Cardinal Castrillón remains in charge of the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei", a position which is not linked to that of Prefect of Clergy.
Cardinal Castrillón remains in charge of the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei", a position which is not linked to that of Prefect of Clergy.
For more than four years, our reader reveals, the parish priest of the Parish of Our Lady of Fatima in Imirim, in the archdiocese of Sao Paulo, has been offerring extremely graphic advice on the "prevention" of AIDS.
Father Valeriano Paitoni, a religious priest in the archdiocese of São Paulo, heads the "Foundation Father Costanzo Dalbesio", part of the work of the Parish ("Nossa Senhora de Fatima do Imirim"), which is the upkeeper of this public charity. The foundation, among other projects, helps children with AIDS -- and also helps others to "prevent" being contaminated by the HIV virus. The extremely graphic information (link: extremely graphic and offensive, not advisable for most; linked here for documentational purposes) which, beyond being offensive, infringes the clear teaching of the Church as portrayed in Casti Connubii, Humanae Vitae, and Evangelium Vitae, is offered by this Catholic foundation since the website was first established (the "Page Info" of the website in fact registers that it was "last modified" on "Wednesday, June 19, 2002, 14:23:47").
Naturally, if a Catholic foundation is willing to display this kind of information online, one can not fathom what kind of information they share on the spot with the children and with the parishioners who share this work.
Our reader tells us that, once again, the archbishop, Cardinal Hummes, was repeatedly warned of this grave problem, but chose to ignore it, as in other cases. Father Valeriano Paitoni was never removed from his parish.
Tornielli, however, mentions what we had already affirmed: that Castrillón will remain in place at Ecclesia Dei for the moment "to manage the not easy negotiations with the Lefebvrists".
Another replacement mentioned by Tornielli is that of Cardinal Marchisano, as Archpriest of the Vatican Basilica, by Archbishop Angelo Comastri.
Scandal: Pro-death "Catholics for a Free Choice" in Church Building
From the land of Cardinal Hummes
Sao Paulo, July 21 2006 (ACI) - The polemical feminist abortionist organization self-identified as "Catholics for a Free Choice" (CFFC) has rented an ample space in an ecclesiastical building owned by the Carmelite province of Saint Elias [of the Carmelite Fathers - see], fostering suspicion and discomfort among the faithful.
The Carmelites rented the entire sixth floor of the building to the group which identifies itself as Catholic, yet promotes open campaigns against the Catholic faith and hierarchy.
The CFFC are now neighbors to the South Regional [Branch] of the Brazilian Episcopal Conference (CNBB), which is based on the fifth floor, and of the headquarters of the Brazilian Religious Conference, based on the seventh [floor].
The false Catholics have recently announced the course "Deconstruction of the taboos of the Historically-built Catholic Thought", which openly attacks the teachings of the Church and which will be ministered in the Carmelite space.
The CFFC affirm that the course "will include questions which put in question Catholic thought regarding virginity, the use of contraceptive methods, maternity as fate, homosexuality, and abortion.["]
Curiously, university professors, leaders of feminist movements, homosexuals, and also pastoral agents of the Catholic Church were invited.
In fact, it is pretty simple to check the facts. First, if one visits the webpage of Catholics for a Free Choice, the links to its International Partners include one to its Brazilian branch, with its postal address. In case they erase it, that is the postal address recorded in the CFFC website:
"CDD BRASIL"6TH floor", exactly as the report mentions.
Rua Sebastião Soares de Faria, 57
01317-010 São Paulo SP
Then, if one googles the names "Sul", "Regional", and "CNBB" (which stand for "South", "Regional", and "Brazilian Episcopal Conference", as used in the original report), one finds the website for this regional episcopal conference, whose address is:
Same address, "5th floor".
"Rua Prof. Sebastião S. de Faria, 57 5º andar
São Paulo / SP CEP: 01317-010"
We can only say we are pretty impressed. We had thought we had seen almost any kind of abuse, but to see one of the main international pro-death organizations based in an ecclesiastical building is just beyond belief. Our reader tells us Cardinal Hummes, the Archbishop of São Paulo, was repeatedly informed of this scandalous situation, which has lasted for almost a year, but never uttered a word or did anything to stop it. The superiors of the Carmelite Fathers did not respond to complaints, either.
