Rorate Caeli

The Intolerant "Bishop of Tolerance"

Even a journalist of a newspaper not particularly friendly to the Church, Corriere della Sera, fails to understand how a "Bishop of tolerance" can be so intolerant of the rights of his priests and the desires of Traditional Catholics, even after the clear words of Pope Benedict in the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum.

[From the Corriere del Mezzogiorno:]


The bishop of tolerance. Of immigrants. Of the underprivileged. [A bishop] Who grants the diocesan structure of the Tent of Abraham to Muslims for the Friday prayers and the chapel adjacent to the Cathedral of Caserta to the Ukrainian and Moldavian Orthodox. But who has forbidden the celebration of the Tridentine Mass repristinated since past September 14 by the motu proprio of Benedict XVI.

With a telephone call, Bishop Raffaele Nogaro [of Caserta, near Naples] ringed the rector of the Shrine of Saint Anne of Caserta, Father Giovanni Battista Gionti, and ordered him to suspend the celebration, planned for tonight [Sunday night], at 8 PM.


[From the Corriere della Sera:]

As head of the Curia, he did not fear granting the structures of the diocese to religious ceremonies of Muslims or Orthodox.

"Right - he says - because to help people pray is an honorable effort. While to grumble in Latin does not serve any purpose whatsoever [lit. non serve a nulla].

"The faithful must be offered something which is valuable and educational, not occasions of disorientation. And I maintain that numbing them with sacred images is only choreography and roleplaying. A useless aesthetic object [lit. cornice] which does not convey anything."

________________

Source: Il Messaggero;
Transcripts (Corriere del Mezzogiorno and Corriere della Sera): Papa Ratzinger Blog (1;2).

53 comments:

Anonymous said...

Evil.

Anonymous said...

Wow...

Anonymous said...

In the Italian article he's quoted as saying (roughly) "The one responsible for ensuring theological liturgical and moral correctness in a diocese is the bishop and if on the one hand the Pope has provided for an opening to other rites, I am the one the Pope has appointed to control the application of his provisions here." He then states that he was not made aware of the Mass, although the celebrant was "obliged" to inform him, and that at any rate there were not a sufficient number of people requesting the Mass (he thinks this would be "30 or 40") to fall within the provisions of the Motu Proprio.

Petrus Radii said...

Talks like a Freemason. The Pope should solemnly anathematise (using the Traditional Roman Pontifical) and suspend this "bishop", degrade him from the clerical state, and then hand him over to the civil authorities to be burned at the stake. May God grant the gift of faith and the grace of conversion to this jackal. Failing that, may God grant him his eternal reward as soon as possible.

Cosmos said...

When the Pope does things I do not understand, I generally assume/hope that I am lacking information or perspective. However, if this bishop is not somehow publicly corrected, I think it will be a real moral defeat for those loyal to the Pope and tradition. Let us pray for him!

Anonymous said...

He sounds like a Calvinist. Just evil.

Anonymous said...

ENEMY WITHIN-

Anonymous said...

piece of modernist garbage

Pascendi said...

...sounds like a veritable apostate...a modern day Judas...

Anonymous said...

This is the e-mail of the Bishop of Caserta:
vescovo@diocesicaserta.it

S.E. Monsignor Raffaele Nogaro

Episcopio - c/o Curia Vescovile

Piazza Duomo, 11 - 81100 - Caserta

www.diocesicaserta.it

Pius

Anonymous said...

Pontificia Commissione Ecclesia Dei
Pontificia Commissio Ecclesia Dei
Palazzo della Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede, Piazza del Sant'Uffizio, 11 - 00193 Roma
Tel. (06) 69.88.52.13 - 69.88.54.94 - Fax 69.88.34.12 - posta elettronica: eccdei@ecclsdei.va
Presidente: Sua Em. Rev.ma Cardinale Darìo Castrillòn Hoyos (Piazza della Città Leonina, 1, 00193 Roma - tel. 68.30.70.88)
Segretario: Rev.mo Mons. Camille Perl (Via di Porta Angelica, 63 - 00193 Roma - tel. 687.48.30)

Iosephus said...

Wow, sassy man, this bishop of tolerance. It will be interesting to see how he's handled by Rome (if at all).

Kopp said...

If WE are silent, bishops like this may not be disciplined in any way.

Everyone should take a moment to send a brief, polite email to Ecclesia Dei eccdei@ecclsdei.va (here's mine):

To: Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei,
H.E. Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos,
President, Piazza del Sant’ Uffizio 11,
00120 Vatican City, Italy

Re: Bishop Raffaele Nogaro and SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM

The information regarding Bishop Raffaele Nogaro posted at http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2007/09/italian-bihsop-publicly-rebukes-pope.html
is most disheartening.

If Bishop Raffaele Nogaro is permitted to persist in refusing to obey the clear directives of our Holy Father in Summorum Pontificum, it will embolden many of the English-speaking bishops here in North America to also undermine our Holy Father's efforts.

Please let us know what concrete steps will be taken so that Bishop Raffaele Nogaro and others like him here in the USA will no longer be able to subvert the letter and spirit of Summorum Pontificum.

Thank you,
etc.

Knight of Malta said...

When is the disease of modernism going to end? Sure, Latin was the vernacular 1,500 years ago; but then it became the universal language of the Church.

