Rorate Caeli

A liberalization document "is almost certain",
says SSPX District Superior

Father Christian Bouchacourt -- Superior of the District of South America for the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX/SSPX) -- was interviewed by Fabián Vázquez, of Radio Cristiandad (link on our sidebar), regarding rumors that some priests of the District would join the newly-founded Institute of the Good Shepherd.

He reiterated his declaration (see here) that such news was unfounded.

However, that was not the most important part of the interview. Asked about the words of Father Laguérie, Superior of the new Institute that a document which would "restore" the "rights of the Traditional Mass" in "all their dignity" truly existed, and that such document would be released, "certainly in November", here is what Bouchacourt said:

"It may be that there will be a text, that is almost certain, that a text will be released, a document on the authorisation of the Mass but Father [Laguérie] is completely imprudent. It is a thing -- I know it for certain -- uh, all this is conducted in the Vatican in a secret manner. Nobody knows anything. Only the Pope and his collaborators, nothing else, nobody else. [Donc?], to say this is not prudent, because it is, it will, it will create a mess, all of this... one must wait, one must wait, it is said that this authorization shall be for private celebration. I do not know. To speak thus to all sides, urbi et orbi, is completely imprudent. It should not to be done."*

We would stress the following:

-(1) Fr. Bouchacourt's comments are a confirmation of Fr. Laguérie's declaration;
-(2) In all likeliness, Fr. Bouchacourt's source is NOT the same as Laguérie's, which is clear from the fact that there are a few important differences in the degree of "liberalization" mentioned by both.

We certainly respect the prudence of Father Bouchacourt, and these are times which demand utmost prudence -- but, as it usually happens, we felt compelled to publish this news as soon as possible, if only to prevent this very quotable affirmation from becoming a simple "rumor". Declarations from identifiable sources are not "rumors". Please, do note: these are qualified sources, not "Vatican sources", or "undisclosed, secret sources", unless one wishes to call two very serious priests, Frs. Laguérie and Bouchacort, mere rumormongers.
___

*Transcript of the original answer: "Puede ser que habrá un texto, eso es casi seguro, que va a salir un texto, un documento sobre la autorización de la Misa, pero el Padre [Laguérie] es totalmente imprudente. Es una cosa -- yo lo sé de manera segura -- eh, todo esto se trata en el Vaticano de manera secreta. Nadie sabe nada. Es unicamente el Papa y sus colaboradores, nada más, nadie más. [Donc?], hablar eso es, no es prudente, porque es, va, va crear un lío todo eso, hay que esperar, hay que esperar, se dice que la autorizacion estará para una celebración privada. Yo no sé. Pero hablar así, en todos lados, urbi et orbi, es totalmente imprudente. No se hace eso."

____

Update (Tuesday): A reader sent us a more detailed transcript of the words (available here), which we added, partly, to the original translation (in red). The audio of the interview is available here (the actual answer to the question begins at approximately 11 minutes).

24 comments:

MacK said...

Rumours or not; idle speculation or not; reality or not - November will reveal all. It is a waste of time gossiping the point. Let us hope we receive what all Roman Catholics need and deserve which is a return to The Latin Mass of all times; a Christocentric liturgy; true respect and reverence for Our Blessed Lord in The Holy Eucharist; humble acceptance of St Paul's clear directives for decorum in public worship and the pre-conciliar thirst and hunger the vast majority of Roman Catholics had for the full sacramental life of The Roman Catholic Church. Perhaps then we will witness the regeneration of response to authentic religious vocation by those who desire to serve Almighty God in such a magnificent manner. Then, we will have shepherds who feed the faithful with true Catholic teachings and not the many, novel, pluralistic, relativised ones with which pepper the church at present.

That word "liberalisation" still poses a potential achilles heel in view of the fact some places with the "indult" Latin Mass sometimes get it in English and other "novelties"! This will need close and precise definition - something the post-conciliar church is not noted for. "Liberation" is a better term to use.

Another area concerns the many bishops who have gone out of their way to make The Latin Mass an impossibility in practice. In view of the chronic disobedience displayed throughout the modern church by many bishops over a plethora of issues will we see said hierarchs being disciplined for dissent? Once again, the post-conciliar church does not inspire very much confidence on this point, either.

We are going to require hundreds of bouquets of Holy Rosaries for The Holy Father to make the necessary ground there.

Scranton Priest said...

Mark (#1) said:
"some places with the "indult" Latin Mass sometimes get it in English..."
gee what places? I like to know.

The Book Burner said...

In Mack's defense I dont doubt there have been abuses of that degree. I have a friend who went to a Florida Indult where the priest distributed candy to children at communion time. Obviously the Church condemns that type of thing, and its very rare, but its not unheard of.

techno_aesthete said...

"some places with the "indult" Latin Mass sometimes get it in English..."

This has happened recently at Holy Trinity Church in Boston.