Hear then, ye Jews and Gentiles! Hear, O circumcision! Hear, O uncircumcision! Hear, all ye kingdoms of the earth: I interfere not with your government in this world, "My kingdom is not of this world."
Cherish ye not the utterly vain terror that threw Herod the Elder into consternation when the birth of Christ was announced, and led him to the murder of so many infants in the hope of including Christ in the fatal number, made more cruel by his fear than by his anger: "My kingdom," He said, "is not of this world."
What would you more? Come to the kingdom that is not of this world! Come, believing, and fall not into the madness of anger through fear!
He says, indeed, prophetically, of God the Father, "Yet have I been appointed king by Him upon His holy hill of Zion;" but that hill of Zion is not of this world. For what is His kingdom, save those who believe in Him, to whom He says, "Ye are not of the world, even as I am not of the world"? And yet He wished them to be in the world: on that very account saying of them to the Father, "I pray not that Thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that Thou shouldest keep them from the evil." Hence also He says not here, "My kingdom is not" in this world; but, "is not of this world." And when He proved this by saying, "If my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews," He saith not, "But now is my kingdom not" here, but, "is not from hence."
For His kingdom is here until the end of the world [hic est enim regnum eius usque in finem sæculi...], having tares intermingled therewith until the harvest; for the harvest is the end of the world, when the reapers, that is to say, the angels, shall come and gather out of His kingdom everything that offendeth; which certainly would not be done, were it not that His kingdom is here! [...quod utique non fieret, si regnum eius non esset hic.]
But still it is not from hence; for it only sojourns as a stranger in the world: because He says to His kingdom, "Ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world." They were therefore of the world, so long as they were not His kingdom, but belonged to the prince of this world.
Of the world therefore are all mankind, created indeed by the true God, but generated from Adam as a vitiated and condemned stock; and there are made into a kingdom no longer of the world, all from thence that have been regenerated in Christ. For so did God rescue us from the power of darkness, and translate us into the kingdom of the Son of His love: and of this kingdom it is that He saith, "My kingdom is not of this world;" or, "My kingdom is not from hence."
In Evangelium Ioannis - Tractatus CXV
The Cardinal "of the Lefebvrists" leaves
Ratzinger accepts his resignation
Vatican City - Pope Ratzinger would have accepted the resignation of Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos (77), prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy and President of the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei", the structure which deals with the matter of the schism of the Lefebvrists. Hoyos had presented his resignation in 2004... It seems Castrillon Hoyos will preside "Ecclesia Dei" up to December, when the Pope will liberalize the use of Latin in the Mass [sic] to favor the return of the Lefebvrists to the Church.
On November 5th 1880, the French army took the field and prepared to launch a battle that, today, nearly everyone has forgotten. It was a "great victory" for the French Republic, yet it never appears in the official History books at school unlike the great victories of the Nation such as Tolbiac, Marignan, Fontenoy or Austerlitz. Under the command of General Guyon-Vernier, one infantry regiment, five cavalry squadrons and a few artillery cannons began a three day siege. 2000 soldiers were ready to fight. The enemy was… the Abbey Saint-Michel de Frigolet, in the south of France, occupied by 37 good monks.
What was going on in France at this time, the eldest daughter of the Church and the Kingdom of Mary? Why did the Government send out its army to confront a little religious community?
It is important to note that the siege of Saint-Michel de Frigolet was not an isolated case, but only one episode among many. The Decree of October 16th 1880, three weeks earlier, ordered the eviction of all the religious communities in the country that were not authorized by the Government. When the superintendent mandated by the Government arrived at the monastery to read the notice of expulsion, the Superior of the Abbey, Reverend Father Boulbon informed him that his community, in all humility, would not be distinguished from all the other religious communities that had resisted the violence: the monks would stay! Thousands of faithful came to support the monks. It is by force that the police and the army entered the monastery. The monks were entrenched in the conventual church, when the forces’ orders arrived after having knocked down the doors and gates. Father Boulbon read a declaration of protest and finished with these words to the superintendent: “It is my duty to inform you that you and your constituents come within the provisions of a major excommunication reserved to the Pope.” Then the monks were escorted by the gendarmes while the dragons scattered the crowd as they sang the famous canticle of the Catholic Provence: Provençau e Catouli.