We worship in Latin not to feel "superior" or confuse the masses, but for the opposite reason: to connect with every believer for the last 1,700 years, or so, who worshipped in the same language. The greatest saints, from every part of europe and many other parts of the world, worshipped in this same language, despite their cultural differences.

Thus, in the Latin mass, a believer in Shanghai and Paris can worship cogently in the same language and be connected to one another.

And, moreover, these same believers are connected with deceased believers throughout the centuries.

Now, it is a smorgasbord of divergent practices and liturgies, which sometimes detract from Christ, rather than leading us closer to Him.

This Bishop vastly misunderstands the significance of his attitude of persecution against traditionalists.

Paulus said...

In Bishop Nogaro's mind, the right to mumble in Caserta is reserved for those who do it in Arabic or Hebrew.

Nogaro just showed his true color - a schismatic who disregards the authority of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI.

Anonymous said...

Foolish windbags like this are appointed to their offices by the Pope. Only he can remove them. He does the entire Church a disservice by "turning the cheek" to these enemies of the Cross of Christ.

Anonymous said...

Yes, evil.

He has already excommunicated himself. Now the Church should formally recognize this, and remove him from office.

-Steve from NN, VA

Anonymous said...

Amazing, how he can judge the souls of those who mumble in Latin (in his own flock), and know whether they truly are praying or not, but he takes it on faith that those of other religions are earenstly communing with God.

Anonymous said...

Did the Mass go ahead as planned? There is no reason to obey such an order.

Anonymous said...

http://www.agencia.ecclesia.pt/noticia_all.asp?noticiaid=50703&seccaoid=9&tipoid=11

D. José Policarpo escreve aos padres sobre o Motu Proprio
O sacerdote não deve pôr o acento no seu possível gosto pessoal pela Liturgia anterior à Reforma Litúrgica

Carta a todos os Presbíteros que exercem o seu ministério no Patriarcado de Lisboa
Caros Padres,

1. Dirijo-me a vós num momento da vida da Igreja, em que se exige particular discernimento pastoral: a publicação por Sua Santidade o Papa Bento XVI da Carta Apostólica, dada sob a forma de “Motu Proprio”, “Summorum Pontificum Cura”. O “Motu Proprio” regula o uso, na Liturgia, do “Missale Romanum”, na sua última edição de 1962, promulgada pelo Papa João XXIII, como forma extraordinária de celebração da Liturgia católica segundo o Rito Romano.

Ao apresentar este “Motu Proprio”, o Santo Padre escreveu uma Carta aos Bispos de todo o mundo, cujo texto é indispensável para a interpretação e aplicação pastoral do referido “Motu Proprio”.

Ambos os textos serão publicados no “Vida Católica”.

O Santo Padre reconhece que a notícia da publicação destas Normas provocou duas reacções: uma entusiasta aceitação e uma férrea oposição. Espero que, entre nós, nenhuma destas atitudes extremas prevaleça. Considero que as pessoas que desejam celebrar a Liturgia do Missal de 1962 são, entre nós, uma minoria, embora permeáveis ao que se passa noutras Igrejas. É mais plausível a reacção daqueles que sentem desgosto, pensando que se pôs em questão o Concílio Vaticano II e o seu “ex libris” que é a Reforma Litúrgica. De facto, muitos de nós vivemos com grande entusiasmo a Reforma Litúrgica e o espírito de “aggiornamento” proposto pelo Concílio, e isso modelou a nossa forma de ser cristão e imprimiu o rosto às comunidades cristãs, que aprenderam a viver a Liturgia, não apenas como manifestação da fé pessoal, mas como expressão viva de um Povo que se reconhece como comunidade quando celebra a Sagrada Liturgia.

Em espírito de comunhão com o Santo Padre, escutando-o e obedecendo-lhe, queremos pôr pastoralmente em prática, com o discernimento que a sua aplicação a uma situação concreta exige, a sua orientação para toda a Igreja, percebendo as motivações que o moveram e os objectivos que pretende alcançar.

Apesar de o “Motu Proprio” dar uma grande autonomia de decisão aos Párocos e, em certos casos, a todos os Sacerdotes, o Bispo não deixa de ser, como o Santo Padre reconhece, citando a “Sacrossanctum Concilium”, nº 22, o moderador da Liturgia na própria Diocese: “O governo da Liturgia depende unicamente da autoridade da Igreja: pertence à Sé Apostólica e, nas regras do direito, ao Bispo” (S.C., nº22). Na construção da unidade da Igreja diocesana, a aplicação deste “Motu Proprio”, no respeito pela autoridade do Santo Padre, expressamente manifestada, será definida pelo Bispo diocesano, com a colaboração do Departamento de Liturgia da Diocese.

Os motivos e objectivos do Santo Padre

2. Antes de mais, o bem dos fiéis, daqueles que desejam a celebração segundo o Missal de 1962, porque procuram aí a dimensão sagrada do mistério da Eucaristia, que também podem encontrar na celebração segundo o Missal de Paulo VI, que devem em qualquer hipótese aceitar, porque continua a ser, para toda a Igreja, a forma normal de celebrar a Liturgia. O Santo Padre afirma mesmo que, vencidos os exageros de uma criatividade litúrgica mal concebida, é ocasião de imprimir nesta forma normal de celebrar a Missa toda a sua dimensão sagrada. Diz Bento XVI na Carta aos Bispos: “Na celebração da Missa segundo o Missal de Paulo VI, poder-se-á manifestar, de maneira mais intensa do que frequentemente tem acontecido até agora, aquela sacralidade que atrai muitos para o uso antigo…” celebrando “com grande reverência, em conformidade com as rubricas; isto torna visível a riqueza espiritual e a profundidade teológica deste Missal”.

