that were to happen
today, the Child would have been killed.
Women having their heads covered was one of the BIG CHANGES
at liturgy from Vatican II, an earth-shattering change no matter
what else happened. It precipitated a huge crisis of vocations
across the board and a rebellion from women- the heart of the
family and the haven of the unborn; after that change abortion
became widespread globally and chastisement inevitable. I
suggest that it is possible that a return of devoted women to
wearing a mantilla at mass will restore much that was lost.
Comment by Margaret 19 May 2008 @ 8:47 am
62.
There was a Hebrew family with seven sons, all of which
became very holy High Priests. The elders were interested in how
this great thing happened, so they met with the father and asked
him. He did not know, as he had raised his family as had other
Hebrew families. So the elders asked the mother if she knew.
Yes, she answered. The rafters of my house never saw my hair.
An angel woke Joseph in the middle of the night, telling him to flee
with Mary and the Divine Child as Herod was seeking Him to kill
Him. Mary picked up and left without argument.
Far and away the biggest change in the world after Vat II was
women. Not only was there an end in convents and in general
society to covering the head at mass, there was a huge increase in
divorce, promiscuity and in abortion. Vocations were devastated,
perversions entered even into the priesthood. In todays world no
woman would pick up and run away at the word of her husband,
without irrefutable proof, especially if facing homelessness, danger
and inconvenience. If that event happened now, it is likely the
child would have been killed. Women are, and are meant to be, the
haven of the unborn, the heart of the home, the caretaker of the
weak and sick, the one who cherishes the gifts God has given.
We have so little that we can give our good God. We give him our
sins, our love, our prayer. It is said in scripture that the glory of
man is woman, the glory of woman is her hair. By wearing

something on the hair at mass, we give back our little bit of glory
to God, for the benefit of the priesthood and the unborn.
It isnt much, I know, but in my experience God blesses this effort
at reverence at the Mass. Perhaps in the most desperate places,
good women could return to prayer and mass with their little lace
mantillas and pray for the priesthood, the Church, the unborn,
families. I think it would make a huge difference.
Comment by Margaret 19 May 2008 @ 9:04 am
63.
It seems to me that the obvious possibility of what Pope Paul
VI meant has not been consideredcould it be that many, many
priests, bishops, cardinals and yes even popes took up smoking
tobacco products and in some cases pot? Smoking these things
alters ones very beingespecially the mind/spirit part. That
would lead to poor choices in functioning as a spiritual leader.
That could explain allot of bad behavior that has taken place for a
very long time! I feel certain there must be former smokers who
know what I am talking about!
Anyone agree?
Comment by John 19 May 2008 @ 9:42 am
64.
It has been nearly 2,000 years since Jesus Christ created the
Catholic Church in 33 AD and made Peter His first Pope when He
said, And I say unto you, that thou art Peter and upon this rock I
will build my church and the gates of hell shall NOT prevail against
it. (Matthew 16:18)
It should be no surprise that as long as the church is made up of
flawed human beings (as we ALL are), there will be good people
and bad people, with their own ambitions and personal agendas.
This battle between good and evil will continue until Christ
returns one day . . . but NEVER forget that, in the end, God has
promised us that good will TRIUMPH over evil
Comment by Rene 19 May 2008 @ 10:04 am
65.
It has been nearly 2,000 years since Jesus Christ created the
Catholic Church in 33 AD and made Peter His first Pope when He
said, And I say unto you, that thou art Peter and upon this rock I
will build my church and the gates of hell shall NOT prevail against
it. (Matthew 16:18)

It should be no surprise that as long as the church is made up of

flawed human beings (as we ALL are), there will be good people
and bad people, with their own ambitions and personal agendas.
This battle between good and evil will continue until Christ
returns one day . . . but NEVER forget that, in the end, God has
promised us that good will TRIUMPH over evil
So, the smoke of Satan may enter the Church . . . but will NEVER
be allowed to destroy the Catholic Church that Jesus created in 33
AD.
Comment by Rene 19 May 2008 @ 10:10 am
66.