The same scene was repeated in 1903 when an infantry battalion and two dragon’s squadrons arrived to bolster the police forces and assist them in the expulsion of the Carthusian monks of la Grande Chartreuse. The entire local population came to defend their monks. They were 5000 in number praying the rosary and singing canticles during the night of April 28th. As the army arrived the crowd began to sing the Marseillaise and to shout: “Vive l’armée ! Vive les chartreux ! Vive la liberté !” (Cheers for the army! Cheers for the Carthusian monks! Cheers for freedom!) Yet again, the same scenario that had taken place at Saint-Michel de Frigolet was repeated. The judge ordered the monks to open their doors, calling out: “We are here in the name of the law!” A monk answered: “ There is no more law! ” The judge then ordered the police and the army to enter by force. The monks were found praying the Divine Office in the church. One by one, each was seized by two gendarmes. Their exile in Italy was about to begin.
These two events were not isolated ones but only two examples among many. When the proposal of separation between State and Churches was voted into law 1905, it was merely the result of many decades of anticlerical politics. The new law was yet, just another development, in a long, uninterrupted series of events that had taken place since 1789.
The French Revolution
1789 is a date that everyone knows because it affected not only France, but the entire world. We call it the French Revolution because it took place in France and was accomplished by Frenchmen but the end results impacted and changed the entire world. The word ‘revolution’ comes from Latin and means ‘a turn around’. The dictionary gives us the following definition: A revolution is a drastic change that usually occurs relatively quickly. It can be social, political or economic. In fact these three are interconnected.
The books of History usually date the French Revolution from 1789 to 1799 when Bonaparte took power and became First Consul. Ten years is a short time and thus is in agreement with the previous definition: a drastic change that usually occurs relatively quickly.
Yet, in reality it is more complex. A revolution can be a permanent process according to the theory of Trotsky. The purpose of a revolution is to change a society and this change must be total and radical. So, as long as there remain some elements of the previous society, the very society that the revolutionaries intend to change or annihilate, the process of revolution continues.
What was the purpose of the French Revolution? The idea for the revolution seemed to be a good one. The idea was to bring justice and equality to all the citizens of the country. The 1789 Declaration of Human Rights, inspired by the American Declaration of Independence, also, seemed to be good. What a beautiful ideal! But reality is different than ideals. It is usually admitted that the French Revolution was a Revolution by the people against the ruling classes, in particular, the King and the nobility.
The truth is that the Revolution was not popular and was carried out by the liberal aristocracy, a part of the bourgeoisie and the clergy influenced by the philosophy of Lights.
The Revolution is first a certain philosophy and conception of the world. It is the political realization of naturalism. We can define it as such: “The Revolution is a set of doctrines and actions which want to replace the natural order of things and the natural order of societies wanted by the Creator in the civil, political and social institutions, by an organization elaborated by men themselves, and for that reason, in perpetual change.” 
According to the revolutionaries themselves, the Revolution is universal and permanent:
- Jacques Alexis Thuriot de la Rozière (1753-1829), deputy in the Estates-General of 1789 and member of the National Convention said : “The Revolution is not only for France; we are accountable for it to the entirety of mankind.”
- Gracchus Babeuf (1760-1797), precursor of communism said: “The French Revolution is only the forerunner of a greater and more solemn Revolution which will be the last one.”
- More recently, Jean-Pierre Chevènement, former member of the Socialist Party and founder of the Mouvement des Citoyens (Movement of Citizens) said a few years ago while he was Minister of Defense: “The French Revolution is not really completed and probably will never be.”
The fact is that the Revolution didn’t end with Napoleon, who said of himself: “I am the Revolution!” The entire French political life in the XIX century was marked by the battle between the Revolution and the Counter-Revolution. Today this battle seems to have eased, but it is not finished.
 Revue “Permanences” n° 413-414
It is fundamentally the dogmatic refusal of all notions of a pre-existing order which stands to men. Its underlying philosophy is Naturalism whose champion was Swiss philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau. It is not a coincidence that his book, le ‘Contrat Social’ (the Social Contract) is considered to be the founding text of the French Republic, even though Rousseau meant this work for small States. His model was Sparta.