- O “bem dos fiéis” é, pois, o único motivo que pode levar os Párocos a usar o Missal de 1962, pelo que um Pároco não pode impor à Paróquia o Missal de 1962 apenas motivado pela sua perspectiva pessoal.

- O “bem dos fiéis” supõe discernimento: quantos são os fiéis, quais os motivos que os levam a pedir essa Liturgia; que formação cristã e litúrgica possuem. De facto o Santo Padre afirma: “O uso do Missal antigo pressupõe um certo grau de formação litúrgica e o conhecimento da língua latina; e quer uma quer outro não é muito frequente encontrá-los”.

Que ninguém se precipite nem facilite, na certeza de que encontraremos de modo justo, uma resposta para os fiéis que o pedirem, obedecendo aos critérios enunciados pelo Santo Padre, que não contemplam motivos como o simples gosto pelo antigo, o ser diferente, ou a forma de reagir a imperfeições na forma actual de celebrar a Liturgia.

3. Um outro objectivo do Santo Padre é salvaguardar a unidade da Igreja. “Trata-se de chegar a uma reconciliação interna no seio da Igreja”[1].

Na história da Igreja, mais do que uma vez, as grandes reformas originaram divisões com grupos de cristãos que não as aceitaram. Foi o caso dos “velhos católicos”, a seguir ao Concílio Vaticano I, e o do cisma de Mons. Lefebvre, a seguir ao Concílio Vaticano II. Bento XVI confessa que a primeira abertura ao uso do Missal de 1962, feita por João Paulo II no “Motu Proprio” Ecclesia Dei, foi motivada pela crise lefebriana e dirigia-se à Fraternidade S. Pio X. O seu “Motu Proprio” dirige-se não apenas aos seguidores de Mons. Lefebvre, mas a outros cristãos, mesmo jovens que, pensa o Santo Padre, se sentem atraídos por essa Liturgia. O horizonte de análise do Santo Padre é a Igreja toda.

Mas esta preocupação por salvaguardar a unidade da Igreja tem, nos dois documentos do Papa, outras concretizações a que devemos dar grande relevo pastoral: antes de mais, o Missal de Paulo VI é a forma normal, para toda a Igreja, de celebrar a Liturgia. Diz o Santo Padre que, “obviamente, para viver em plena comunhão, também os sacerdotes das Comunidades aderentes ao uso antigo não podem, em linha de princípio, excluir a celebração segundo os novos livros. De facto, não seria coerente com o reconhecimento do valor e da santidade do novo rito a exclusão total do mesmo”; por outro lado, quando o Pároco acha que deve acolher o desejo de um grupo de fiéis da sua Paróquia de celebrar pelo Missal de 1962, “tenha em conta que o bem destes fiéis seja harmonicamente coordenado com o bem pastoral de toda a Paróquia, sob orientação do Bispo nos termos do c. 392, evitando divisões e promovendo a unidade de toda a Igreja” (art.º 5 §1 do Motu Proprio). Isto quer dizer que tem de se avaliar o significado dessa abertura na harmonia de toda a comunidade.

Papel dos Sacerdotes na aplicação destas Normas

4. Porque é o sacerdote quem preside à Eucaristia e aos Sacramentos, o bom discernimento pastoral dos sacerdotes é muito importante para uma aplicação positiva e equilibrada destas Normas.

Como já ficou dito, o sacerdote não deve pôr o acento no seu possível gosto pessoal pela Liturgia anterior à Reforma Litúrgica, mas no bem dos fiéis e de toda a comunidade a que preside. O seu gosto pessoal só poderá ter lugar na missa privada, “sine populo” (art.º 2º). Estas celebrações não podem ser aquelas que são anunciadas ao Povo de Deus, como programa normal da Paróquia. Essas “missas privadas” não devem ser anunciadas. A possibilidade de outros fiéis assistirem a elas, como está previsto no art.º 4º do “Motu Proprio”, não pode entender-se como divulgação pública das mesmas.

Quanto às celebrações públicas para os fiéis que as pedirem, dada a não premência do fenómeno entre nós, que ninguém se precipite a conceder essas celebrações, sem um discernimento prévio, de preferência feito em presbitério e em diálogo com o Bispo.

Estejam os Párocos particularmente atentos para se certificarem que os sacerdotes que se apresentam para celebrar segundo o rito antigo, mesmo na missa “sine populo”, são idóneos e não impedidos pelo Direito (cf. Art.º 5º §4).

5. Os Párocos devem cuidar, particularmente, da qualidade e profundidade litúrgica dessas celebrações. O rito antigo, já muito distante da prática da Igreja, se não é celebrado com dignidade litúrgica, pode transformar-se em elemento desagregador do crescimento das comunidades. Neste aspecto tenham-se em conta, sobretudo os seguintes pontos:

5.1. O uso da língua latina. É claro na Carta do Santo Padre aos Bispos que o seu uso supõe o conhecimento da língua latina. Infelizmente muitos sacerdotes da nossa Diocese já não sabem o latim. Esses sacerdotes devem considerar-se não idóneos para presidir à Missa segundo o Missal de 1962. Se as circunstâncias pastorais o aconselharem, devem procurar-se sacerdotes que o possam fazer dignamente.