To Trey,

I believed when the good Cardinal said,Paul VI was saddened by

the fact of having been left alone by the Roman Curia. he was
refering to the negative reactions of his closest friends to his
encyclical letter, Humanae Vitae released in 1968 about the
artificial birth control. After that the pope was saddened and didnt
make another letter to my knowledge.
Eventhough its hard and difficult, the church will never stop
proclaiming and teaching the TRUTH of God, even if she loses an
entire country (like what happened to England in 1500s). Come to
think of, prior to the 30s, ALL christian churches agreed that
contraception was UNNATURAL and intrinsically wrong and thus
contrary to the will of God, but who stands alone today?
Pope Paul VI was a hero, AN unsung hero of the Catholic Church!
The letter was very prophetic and we can only see now the
devastation and the moral degradation after the legalization of
artificial birth control, from free love-hippie movements in the
60s to free sex in the 70s and to all kinds of pornographic
materials abound and gave birth to the abortion explosion.
Thats why it makes sense when the Lord promise to the Seat of
Peter, the gates of hell will not prevail against you. (no heretical
teachings).
May God bless our church!
Comment by Jae 19 May 2008 @ 10:23 am

67.
II:

We Catholics need to return to our traditions before Vatican

-the Latin Mass

-the priest facing the altar (not the people)
-receiving Holy Communion on the tongue (not in the hand)
-kneeling at the altar railing to receive Holy Communion
-women dressing modestly and wearing some type of head
covering (a scarf)
-returning to the Sacrament of Confession at least once a month.
Christ theology and definitely from Satan himself) which is
causing Catholics to abandon their faith in record numbers
Comment by Rene 19 May 2008 @ 10:34 am
68.
We Catholics also need to go back to praying the Rosary
every single day. Our Blessed Mother has said that praying the
Rosary will help protect us against Satan. He hates the Rosary,
because he knows that it has been promised that Mary, the Mother
of God will one day crush the head of Satan.
If you have forgotten how, you can tune in to the Catholic Cable
channel: EWTN (Eternal Word Television Network). They say the
Rosary 4 times a day (6:30 AM, 10:30 AM, 2:30 PM & 8:30 PM
Central Standard Time).
It is also a tremendous stress reliever to pray the Rosary with
others. Your anxiety level will drop . . . and just melt away
Comment by Rene 19 May 2008 @ 11:37 am
69.

Gene Tullio

Thank you that could almost be a page out my own experiences

too. Many of the priests who taught me at secondary school left
the priesthood one ,the headmaster, had an affair with the
French teachers wife while another, a personal friend of the
family, ran off with a divorced woman & her child before his
priestly status was revoked. Among others!! All that we had
embraced in The Faith became a target for derision and mockery. I
shall never forget the disgracefulness of it. It remains embedded in
my soul. Thank you Pope Paul VI (RIP). Subsequently, it baffles me
how his successor of longstanding could have been his most
enthusiastic supporter for his eventual canonisation.

Comment by LeonG 20 May 2008 @ 4:21 am

70.
The new mass changed the meaning of the words of
consecration which the
church has always taught invalidates the sacrament & its church
teaching that
to receive a probable or doubtful sacrament would be a mortal
sin..Also Paul VI
changed the rite of ordination..his new form suffers the same
defects as the
Anglican rite which Pope Leo infallably declared invalid. Thus new
mass and new
ordination rite are invalid.
[To which Fr. Z replies: This fellow is wrong.]
Comment by Steve M 20 May 2008 @ 9:42 am
71.
The new mass changed the meaning of the words of
consecration which the
church has always taught invalidates the sacrament & its church
teaching that
to receive a probable or doubtful sacrament would be a mortal
sin..Also Paul VI
changed the rite of ordination..his new form suffers the same
defects as the
Anglican rite which Pope Leo infallably declared invalid. Thus new
mass and new
ordination rite are invalid.
Comment by Steve M. 20 May 2008 @ 1:23 pm
72.
I would like to ask why Father, you have such a chip on your
shoulder over :
a. Pope John Paul II [A chip on my shoulder about Pope John
Paul II? Thats one of the strangest things I have read in a
while.]
and
b. Archbishop Piero Marini
The fact that you virtually accuse the late Pope of not caring about
the liturgy is nothing sort of a disgrace. Your constant abuse of
what Archbishop Marini did is nothing sort of shameful.