Nature and reason became the warhorses of the Revolution and in their name, the old society had to change, or rather to disappear in order to make way for the new society which would be based upon a false notion of nature and reason. Now, there was an obstacle to pull down: Religion!
Religion is the enemy of the Revolution, because it proclaims the existence of an order above reason and nature. As such, it must be destroyed. The hatred of religion is a constant shared by all revolutionaries. In fact, contrary to a common opinion, the Revolution is religious in essence and political only by consequence. The Revolution can make the best of any political regime: Democracy, Monarchy, Socialist, Communist, Fascist or any other regime as long as it rejects the idea of a religious order.
Among all the Religions, one in particular is attacked by the Revolution: the Catholic Church. The hatred of God, of Jesus-Christ, of the Church and of the Christian order is a typical mark of the Revolution. The fact is that the ideas of the Revolution, inspired by the Philosophy of Light, contradict Catholic doctrine:
- liberty opposes order
- happiness opposes duty
- imprescriptible and sacred rights oppose obedience
- natural equality opposes hierarchy
- tolerance opposes the dogmas of the Church
Since the Catholic Church preaches order, duty, obedience, respect of hierarchy and teaches dogmas – without denying liberty, happiness, equality and tolerance – , She logically became the enemy of the Revolution. The war cry of the Revolution could be: Delenda est Ecclesia! (The Church must be destroyed)
Cardinal Arinze did not try to directly discuss the question of the Tridentine rite, rather choosing to denounce "the banalization, the desacralization, and the secularization in the liturgy", thus illustrating the will of Rome to strengthen its hand at the international level.The right hand of Benedict XVI regarding [liturgical] issues also denounced "this openly egocentric mannerism which our Sunday assemblies are often forced to endure", as well as "the false humility"...[of] a priest [who] "shares his role with the lay faithful". For the Cardinal, "sacred liturgy is not a domain where free research reigns".
[The Archbishop of Toulouse and chairman of the liturgical commitee of the French Episcopal Conference, Robert Le Gall, OSB, ]... defended himself by regretting that Rome "is often too attentive to the letters sent from France which refer to real anomalies or irregularities in the liturgical practices, but [which are] removed from their context".
[He also] expressed his fear that, "by liberalizing the ancient ritual, the Pope gives rise to a front of defiance, of sadness, and of discouragement regarding the Holy See". Archbishop Le Gall expects that "all the reactions heard in France at this time shall lead Rome to adapt [moduler] the text under preparation".
In fact, the papal schedule has recenly included audiences with Cardinals Martini, Lustiger, and Ricard (today): connect the dots.
Update: A reader asks me to connect the dots; La Croix (via Le Forum Catholique) does the job for him:
The President of the [French] Conference of Bishops, Cardinal Jean-Pierre Ricard, was received in person by Benedict XVI, on Thursday, October 26, in Rome. The archbishop of Bordeaux came to appraise him of the concerns which cut through the communities of the Hexagon [France] of seeing an exception [the Quattuor Abhinc Annos/Ecclesia Dei regime] being made into a rule according to which every priest would henceforth have the right to celebrate the Mass according to the rite said of Saint Pius V.
As it usually happens, nothing has leaked from this meeting, except that it referred to "the French situation", but last Friday Cardinal Jean-Marie Lustiger, archbishop [emeritus] of Paris -- though under the weight of a heavy medical treatment -- had been received by the Pope, ostensibly for the same reason.
A more traditional and “Roman” translation of the Mass into English currently in the pipeline may dampen enthusiasm for wider use of the pre-Vatican II Mass, according to the executive director of the commission charged with preparing that translation. [John Allen]
It is testament to Tornielli's stellar reputation that people by and large took his report on faith, ... [John Allen]
People had been talking about this possible document for a while -- and not only Vaticanist Andrea Tornielli, but also Marco Tosatti, of La Stampa (see here and translation here), mentioned the same document on the same day, adding many important details to Tornielli's version. It wasn't Tornielli who gave the news of the document to the Archbishop of Winnipeg days before he wrote about it in Il Giornale... Tornielli was not the Vatican source who confirmed it to the news agency of the Italian Episcopal Conference; it wasn't Tornielli who told the French bishops' news agency that the document "is written".