5.2. A música. Os textos do Missal de 1962 estão musicados em gregoriano. A possibilidade de os cantar, com o mínimo de qualidade, deve ser condição para permitir missas comunitárias nesse rito.

5.3. O vernáculo. As leituras em português supõem traduções aprovadas pela Santa Sé (cf. Art.º 6º).

5.4. Os espaços sagrados. Os nossos templos estão orientados para a celebração da Missa segundo o Missal de Paulo VI. Fica proibida qualquer tentativa de alterações dos espaços, sobretudo do altar e do presbitério, por causa da possibilidade de celebrar o ritual de 1962, que aliás já previa a celebração “versus populum”.

Princípios basilares a ter em conta.

6. Os textos litúrgicos emanados da Reforma Litúrgica constituem a Liturgia normal da Igreja para todos. O uso de textos de antes da Reforma Litúrgica, é excepcional, motivado pelo “bem dos fiéis”, a discernir e analisar ponderadamente.

7. As celebrações, segundo esse rito, devem ser durante a semana. Nos Domingos e dias festivos, celebra-se a Liturgia normal. O Santo Padre abre a hipótese, no caso dum grupo significativo de fiéis o aconselhar, de uma das celebrações paroquiais nos Domingos e dias festivos seguir o Missal de 1962. Na nossa Diocese, peço aos Párocos que, por enquanto, não permitam essas celebrações dominicais, antes de uma análise profunda da situação. Se chegarmos à conclusão que o “bem dos fiéis” o exige, encontraremos, em conjunto, formas de lhes garantir, ao Domingo e dias festivos, celebrações de grande qualidade segundo a Liturgia antiga.

8. Estejamos vigilantes para que esta abertura concedida pelo Santo Padre, tendo em conta o bem de toda a Igreja, não se transforme numa campanha em favor da Liturgia antiga. Isso seria contra a Reforma Litúrgica e todo o espírito do Concílio Vaticano II, e ignoraria o carácter extraordinário, claramente afirmado pelo Santo Padre, do uso do Missal de 1962.

9. Procuremos todos celebrar a Liturgia com qualidade, unção e sentido do Sagrado. Estas qualidades que aparecem a justificar os que procuram a Liturgia antiga, são aliás valores da Reforma Litúrgica, pois toda ela é expressão, em assembleia orante, da fé da Igreja.

Conclusão

10. Assino esta carta com data de 14 de Setembro, no dia em que entra em vigor a Carta Apostólica do Santo Padre “Summorum Pontificum Cura”. Ela é a expressão da nossa comunhão obediente com o Santo Padre, mas também o assumir das nossas responsabilidades pastorais, como Pastor desta Igreja de Lisboa.

Lisboa, 14 de Setembro de 2007, Festa da Exaltação da Santa Cruz

D. José Policarpo, Cardeal-Patriarca

JSarto said...

I invite "Rorate-Caeli" to analyse and publish the statement done by the modernist Cardinal-Patriarch of Lisbon about the Traditional Mass, in a letter written to the priests of the diocese of Lisbon. It is a piece of infamy: under the disguise of obedience to the Pope, Cardinal Policarpo restricts and attacks furiously the papal will about the traditional rite. It can be read here (in portuguese) - http://www.agencia.ecclesia.pt/noticia_all.asp?noticiaid=50703&seccaoid=9&tipoid=11
I must add that this Cardinal is the same one that four years ago offered a church (Saint Crispin) located in Lisbon to the schismatic Romanian Orthodox Church, but sistematicaly denied every intent to celebrate Traditional Mass in Lisbon under the motu proprio "Ecclesia Dei" of Pope John Paul II.

Anonymous said...

I'm shocked by some of the horrible comments on this page. This bishop is seriously in the wrong but that's no excuse for this sort of nastiness and snap judgment of the man's soul. And people wonder why we trads get a reputation for uncharitableness..!

Let's pray for this Bishop.

Anonymous said...

No, No, No..

Have you not heard?

This Bishop is just misunderstood.

Listen hard and you will hear those words soon.

J Charles said...

I think everyone should compose emails or write to Ecclesia Dei.
AMDG.

Anonymous said...

This bishop turns 75 next year. This is the last gasp of a passing generation of dinosaurs who refuse to aknowledge any wisodm or opinion but their own.

EDG said...

This is certainly a new twist in denying the old Mass! From the bishop of Lisbon:

O “bem dos fiéis” supõe discernimento: quantos são os fiéis, quais os motivos que os levam a pedir essa Liturgia; que formação cristã e litúrgica possuem. De facto o Santo Padre afirma: “O uso do Missal antigo pressupõe um certo grau de formação litúrgica e o conhecimento da língua latina; e quer uma quer outro não é muito frequente encontrá-los”.

"The “good of the faithful” means discernment: how many faithful there are, their motives for requesting this Liturgy, and the kind of Christian and liturgical formation they have. In fact, the Holy Father declares: 'The use of the old Missal presupposes a certain degree of liturgical formation and knowledge of Latin; and neither one is frequently encountered.'"