Janice said...

I agree about the bishops who won't make the traditional Mass available, even under a universal indult. In the smaller dioceses, some probably don't have the resources at this point, but let's see what, for instance, Cardinal Mahony does.

Mike said...

Perhaps approved vernacular translations of the 1962 Missal would be a step in the right direction. Though it would probably take years to produce (or agree).

Podatus said...

"some places with the "indult" Latin Mass sometimes get it in English..."

This has happened recently at Holy Trinity Church in Boston.
--------

Let's clarify that what this means is that the Novus Ordo (1970) Missal in English is what was substituted for the Tridentine Mass at this church--not the 1962 Missal in English.

Gregg said...

"Perhaps approved vernacular translations of the 1962 Missal would be a step in the right direction. Though it would probably take years to produce (or agree)."

No thanks, but if it does go this direction.. please, let's leave the ICEL out of it. :(

Philothea said...

"Let's clarify that what this means is that the Novus Ordo (1970) Missal in English is what was substituted for the Tridentine Mass at this church--not the 1962 Missal in English."

This has happened a few times in NYC as well.

Also, in NYC indult masses, the faithful do not receive Communion from the Mass they attend, rather, they are only permitted to receive previously consecrated hosts taken from the tabernacle.

I was at an indult, where there was a considerable delay, since the priest brought in to celebrate the indult, could not find the key to the tabernacle. *sigh* Note, this is an institutionalized liturgical abuse.

alsaticus said...

"donc" means ... "donc" in French. remember Fr. Bouchacourt is a French native speaking in a foreign language.
donc could be translated here by "so" or consequently.

Full recognition of "private TLM" would be a meek progress, although a real progress :
- for some NO priests, especially young ones, who are attracted by the spiritual depth of the Traditional Roman rite, compared to the dryness of standard Novus Ordo celebrations ; they could train that way also for better times.
- for the symbolic status of TLM that would be, slightly, upgraded from the trashbin to the shadow of private celebrations. Neo-liturgists by the way have a wrath against the very idea of "private Mass".

This recognition of private TLM for any Latin rite priests should have been made public for years now ! There is no sense of waiting months to grant something that has no consequence in the dioceses...
It shows only the fantastic cruely of the neo-modernists, the deeply-rooted hatred they nourish against Tradition and genuine faith.
Our Lord told us about them, whether with a stole, a mitre, a veil or nothing : those who give stones to feed hungry people.

MacK said...

We must face the facts - the "indult" Latin Mass was issued as a diversion strategy away from Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society. Look at the dates for "Ecclesia Dei". The Vatican is excellent at this tactic and has used it over other issues (I won't go into that at this point). It has been employed as a Trojan Horse type facilitating the undermining of the Traditional movement everywhere. Many bishops have totally ignored it and others have used it as bait to draw the crowds away from traditional parishes. Others are tinkering with it as has been intimated here and elsewhere. There was no serious intention to return to The Latin Mass traditional Catholics want.

Therefore, traditional Catholics had better be certain that "liberalisation" of The Mass does not mean endless freedom to modify and tinker - the great post-conciliar disease. This is why the original idea of "liberation" was closer to Catholic wishes although it is not entirely satisfactory as a term either. I do not feel it is necessary to do anything but just leave The Latin Mass where it is - in the safe hands of Traditional Catholics. No one can rely on or have absolute trust and confidence anything Rome does these days.

The most significant aspect of this was that Pope John Paul (RIP) II never said one Latin Mass during the whole of his pontificate. Pope Benedict XVI has no intention of doing so either. If they had wanted to get the message over about The Latin Mass what better way than a wonderfully staged media broadcast Pontifical High Mass to Roman Catholics around the globe? None of this ongoing circus over The Latin Mass would be necessary.

There is no intention whatever of doing this just as there is no intention to consecrate Russia to The Immaculate Heart of Mary as has been demanded by Our Blessed Lady on behalf of Her Beloved Son.
The fact that The Latin Mass won't depart as a "fossil" in the manner imagined by the Roman hierarchy & bishops elsewhere speaks volumes but because Rome is enmeshed in various scandals and un-Catholic norms and practices it is no longer capable of feeding its flock the necessary bread.

In Asia, when NO catholics want to go to The Latin Mass where it is available they are threatened with excommunication and other menaces if they attend, by their presbyters - what has become the old lie about it being a schismatic act and so on (we have debated that one here ad nauseam). I go no further.

alsaticus said...

to Mack

Chronology has to be precise. The motu proprio Ecclesia Dei adflicta is a consequence of the schismatic consecrations by Abp Lefebvre in 1988. But this is not the proper date for the "indult" : the indult was published in 1984.
It was the inadequate and terribly delayed response to the meeting between John-Paul II and the Abp in 1978, a few weeks after the election.
The "diversion strategy" is the creation of trad. institutes like FSSP to challenge indeed the Society. The Good Shepherd Institute is coming from the same idea : providing a canonical structure to trads that have left SSPX.
But initially the indult scheme, I speak here of Liturgy only, was conceived - wrongly but that's another point - as addressing Abp Lefebvre's demands : so it was not a "diversion" at all. The initial goal of the Polish pope was to bring back SSPX fully into the folds of the Church.