Maybe it is about time Allen would change his sources... or tell us what else he knows. Or maybe John Allen still thinks that the Pope is trying to build "consensus"... Or is he? Last Monday, Benedict warned the students of the Pontifical Universities in Rome:
Our words can only have any value and usefulness if they come from the silence of contemplation, not falling prey to the proliferation of worldly discourse, which seeks the consensus of common opinion.
Questions which would never have even been considered as admissible were asked, and the Holy See was forced to answer them, if only for ecumenical purposes. And, in October 1976, the Church of Rome had to make clear the only possible position regarding the possibility of the priestly ordination of women:
"The Church's tradition in the matter has thus been so firm in the course of the centuries that the Magisterium has not felt the need to intervene in order to formulate a principle which was not attacked, or to defend a law which was not challenged. But each time that this tradition had the occasion to manifest itself, it witnessed to the Church's desire to conform to the model left her by the Lord."
As for the eventual Motu Proprio, "its text is written" and it is "being re-read" by different Vatican congregations, because it elicits opposition, even amidst the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. "It is necessary to let [things] mature, not to precipitate" things, it is said in Rome.
...there exists a silent form of dissent that promotes and defends disaffection with the Church, considering this a legitimate critical attitude with respect to the hierarchy and its magisterium, justifying dissent within the Church itself as if a Christian could not be an adult without establishing a certain distance from the teachings of the magisterium. Behind this attitude there frequently lurks the idea that the Church at present is not obeying the Gospel, and that a struggle “from within” is necessary to arrive at a future, authentically evangelical Church. In reality, what is sought is not the conversion of the Church’s members, its constant purification, penance and renewal, but the transformation of the very constitution of the Church, to adapt it to the opinions and perspectives of the world. This position finds support among members of the Church’s academic centers, and in some cases among publishing houses and bookstores run by Catholic institutions. This way of proceeding causes great disorientation among the faithful.
(Picture: Three-day "Renewal Course", some Jesuits of the Provinces of Spain - 2005)
He was the only bishop ever to propose, in the official Council discussions, an actual reform of the Canon of the Mass, a matter which was considered unthinkable for most Council Fathers -- even though it would be effected "ad experimentum" in many countries as soon as the Council ended, and, permanently, with the creation of the new Ordinary of the Mass, in 1969. Duschak was, thus, in the avant-garde of the most radical liturgical reformers -- the only bishop to voice openly what other bishops and especially many periti said and wrote in the Conciliar underworld:
Bishop Duschak [PDF file] from Mindoro was the first to suggest that Latin be completely eliminated from the Mass and that priests would face the people at all times; other bishops had encouraged a greater use of vernacular languages while still retaining some Latin. Duschak proposed a Missa Orbis or Mass of the World. Interviewed later, Duschak said: “I haven’t too much hope that my idea will be accepted any time soon. But, as a good Filipino, I say—paciencia!”
Bishop Duschak emphasized that he was not proposing the abolition of the existing form of the Latin Mass. He was merely proposing that an additional form or structure of the Mass be introduced.
Asked whether his proposal originated with the people whom he served, he answered, "No, I think they would oppose it, just as many bishops oppose it. But if it could be put into practice, I think they would accept it."And so they did: the liturgical revolution, as almost all revolutions, emanated from the "Enlightened Élite" to the ignorant people...
And a most informative article in The Wall Street Journal: the Wymans and the obstacles they faced when they tried to get married the Traditional way -- in a presentaton of the "Traditionalist Question" to a wider audience.
We now turn to the words of the then-Cardinal Ratzinger, the gloriously reigning Supreme Pontiff, answering these specific criticisms.
It is good to remember ... what Cardinal Newman affirmed when he said that the Church in all her history has never abolished or prohibited orthodox liturgical forms (forms which express the true faith) which would be totally foreign to the spirit of the Church.
The authority of the Church can define and limit the use of rites in different historical situations. She never prohibits them purely and simply! The Council, therefore, ordered a reform of the liturgical books, but it never forbade the previous books. The criterion which the Council enunciated is both vaster and more demanding. It invites everyone to self-criticism! ...
One must examine the other argument which pretends that the existence of two rites can fracture unity. One must distinguish, here, the  theological from the  practical side of the question.