He twists the Pope's words to mean something entirely different from what they mean, adds the completely novel idea that the "motives" of people requesting the Mass have to be examined, and interprets the Holy Father's observation about knowledge of Latin as a restriction on the faithful! Amazing.

New Catholic said...

Thank you, J Sarto!

Catholics in Lisbon (and throughout Portugal) must contact the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei as soon as possible with a copy of this outrageous letter and asking for clarifications on specific points.

David said...

Fortunately he was born in 1933 which gives him only another year before retirement.

Chris Lauer said...

Here is my Letter:

The Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei
Your Eminence, Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos
President, Piazza del Sant' Uffizio 11,
00120 Vatican City, Italy

Re: Bishop Raffaele Nogaro and Summorum Pontificum

If recent reports are true of certain public and scandalous comments of Bishop Raffaele Nogaro, a response of silence can not, by moral duty to Christ through your office, be countenanced. Bishop Nogaro is reported in the Italian newspaper, Corriere della Sera, to have said the following:

"... to help people pray is an honorable effort. While to grumble in Latin does not serve any purpose whatsoever [lit. non serve a nulla]. The faithful must be offered something which is valuable and educational, not occasions of disorientation. And I maintain that numbing them with sacred images is only choreography and roleplaying. A useless aesthetic object [lit. cornice] which does not convey anything."

These comments are completely incompatible and irreconcilable with the Catholic faith. Please let me know what concrete steps will be taken so that Bishop Nogaro and others like him here will no longer be able to publicly scandalize the Holy Father and the rightful authority granted to your office.

Yours for the Greater Glory of God,

[signed]

Anonymous said...

Schismatic!

However, its a blessing in disguise: for now we will see whether we have a man or a mouse as Bishop in Rome.

Msgr. Fellay take note: if Nogaro has his way, that the MP, in sayiing,m "No further permission is required from the Apostolic See or from the local ordinary", is susceptible of the addendum: "unless the local ordinary provides otherwise", then the MP did not free the Mass.

And we're back to square 1.

However, Nogaro's rebelliousness will clarify in the minds of many, that the spirit of Vatican II is all about such an attitude and nothing about holding fast to the monuments without which the Church cannot retain Her identity, as the Holy Father says in the first paragraph of the MP.

Anonymous said...

Good then, for Nogaro!

What an irony of Divine Providence if one of the last dinosaurs does away with the very legitimacy of his breed!

Rail all you can, Monsigor! For upon the Rock of Peter you will dashed to pieces, like all the enemies of Christ throughout history.

john (last name doe) said...

Our we really expecting Pope Benedict to discipline this disobedient bishop by issuing an anathema against him and declaring him removed from office? Dream on.

Historically, it has been very rare that a Pope will remove a disobedient bishop from his office. You have examples such as Pope Pius XII with Bp. Montini; Pope Pius IX with Msr. Darboy; and Pope Pius X with Cardinal Rampolla. All of these bishops could have been removed by the reigning Popes because of their disobedience; but the Pope were surprisingly benign towards them. Rather than dismiss them from their offices entirely, the Popes either put them in positions where they can have little to no influence, or, they waited it out --as Pope Pius IX did with Msr Darboy-- in hopes that the bishop will come to his senses.

Now in regards to Pope Benedict XVI, chances are he will act with much of the same wisdom as his predecessors did (that is, he will probably find a more prudent way to handle this situation without the great cost of confrontation, possible schism, and souls). So don't expect him to come all out against this bishop by issuing some sort of solemn declaration or disciplinary measure. And BTW, why should he do so? This bishop is near retirement, and clerics like him are slowly fading away into irrelevancy both in the world and in the Church.

Anonymous said...

Schismatic? no. Apostate? not formally. Does he have the Faith? I doubt it. Nevertheless, he is merely disobedient in an unjustifiable and scandalous way.

Anonymous said...

http://www.agencia.ecclesia.pt/noticia_all.asp?noticiaid=50703&seccaoid=9&tipoid=11
Could we have a translation of the Archbishop of Lisbon? Thanks :)

Anonymous said...

Yes the bishop is an uneducated fool. As one blogger pointed out Moslems who are often not arabic speaking pray in Arabic. The koran is in ancient Arabic. The orthodox often use langauges not spoken such as slavonic and koinia greek. There is an Italain cultura problem at work. In Italy the Catholic Church is really the only church. Italians do not see that the latin language and heritage means something different to them than those outside Italy. Latin was the language and is the language of culture. It unified and help civilise us. We were part of the greater empire and were multilingual. Chistianity spread without the liturgical use of the vulgar tongues because there were so many tongues. For some trendy Italians Latin is like King James English...is for English speakers. What they miss is that for non Italians the gulf is so wide Latin is a sacral language. Associated with prayer and linking us to the ancient Roman Christians. Italians also do not understand that they have built a Christian spiritual and cultural Empire. Its an identity issue for us. Take it away from us and we have a cultural crisis. Another point languages exist to be used. Use gives life. Modern Hebrew was revived last century as a spoken language by Zionists. Isreal now uses it as a spoken language. Its a revival. Numerous documents from Rome have asked for a wider use o latin. From all angles the bishop from Southern Italy is just ignorant. I pray in Latin...