It is a shame that you have the courage to write rubbish about

the former Papal MC, whileyour (US) Bishops didnt have the same
courage in dealing with the sex abuse crisis. [Caught once again
in the iron jaws of logic.]
Comment by William Callaghan 6 December 2008 @ 4:30 am
73.

Callaghan:

It always comes back to the sex abuse issue, doesnt it. Such
clarity of thought.
Comment by Frank H 6 December 2008 @ 6:42 am
74.

All I will say is Bernard Francis Law

Need I say more?

If that is the standard, God help you
Comment by William Callaghan 8 December 2008 @ 3:32 am
75.

RE: My previous comment.

Dear Father,
I would like to take back my previous comments and to sincerely
apologise for any offence.
Many thanks
Comment by William Callaghan 8 December 2008 @ 5:26 am
76.

Father,

You say of His Eminence Virgilio Card. No, He was the one who
tore out the altar of the Chair in the apse of St. Peters. He was one
of the main causes of the emasculation of the style of papal
ceremonies and the minimalism we experience still in many
places.
To be honest, Ive become very very skeptical of the formation
priests, especially US priests, receive. I am a Catholic, went to a
Jesuit university, took many theology courses and quite a few
philosophy courses. Reading theology books comprises a
significant portion of my non-working time.

Are there any official church references, statements, or writings

directly attributable to Card. Noe you can point us to that would
support these claims?
Growing up under the Novo Ordo Mass and having recently found
the Tridentine Mass I can honestly say that I feel a horrible thing
happened in the implementation of Vatican II. I am not of the
opinion that Vatican II was the work of Satan or other similar
opinions. I however feel deeply that the priesthood and laity have
suffered greatly under some grave errors that came about during
the excitement of progress and ecumenicism, and the run
from Tradition.
Thank you.
Comment by Joe 8 February 2009 @ 11:35 am
77.

Father,

You said, [To which Fr. Z replies: This fellow is wrong.] To the The
new mass changed the meaning of the words of consecration
...suffers the same defects as the Anglican rite which Pope Leo
infallably declared invalid. Thus new mass and new ordination rite
are invalid.
Can you please give the Faithful more than just hes wrong.
Maybe youve written to these assertions in the past, or of others
who have. If so can you at least provide a link? The Faithful NEED
more than just because I said so from their priests.
The technological advances today can in many ways free priests to
fulfill St. Francis, Preach the Gospel at all times and when
necessary use words. The efficiency of wheat and chaff hyperlinks
vs. the din of Google I think is one of the futures key battle
grounds of truth.
Im somewhat sorry to ask for this, as I know the reduction in
numbers in the priesthood has created great demands upon all
priest. However the scandals of homosexual abuses within the U.S.
Catholic community and the significant support laity have heard
from the pulpit for now President Obama have gravely damaged
the credibility of the priesthood of the United States. The latter of
these recent events was, thank God, not at the Bishop; though the
USCCB seemed to speak with a muddled legal tone than the
authority of Bishops.

Father, with my own ears Ive heard priests during a homily say
dont bring that venial crap to confession, I only want to hear the
real stuff. These kind of things are being said during Mass. The
Faithful are in desperate need of help.
Father, you seem like a good priest. I like very much your defense
of the Mass and your ministry to Catholics regarding the important
this greatest prayer of the Church. That is why I have taken the
time to write these two posts.
I hope you can help us.
Thank you
Joe
Comment by Joe 8 February 2009 @ 12:09 pm
78.
When the smoke of satan permeates the whole world, why
should the Church, and especially the Church, be exempt? And it
seems to me that the fire has been lit under our feet. But we must
remain steadfast.
Comment by Pavel Chichikov 15 March 2009 @ 9:17 am
79.
Yeahsorry. I dont buy it. Card. Noe and Paul VI are both
HUGE culprits in the horrible state of the liturgy we have inherrited
today. Card Noe is simply jumping on the bandwaggon as he sees
which way the wind is blowing in the Vatican (i.e. back towards the
direction of tradition). Just as Mengele showed his notes to his
colleagues shortly before the end of the war to feign some sense
of legitimacy in his work, so too is Noe trying (poorly) to
illustrate his efforts in maintaining decorum in the liturgy as he
puts it.
And yes, I have NEVER heard that smoke of Satan quote
attributed to the post Vatican II liturgy, specifically because his
follow up quote was akin to why arent you all just happy for what
Ive done for you? Garbage.
Comment by Corleone 15 March 2009 @ 9:37 am
80.