When an archbishop, then a cardinal, after 1970, Karol Wojtyla never celebrated TLM. There is a big difference here with Joseph Ratzinger who celebrated public TLM in many occasions when he was prefect of CDF.
It is true John-Paul II never celebrated as a pope, at least publicly. Fr. Blet sj claimed the pope celebrated once in private but this information has never been confirmed officially.
What is pope Benedict XVI going to do re this possible celebration of a papal TLM as Bishop of Rome, like many other bishops did in the past years, including a notorious trad-hater like cardinal Lustiger emeritus abp of Paris ?
Personally I would not be so assertive as you are, or you have some special infos from the pope himself ?
Celebrating TLM as Bishop of Rome would have undoubtedly a terrific impact in terms of symbols without by the way, changing anything for the canonical status of TLM.

M. Alexander said...

In an interesting discussion on ctnreg @yahoogroups.com some have said (including me) that the Indult is not the difficulty- it is getting a priest. Priests are forbidden to say the Latin Mass. No priests and the Indult is useless. Some indults have priests who appear to want to undermine the Mass. All this will strengthen the position of the SSPX.

Gaufridus said...

Priests are forbidden to say the Latin Mass.

According to what law?

All this will strengthen the position of the SSPX.

Good. Let's hope they stay the course. Rome will come around, if it wants to survive.

sacerdos15 said...

I have it on good authority by a priest ,a prominent leader in a very influential movement in the church,that he saw JPII dressed in vestments and falda celebrating the TLM at the tomb of either Pope Pius XII or Blessed JohnXXIII.It is also rumored that he celebrated it privately when he was at Castelgandolfo.About the veracity of the latter I do not know but the former was told to me by someone who was there. I beleive all the Pope has to do is state that the Classical rite was not abrogated ,it is a Roman rite,and then celebrate it at St.Peter's.

dcs said...

Also, in NYC indult masses, the faithful do not receive Communion from the Mass they attend, rather, they are only permitted to receive previously consecrated hosts taken from the tabernacle.

It is not at all uncommon at Mass for the faithful not to receive from the Host consecrated at that Mass. In fact, it is rather "untraditional" in the Latin Rite for the faithful to receive from the Host consecrated at Mass and not from the reserved Sacrament in the tabernacle.

he saw JPII dressed in vestments and falda celebrating the TLM at the tomb of either Pope Pius XII or Blessed JohnXXIII

There's a picture of the Pope on the web celebrating Mass ad orientam in beautiful red fiddleback vestments and Papal fanon.

But it wasn't the TLM.

sacerdos15 said...

The rubric that the faithful should receive hosts consecrated at the mass they attend ,although largely ignored,is very traditional.It is the present law and has been the law going back prior to Pius X. Pius XII metioned it in Mediator Dei.

dcs said...

The rubric that the faithful should receive hosts consecrated at the mass they attend ,although largely ignored,is very traditional.It is the present law and has been the law going back prior to Pius X. Pius XII metioned it in Mediator Dei.

Papal recommendations of the practice go back even further. That said, I don't think it has been the practice at most times and in most places. And if it isn't actually practiced, it can't really be "traditional."

Ad Orientem said...

dcs,
Thank you for making this important point. It has always been the custom of the Church (both east and west). It is only in recent times that the western church has largely abandoned this discipline. In Orthodoxy we always receive the mysteries consecrated at that liturgy except during Great Lent when (another western discipline abandoned) there is no Liturgy other than on Sundays. During the weekdays of Lent we commune at the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts (authored by St. Gregory the Great). Otherwise the reserved sacrament is kept only for the ill or those who for some other serious reason are not able to attend Liturgy.

The Fly said...

It has always been the custom of the Church (both east and west)

Are you talking about the Eastern sects who are outside the Church or the Eastern rites who inside the Church?

Jordan Potter said...

The Fly, I think the answer you want is in your question. Customs of sects outside of the Church could not be customs of the Church.

Ambrosius said...

New Catholic,

Thought you might like to see the latest on this -- the Vicar General of Bordeaux ain't happy with the new institute.

New Catholic said...

Yes, Ambrosius, there is hatred throughout the Bordeaux clergy regarding the poor, near-powerless, Institute of the Good Shepherd... And, indeed, throughout much of the French Catholic "Establishment".

It seems Benedict has hit the nail right on the spot...

With Peter said...

Jordan and Fly: ...unless the customs of sects outside the Church predate the schism. In this case customs of sects outside the Church can be considered customs of the Church.