Anonymous said...

Yes the bishop is an uneducated fool. As one blogger pointed out moslems who are often not Arab speaking pray in Arabic. The koran is in ancient Arabic. The Orthodox often use langauges not spoken such as Slavonic and Koinia Greek. There is an Italian culture problem at work. In Italy the Catholic Church is really the only church. They do not grasp that some ideas are not Catholic. Italians do not see that the Latin language and heritage means something different to them than those outside Italy. Latin was the language and is the language of culture. It unified and help civilise us. We were part of the greater empire and were multilingual. Christianity spread without the liturgical use of the vulgar tongues (there were so many tongues and these wre used for preaching). For some trendy Italians Latin is like King James English is for English speakers. What they miss is that for non Italians the gulf is so wide Latin is a sacral language. Associated with prayer and linking us to the ancient Roman Christians. It is specifically spiritual. Italians also do not understand that they have built a Christian spiritual and cultural Empire. Its an identity issue for us. Take it away from us and we have a cultural crisis. Another point languages exist to be used. Use gives life. Modern Hebrew was revived last century as a spoken language by Zionists. Isreal now uses it as a spoken language. Its a revival. Numerous documents from Rome have asked for a wider use o latin. From all angles the bishop from Southern Italy is just ignorant. I pray in Latin... Again Islam is given a beach head? Is the man so ignorant he can't recall St Peter's in Rome was sacked by Moslems in the 8th century. Give Moslems a way in and they will not assimilate. If then opposed they invoke Holy War. Its a time bomb for Europe.

Patrick said...

Since this bishop has a special gift for reaching out to Mohammedans, perhaps the Holy Father can "promote" him to a titular see in the Sahara Desert.

dcs said...

A friend of mine translated the following from Indonesian:

THE 1962 MASS PRIOR TO THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL

Position of Jakarta Arch Bishop


1. Missale Romanum which was officiated by Pope John XXIII in the year 1962, and used during The Second Vatican Council, is the one which Pope Benedict XVI declared can be used in [his] "motu proprio data" on 7 July 2007. It is true that legaly there was never any restriction on its [ie. 1962 Mass] usage, even after The Second Vatican Council there was a change on Missale Romanum 1970 which was officiated by Pope Paul VI and renewed by Pope John Paul II in two new editions. This new Missale Romanum is the one we use up until now.

2. The Pope encourage us not to view [the current change set by Summorum Pontificum] as having two on going rites. He encourages us to view that there is only one rite which in its growth there is a difference in form between the old and the new. "In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture." The new form which is what we currently used, is called by the Pope as the ordinary form (forma odinaria) while the old form of 1962 he calls non-ordinary form (forma extraordinaria). (note: yes, that’s how his emminence + Darmaatmadja phrase it, "non-ordinary" instead of "extraordinary")

3. Why Missale Romanum 1962 was declared usable? Despite that there was never any restriction on its usage, there was a need by certain faithful in certain area whom still wish to enjoy the value in it, including amongst Pius X’s faithful which was instituted by Lefebvre. Although the reason for seperation by the Lefebvrist is more fundamental. And as a consequence of its [ie. Pius X group] position to still used the 1962 Missale Romanum, many faithful join the Pius X group only because [their] eucharistic celebration is still using the old form. For the sake of reunification and reconciliation on 1984 Pope John Paul II allowed the Lefebvrist to use the form of 1962. But because outside of Pius X group there are some who wish to use this [old] form, Pope John Paul II on 1988 published [his] motu proprio "Ecclesia Dei" to the bishops, to use their authority to give permission to those who wants it. Pope Benedict XVI repeats again [the permission] with giving detail notes for broader audience with "motu proprio data" 7 July 2007. But without reducing the authority which the bishops has in moderating the liturgy in their area.

4. As a bishops which authority is also recognized in "motu proprio data", I affirm that what is currently practiced now is the only [one] officialy practiced for the Arch Diocese of Jakarta. Until there are special condition which force this ruling to be reviewed.

5. I made the ruling because of consideration that the reason for the [re]establishement of the 1962 Missale Romanum is not relevant for the Arch diocese of Jakarta. There are no Pius X group, the lefebvrist group. There is no reason for reconciliation in the Church in the Arch diocese of Jakarta, which has become the reason for "motu proprio data" 7 July 2007. With the currently practice Missale Romanum, still opens the possibility of Gregorian sons being sung. Therefore I decided for the whole ArchDiocese of Jakarta to follow the ordinary [which is] the newest form of Missale Romanum, in order to follow the latest development, [a development] which was made after the second Vatican council.

Bertus said...

Why does the intolerant Bishop consider celebrating in Latin to be grumbling, and not the Old Slavonic of the Ukrainian-Byzantine liturgy and the classical arabic of the Koran to be ''grumbling''? He allows those religions the use of his chapels, but would forbid the traditional Roman Rite!
This Bishop should know, that he has not the power to forbid a priest from celebrating according to the Missal of 1962, so i hope that the priest in question did not stop the Mass that he was about to celebrate. It is indeed very disturbing, that Bishops dare publicly and so grossly to denigrate the Rites of HOly Mother Church. Such a Bishop should be deposed.

Anonymous said...

Today, I contacted poor Don Gionti and asked him for an update. All the pious man said was that he simply wants to obey the Bishop, and not create any "polemic" about the sudden interdiction of the Mass.