Old News. Why is spiritdaily linking to this post?

Comment by Father Anonymous 15 March 2009 @ 11:02 am

81.
Paul VI may have been a spiritual person, but he was
hesitant, inept and naive in some his practical leadership, and so
brought on the Church the very anti-supernatural spirit that he
complained about by his failure to listen to good advice (from
Patriarch Athenagoras, successor to the Apostles) and listened to
Msgr Burgnini who advised listening to the Protestants on Liturgy!
Very imprudent!
Comment by pete salveinini 15 March 2009 @ 2:04 pm
82.
He spoke of the smoke of Satan because he maintained that
those priests who turned Holy Mass into dry straw in the name of
creativity, in reality were possessed of the vainglory and the pride
of the Evil One. so, the smoke of Satan was nothing other
than the mentality which wanted to distort the traditional
and liturgical canons of the Eucharistic ceremony.
Cardinal Noe was President of the Fabric of St Peter when the altar
underneath the Chair of Peter was removed. If he was the one who
made the decision, it would seem that, unlike Clinton, he inhaled.
Comment by RBrown 15 March 2009 @ 2:19 pm
83.
Very surprising to hear the Smoke of Satan described by
Paul VI as poor celebration of the MassAfter all, who was it that
did away with the Traditional Tridentine codified Rite of the ages??
Was it PAUL VI or the Man in the Moon?? This is total retrospective
nonsense from a cardinal who is either a fool or a liar.The Novus
Ordo was designed to do nothing but devolve into the marginal
sacrifice that it was and is, if it still is a real Mass at all. The smoke
of satan is just this: The fact that too many members of the
Hierarchy are non believers, who do nothing to combat the evils of
our age. We at last have a Holy Father who knows the score, and
despite his modernist tendencies, realizes that the only way to
start a recovery is to bring back the real Mass, the greatest source
of Sanctifying Grace, which is sorely lacking today..
Comment by John D 15 March 2009 @ 7:03 pm
84.
This is pure retrospective nonsense from a Cardinal who is
either a fool or a liar. Paul VI lamenting that the Smoke of satan
is about the poor celebration of the liturgy? The smoke is really
about the loss of faith of the Hierarchy. After all, who changed the
liturgy and surpressed the Tridentine Mass of the Ages, Paul VI or
the Man in the Moon? And why has the country and the world
come to its present deplorable state? Its certainly not because the

Catholic Church is in a robust and healthy condition! Thank God we

now have a pope who knows the score; whose freeing of the real
MASS, the main source of Sanctifying Grace with its true
Eucharistic Sacrifice, will hopefully initiate the beginnign of a
recovery.Or is it too late to avert total catastrophe?
Comment by John D 15 March 2009 @ 7:11 pm
85.
Like most of you who have written being now 45 years of age
I came back to the church in 1990 after a 14 year absence and I
have never received Holy Communion in the hand, sad to say that
I may have done so pre 1976 as I was baptised Catholic and went
to a Catholic primary school were such heresies were
unfortunately spewed out, others were getting rid of the term /
phrase sacred music and replacing it with liturgical music and
even the music itself was changed from that on focusing on God to
focusing on ourselves ie Gather us in and Here I am lord, come to
mind as secularised hymns. Then of course you have the taking
away of the kneelers which were used to receive our Lord out of
respect, the changing of the Alter so that the Priest faces the
people turning his back on God and Jesus in the Tabernacle and
then theirs special ministers another schism, I say schism because
what happens, what blessing takes place when the Eucharist falls
to the floor and the special minister is there what would he/she do,
pre Vatican II the priest would say a prayer and what ever else
needed to be done out of reverence respect sad to say. Now
people may say to me but your only 45 years of age what do you
know what it was like pre Vatican II I do know that it was obviously
different more respectful and more reverence to God than what
takes place today having read articles on pre Vatican II and having
attended the Latin Mass
Comment by Peter Xuereb 16 March 2009 @ 2:33 am
86.
The smoke of satan not only entered the Church, but it
affected the whole christian world. The church like world
Governments pay no heed to the peoples wishes. I often wonder
when the church was falling apart for many many years why oh
why? Then came the removal of the blessed Sacrement to what
end? Me thinks to put the priest above God. Its no wonder the
churches became like barns. People lost respect and then lost the
faith.
Comment by john 16 March 2009 @ 6:47 am