 Theologically and fundamentally one has to realize that several forms of the Latin Rite have always existed and that they retreated but slowly only as Europe was unified. Up to the Council, there existed along side the Roman Rite, the Ambrosian Rite, the Mozarabic Rite of Toledo, the Rite of Braga, the Rite of the Carthusians and the Carmelites and the best known: the Dominican Rite; and perhaps other ones which I do not know. Nobody was ever scandalized that the Dominicans, often when present in parishes, did not celebrate like parish priests but rather had their own rite. We had no doubt that their rite was both Catholic and Roman. We were proud of the richness of having several rites.
 The free space which the new order of Mass gives to creativity, it must be admitted, is often excessively enlarged. The difference between the liturgy with the new liturgical books, as it is actually practiced and celebrated in various places is often much greater than the difference between the old and new liturgies when celebrated according to the rubrics of the liturgical books.
An average Christian without special liturgical formation would be hard-pressed to distinguish a Sung Mass in Latin according to the Old Missal from a Sung Mass in Latin celebrated according to the New Missal. The difference, by contrast, can be enormous between a liturgy faithfully celebrated according to the Missal of Paul VI and the concrete forms and celebrations in the vernacular with all the possible freedom and creativity! With these considerations we have already crossed the threshold between theory and practice where matters are naturally more complex ... .
If the unity of the faith and the unicity of the mystery appear clearly in the two forms of celebration, this can only be a reason for all to rejoice and thank God. In so far as we believe, live and act on these motives, we can also persuade the bishops that the presence of the ancient liturgy does not disorder or injure the unity of their diocese, but rather it is a gift destined to build up the Body of Christ of which we are all servants.
So, my dear friends, I would like to encourage you not to lose patience - to remain confident- and to exercise in the liturgy the necessary courage to bear witness for the Lord in our times.
Conference on the Tenth Anniversary of the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei
Rome, October 24, 1998.
(Translation made available by the FSSP website, with corrections; numbers in brackets not in original text)
...when Luther and his followers first discarded the Canon of the Mass, this change was not commonly noticed by the people because, as we know, the priest spoke the Canon in a low voice, as a private prayer. But Luther purposely did not dispense with the elevation of the Host and Chalice, at least not initially, because the people would have noticed that change. Also, in the larger Lutheran churches, Latin continued to be used, as was Gregorian chant. German hymns existed before the Reformation and at times were sung during the liturgy, so they were not a major change. Much more radical than any liturgical changes introduced by Luther, at least as far as the rite was concerned, was the reorganization of our own liturgy — above all, the fundamental changes that were made in the liturgy of the Mass. It also demonstrated much less understanding for the emotional ties the faithful had to the traditional liturgical rite.
At this point, it is not entirely clear to what extent these changes were, in fact, influenced by dogmatic considerations — as they had been in Luther's case. ...
The truly tragic aspect of this development is that many of those involved in designing the new liturgical texts, among them especially bishops and priests who had come out of the Catholic Youth Movement [Jugendbewegung], were acting in good faith, and simply failed to recognize the negative elements that were part of the new liturgy, or they did not recognize them right away. To them, the new liturgy embodied the fulfillment of all their past hopes and aspirations for which they had waited so long.
One thing is certain: the new (liberal) theology was a major force behind the liturgical reforms. (A good example of this is the German hymnal, Praising God.) Yet to assert, as is sometimes done, that the Novus Ordo Mass is "invalid" would be taking this argument too far. What we can say is that ever since the liturgical reforms were introduced, the number of invalid Masses certainly has increased.
Neither the persistent entreaties of distinguished cardinals, nor serious dogmatic points raised about the new liturgy, nor urgent appeals from around the world not to make the new Missal mandatory could stop Pope Paul VI — a clear indication of his own, strong personal endorsement. Even the threat of a new schism — the Lefebvre affair — could not move him to have the traditional ritus Romanus at least coexist with the new rite — a simple gesture of pluralism and inclusiveness, which, in our day and age, certainly would have been the politic thing to do.
The Reform of the Roman Liturgy
(Die Reform der römischen Liturgie: Vorgeschichte und Problematik)
Dans le quotidien du Parti communiste français, L'Humanité, un des grands avocats sans doute de la "tolérance à tout prix", le Père Gilbert Caffin a finalement trouvé quelque chose qui ne saurait être toléré: la liberté pour les rits traditionnels de l'Église latine.