Let us prey for both Don Gionti and Bishop Nogaro. Especially the Bishop...

Anonymous said...

I guess the Archbishop of Jakarta has clarified it:

the MP is a dead letter.

Anonymous said...

The MP is a dead letter in certain places. In others it is all the encouragement needed to bring some of the graces of the traditional Catholic life back to the modern Church.

Of course, the only solution to the dead letter dioceses is for the Holy Father to follow up on his decree by either disciplining those bishops who insult him in the manner of dear bishop Nogaro or establish a separate hierarchical structure for traditionalists throughout the world. This would in effect create a new rite, but it is probably necessary. Even if the liberal bishops could be beaten into submission, what good would that do? Isn't it equivalent to casting pearls to the swine to have a clueless liberal bishop or priest offering the traditional Latin Mass? And how do you correct the ingrained errors of philosophy and theology that make themselves immediately apparent as soon as said liberal clerics open their mouths to preach?

It is of course only my opinion, but I do not believe the Nogaros of the world are Catholic and I would not attend their Masses. Say what you want, but these kind of people never show any concern for the supernatural welfare of souls. The ARE wolves in sheep's clothing.

Eventually the Holy Father will have to choose. Traditionalists and modernist liberals can be nice to one another, but they will never be able to worship together. The reason for this is purely doctrinal. Modern Catholics act differently at Mass than traditionalists do because they believe differently. They believe differently because they have been forcefed theological oatmeal by liberal modernists for 4 decades now.

You cannot work with prelates who believe that truth changes with time and/or that truth is what the person sincerely believes it to be.

I for one will continue a hermit within the walls of the Church, waiting always for a "better day" when the Holy Father sends a Catholic bishop and Catholic priests to my diocese.

Waiting in the Thebaid that is the diocese of Davenport.

edg said...

Good grief. So the bishop of Jakarta is just flat-out refusing to implement it and IMPOSING the Novus Ordo? I don't believe he has the right to do that.

I am not expecting the Pope to remove these men from their sees, gratifying though it might be; but if he doesn't respond and make them mind, he might as well give up on anything else in his Papacy. This is a blatant challenge from these rebellious bishops. As with this whole thing, it goes way beyond just what form of the rite one uses, of course, and to the heart of what one believes about God and about the Church.

Anonymous said...

The Pope should phone this Bishop in the same manner as the Bishop did the good priest who wanted to say the Tridentine Latin Mass.
The Pope should tell this Bishop of Caserta ON THE PHONE:

"YOU'RE FIRED"

bonagratia said...

This is the same type of bishop who castigates those who have the temerity to question their viewpoints by crying out, "Obey me, I am your bishop!" Yet, here is a specific example of this Bishop's failure to obey the Holy Father.

Anonymous said...

Howsoever weak the Pope may be, or become, remember, the Big Guy in Heaven has promised to vindicate Peter on earth.

Bishops of Jakarta and Caserta get ready for some lightning in your direction!

Anonymous said...

Deplorable as Bishop Nogaro's reported conduct certainly is, I can't help feeling that the humble, obedient submission of the priest involved may well be more pleasing in God's sight than Archbishop Lefebvre's decades of defiance.

'Non serviam' is never a commendable rule of action for any Catholic to adopt.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous at

19 September, 2007 14:40

Your feelings may be feel good to you, but unlike you we Catholics don't feel out way through religiouis questions, we think our way through, by submitting our reason to Faith.

That is why if your superior is acting ultra vires (beyond his powers) complying with his direct order is a sin of servile obedience (cf. St. Thomas & St. Alphonsus), and not complying is an act of genuine authentic catholic obedience.

Why?

Because there is no authority which is not from God, and no one has any authority in the Church or outiside of the Church to command what is unjust or to forbid what is just.

Moral Theology 101. Introduction.

(I won't charge you, this lesson is free).

Oh, BTW, basing religious decisions on feeling is the error of Modernism: cf. Pascendi Dominici Gregis, of Pope St. Pius X, you know that old forgotten Pope who worked 10,000 miracles or so.

Thomas said...

We can hope that he will be shown the same charitable fraternal correction that was directed towards SSPX.

Anonymous said...

"Oh, BTW, basing religious decisions on feeling is the error of Modernism: cf. Pascendi Dominici Gregis, of Pope St. Pius X, you know that old forgotten Pope who worked 10,000 miracles or so."

I take it, then, that you have no hesitation in accepting, with me, Pius X's clear teaching on the question of obedience?

"But their profession of fidelity to the Vicar of Christ is vain in those who, in fact, do not cease to violate the authority of their Bishops. For "by far the most august part of the Church consists of the Bishops, (as Our Predecessor Leo XIII of holy memory wrote in his letter of December 17, 1888, to the Archbishop), inasmuch as this part by divine right teaches and rules men; hence, whoever resists them or pertinaciously refuses obedience to them puts himself apart from the Church. . . On the other hand, to pass judgment upon or to rebuke the acts of Bishops does not at all belong to private individuals - that comes within the province only of those higher than they in authority and especially of the Sovereign Pontiff, for to him Christ entrusted the charge of feeding not only His lambs, but His sheep throughout the world. At most, it is allowed in matters of grave complaint to refer the whole case to the Roman Pontiff, and this with prudence and moderation as zeal for the common good requires, not clamorously or abusively, for in this way dissensions and hostilities are bred, or certainly increased."