ALL: For some reason or other someone revived

this entry, posted in May 2008. Discussion can
continue, but keep it on target or I will close
the combox.

87.

Comment by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf 16 March 2009 @ 8:02 am

88.
All the problems that the Catholic Church is facing is due to
the fact that it always wants to reconcile with the world when Jesus
said to to his apostles / disciples unless you eatmy body & drink
my blood you will have nothing in common with me did he later
want to reconcile with them and say I was wrong or lets talk it over
well thats what the Catholic Church has been doing for the past 50
years (1) Trying to reconcile with hereticle christian faiths so as not
to be the bad guy.(2)Trying to reconcile with the world so as not
to appear out of date all at the expense of loosing souls
In the end the Catholic churchs problem lie in 3 areas written
below
which have branched out in to so many other areas that its like
trying to unscramble an egg where do you start. Well to get back
to Catholic clarity it needs to deal with these 3 issues then things
will change
Religious Liberty (Dignitatis Humane Declaration on Religious
Liberty)
Ecumenism (Unitatis Redintegratio The Decree on Ecumenism)
Modernism (Sacrosanctum Concilium Constitution on the Sacred
Liturgy)
Peter Xuereb
Comment by Peter Xuereb 16 March 2009 @ 8:49 am
89.
I thought this post looked familiar!
I will just say that I pray for reform of the reform.
Semper Fi!
Comment by jarhead462 16 March 2009 @ 9:15 am
90.
I find it interesting that many often blame Vatican II as the
source of the problem the smoke of Satan. I disagree I think
Vatican II was like a light bulb being turned on in a darkened room
the roaches (dissidents) were ALREADY there crawling around

the walls of the Church in the dark and poisoning the Church with
their beliefs passively.
But, as soon as the slightest excuse that something could be
interpreted differently arose (i.e. spirit of Vatican II), then these
pre-Vatican II leaders embraced it in excessive numbers. Nuns
dropped their habits, monasteries and convents emptied,
theologians began to challenge doctrines, vocations dropped, and
the Church fell into chaos much too quickly to be an intellectual
decay as a result of Vatican II. No, it was already corrupted it was
waiting to happen and as soon as they saw a chance, they
grabbed it.
So, instead of blaming the light bulb (Vatican II), we ought be
thankful that at least now we can SEE these people in the open, for
who, and what, they really are.
An enemy that you can see is better to deal with than one that
sulks in the shadows, poisoning minds all the while everything
looks fine on the surface.
Comment by Victor 16 March 2009 @ 6:21 pm
91.
The Smoke of Satan entered the Church in the holes made
in the floor when the altars were removed and replaced by picnic
tables.
thank you R.Brown.
My parish is now 100% beyond it all,waiting only for liturgical
dancers.
The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass was given to us as a means of
worship not entertainment centered around mankinds whims.
Comment by salome 16 March 2009 @ 7:22 pm
92.
The Liturgy is very beautiful in the eastern CAtholic Church.
Perhaps some of you should try the East with its tremendous
beauty in worship and churches.
Comment by Maggie 17 March 2009 @ 4:31 pm
93.
I understand Pope Paul VIs statement The Smoke of Satan
has entered the Church meant that Freemasonry had entered the
Church, and that it was/is the problem; he was correct.
Comment by Linda 17 March 2009 @ 10:09 pm