Une telle liberté, disent ses critiques, abolirait "l'unité du culte". Il serait impossible pour ces rits de cohabiter !
Je partage leur préoccupation, sincère et venue du coeur, pour l'authentique Unité de Foi et c'est pourquoi je présente le manifeste en images suivant :
A few bishops around the world, especially in the Eldest Daughter of the Church, are desperate with the possible papal document restoring the Traditional Latin Mass to its place of honor. The bishop of Angoulême said today that "biritualism" cannot be "forced" in such a way; a few days ago, the bishop of Metz had warned that any such measure would "endanger the unity of the Catholic Church".
In the daily newspaper of the Communist Party of France, L'Humanité, one of the greatest French Catholic advocates of "tolerance at all costs", Father Gilbert Caffin, has finally found something he will not tolerate: liberty for the Traditional Rites of the Latin Church.
The measure, its critics say, will "endanger unity of worship". It is impossible for these Rites to live together!
I share their sincere and heartfelt concern for the One True Faith and that is why I present the following pictorial manifesto:
This Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei", in virtue of the special faculties granted to it by the Sovereign Pontiff, and graciously accepting the petition of the Reverend Father Josef Bisig, by this selfsame Decree erects the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter as a clerical society of Apostolic Life with Pontifical Right, according to the prescribed norms of Canon Law and with all the legal consequences involved. This same Fraternity of St. Peter proposes the sanctification of priests through the exercise of the pastoral ministry, particularly in conforming its life to the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and by observing the liturgical and disciplinary traditions invoked by the Roman Pontiff in the Apostolic Letter Ecclesia Dei of 2 July 1988, given "Motu Proprio".
This erection brings with it the rights enumerated in Canon 611. The Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter is regulated by the norms of the Code of Canon Law, the prescriptions of this Decree, its own Constitutions and other appropriate laws.
The members of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, as well as other priests who are guests in houses of the Fraternity or who exercise the sacred ministry in their churches, are conceded the use of the liturgical books in force in 1962.
In order that the necessary unity of the Church might be better fostered, the members of the priestly Fraternity of St. Peter are with particular diligence to seek communion with the bishop and diocesan priests according to Canons 679-83. In the exercise of the pastoral ministry the prescriptions of the law are to be observed, particularly in what concerns the valid and licit celebration of the Sacraments of Penance and Marriage, as well as what is laid down in canon 535 concerning the transcription of these events in the parish registers.
The constitutions of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, having been accepted by this Pontifical Commission, are approved for three years. The Reverend Father Joseph Bisig is named Superior General of the same Fraternity, equally for three years.
Bearing in mind what is set out in this decree, the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter is under the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff as transmitted to this Pontifical Commission for all that concerns it, until otherwise provided for.
The Supreme Pontiff John Paul II, in an audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal president of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei on 18 October 1988, ratified and ordered the publication of this decree, erecting the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter as a Society of Apostolic Life and approving its constitutions ad experimentum.
Anything to the contrary notwithstanding.
Given at Rome, from the seat of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, this 18th day of October in the year 1988.
AUGUSTIN Cardinal MAYER President
Linz ( Austria )
Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos ( Wigratzbad 2000)
Cardinal Ratzinger (Wigratbad 1990)
In an informal and most amusing online interview given tonight to the readers of our dear Le Forum Catholique, the Superior General of the Institute of the Good Shepherd (IBP), Father Philippe Laguérie (who was the first to affirm the existence of the Papal document restoring the Traditional Latin Mass to its proper place of honor -- you read about it here, first, remember?) affirms that the document is "imminent" (he "prays God" it is made public before the Autumn meeting of the French Episcopal Conference).
Ranjith: ...the result which was expected from the liturgical reform [which followed the Second Vatican Council] has not appeared. ...
... And therefore there is much to do, so that the churches be filled with new faithful who, during the sacred liturgies, feel truly touched by the grace of the Lord. In a secularized world, instead of trying to elevate the hearts towards the greatness of the Lord, it has been attempted, more often, I believe, to lower the divine mysteries to a banal level. ...
When you were named Secretary at Divine Worship, it was written that you had very good relations with the Lefebvrist world. Does that correspond to the truth?
Ranjith: I did not meet Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre ..., for he was of another age. But I have certainly had some contact with some of his followers. But I am not passionate about the Lefebvrists. Unfortunately, they have not yet re-entered into full communion with the Holy See, but that which they frequently say about the liturgy is said deliberately. And for that they are a thorn which should make us reflect on what we are doing. This does not mean that I may be defined as an adherent or as a friend of the Lefebvrists. I share some points of the so-called anti-globalization [movement] regarding social justice, but that does not mean I am one of its followers...[sic] On the other hand, the Tridentine Mass is not a private property of the Lefebvrists. It is a treasure of the Church and of all of us. As the Pope said to the Roman Curia last year, the Second Vatican Council is not a moment of rupture, but of renewal in continuity. The past is not thrown away, but one builds upon it.
Does this mean that the Mass said of Saint Pius V has never truly been abolished?
Ranjith: The fact that the Holy See has recently approved the foundation, in Bordeaux, of a Society of Apostolic Life of Pontifical Right characterized by the fact that it exclusively uses the pre-Conciliar liturgical books [Rorate Note: the Institute of the Good Shepherd] is to signify in an unequivocal way that the Mass of Saint Pius V cannot be considered as abolished by the new Missal, said of Paul VI.
Only four years had passed since the publication of the new Missal when Pope Paul VI surprised the Catholic world with a new Ordo Missæ, dated April 6, 1969. The revision made in 1965 did not touch the traditional liturgical rite. In accordance with the mandate of Article 50 of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, it had been primarily concerned with removing some later additions to the Order of the Mass. The publication of the Ordo Missæ of 1969, however, created a new liturgical rite. In other words, the traditional liturgical rite had not simply been revised as the Council had intended. Rather, it had been completely abolished, and a couple of years later, the traditional liturgical rite was, in fact, forbidden.
All this leads to the question: Does such a radical reform follow the tradition of the Church? ...
The argument could be made that the pope's authority to introduce a new liturgical rite, that is, to do so without a decision by a council, can be derived from the "full and highest power" (plena et suprema potestas) he has in the Church, as cited by the First Vatican Council, i.e., power over matters quæ ad disciplinam et regimen ecclesiæ per totum orbem diffusæ pertinent ("that pertain to the discipline and rule of the Church spread out over all the world") (Denzinger, 1831).
However, the term disciplina in no way applies to the liturgical rite of the Mass, particularly in light of the fact that the popes have repeatedly observed that the rite is founded on apostolic tradition. For this reason alone, the rite cannot fall into the category of "discipline and rule of the Church." To this we can add that there is not a single document, including the Codex Iuris Canonici, in which there is a specific statement that the pope, in his function as the supreme pastor of the Church, has the authority to abolish the traditional liturgical rite. In fact, nowhere is it mentioned that the pope has the authority to change even a single local liturgical tradition. The fact that there is no mention of such authority strengthens our case considerably.
There are clearly defined limits to the plena et suprema potestas (full and highest powers) of the pope. For example, there is no question that, even in matters of dogma, he still has to follow the tradition of the universal Church—that is, as Vincent of Lerins says, what has been believed (quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus). In fact, there are several authors who state quite explicitly that it is clearly outside the pope's scope of authority to abolish the traditional rite.
Thus, the eminent theologian Suarez (who died in 1617), citing even earlier authors such as Cajetan (who died in 1534), took the position that a pope would be schismatic "if he, as is his duty, would not be in full communion with the body of the Church as, for example, if he were to excommunicate the entire Church, or if he were to change all the liturgical rites of the Church that have been upheld by apostolic tradition." [Et hoc secundo modo posset Papa esse schismaticus, si nollet tenere cum toto Ecclesiæ corpore unionem et coniunctionem quam debet, ut si tenat et totem Ecclesiam excommunicare, aut si vellel omnes Ecclesiasticas cæremonias apostolica traditione firmatas evertere.]As we examine the issue of unlimited papal authority and how it relates to the authority to change the established liturgical rite, if the statement made by Suarez still is not entirely convincing, this argument just may be: the already established fact that, until Pope Paul VI, there has not been a single pope who introduced the type of fundamental changes in liturgical forms which we now witness.
(Die Reform der römischen Liturgie: Vorgeschichte und Problematik)