Pope Pius X, Encyclical 'Tribus Circiter', April 5, 1906.

Anonymous said...

Saint Thomas Aquinas on obediennce:

Whether subjects are bound to obey their superiors in all things?

Objection 1. It seems that subjects are bound to obey their superiors in all things. For the Apostle says (Col. 3:20): "Children, obey your parents in all things," and farther on (Col. 3:22): "Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh." Therefore in like manner other subjects are bound to obey their superiors in all things.

Objection 2. Further, superiors stand between God and their subjects, according to Dt. 5:5, "I was the mediator and stood between the Lord and you at that time, to show you His words." Now there is no going from extreme to extreme, except through that which stands between. Therefore the commands of a superior must be esteemed the commands of God, wherefore the Apostle says (Gal. 4:14): "You . . . received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus" and (1 Thess. 2:13): "When you had received of us the word of the hearing of God, you received it, not as the word of men, but, as it is indeed, the word of God." Therefore as man is bound to obey God in all things, so is he bound to obey his superiors.

Objection 3. Further, just as religious in making their profession take vows of chastity and poverty, so do they also vow obedience. Now a religious is bound to observe chastity and poverty in all things. Therefore he is also bound to obey in all things.

On the contrary, It is written (Acts 5:29): "We ought to obey God rather than men." Now sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God. Therefore superiors are not to be obeyed in all things.

I answer that, As stated above (A1,4), he who obeys is moved at the bidding of the person who commands him, by a certain necessity of justice, even as a natural thing is moved through the power of its mover by a natural necessity. That a natural thing be not moved by its mover, may happen in two ways. First, on account of a hindrance arising from the stronger power of some other mover; thus wood is not burnt by fire if a stronger force of water intervene. Secondly, through lack of order in the movable with regard to its mover, since, though it is subject to the latter's action in one respect, yet it is not subject thereto in every respect. Thus, a humor is sometimes subject to the action of heat, as regards being heated, but not as regards being dried up or consumed. On like manner there are two reasons, for which a subject may not be bound to obey his superior in all things. First on account of the command of a higher power. For as a gloss says on Rm. 13:2, "They that resist [Vulg.: 'He that resisteth'] the power, resist the ordinance of God" (cf. St. Augustine, De Verb. Dom. viii). "If a commissioner issue an order, are you to comply, if it is contrary to the bidding of the proconsul? Again if the proconsul command one thing, and the emperor another, will you hesitate, to disregard the former and serve the latter? Therefore if the emperor commands one thing and God another, you must disregard the former and obey God." Secondly, a subject is not bound to obey his superior if the latter command him to do something wherein he is not subject to him. For Seneca says (De Beneficiis iii): "It is wrong to suppose that slavery falls upon the whole man: for the better part of him is excepted." His body is subjected and assigned to his master but his soul is his own. Consequently in matters touching the internal movement of the will man is not bound to obey his fellow-man, but God alone.

Nevertheless man is bound to obey his fellow-man in things that have to be done externally by means of the body: and yet, since by nature all men are equal, he is not bound to obey another man in matters touching the nature of the body, for instance in those relating to the support of his body or the begetting of his children. Wherefore servants are not bound to obey their masters, nor children their parents, in the question of contracting marriage or of remaining in the state of virginity or the like. But in matters concerning the disposal of actions and human affairs, a subject is bound to obey his superior within the sphere of his authority; for instance a soldier must obey his general in matters relating to war, a servant his master in matters touching the execution of the duties of his service, a son his father in matters relating to the conduct of his life and the care of the household; and so forth.

Reply to Objection 1. When the Apostle says "in all things," he refers to matters within the sphere of a father's or master's authority.

Reply to Objection 2. Man is subject to God simply as regards all things, both internal and external, wherefore he is bound to obey Him in all things. On the other hand, inferiors are not subject to their superiors in all things, but only in certain things and in a particular way, in respect of which the superior stands between God and his subjects, whereas in respect of other matters the subject is immediately under God, by Whom he is taught either by the natural or by the written law.

Reply to Objection 3. Religious profess obedience as to the regular mode of life, in respect of which they are subject to their superiors: wherefore they are bound to obey in those matters only which may belong to the regular mode of life, and this obedience suffices for salvation. If they be willing to obey even in other matters, this will belong to the superabundance of perfection; provided, however, such things be not contrary to God or to the rule they profess, for obedience in this case would be unlawful.

Accordingly we may distinguish a threefold obedience; one, sufficient for salvation, and consisting in obeying when one is bound to obey: secondly, perfect obedience, which obeys in all things lawful: thirdly, indiscreet obedience, which obeys even in matters unlawful.

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry, perhaps I am missing something. Is the passage from St Thomas (with which I am, of course, familiar) supposed to be a response to my quotation from Popes Leo XIII and St. Pius X?

"On the other hand, to pass judgment upon or to rebuke the acts of Bishops does not at all belong to private individuals".

In what way is St Thomas in contradiction with the teaching of the Popes on this matter?

My point is simply that the attitude expressed by these great Pontiffs is the genuinely traditional Catholic attitude towards ecclesiastical authority.

It is an attitude which is clearly not shared by a number of those who have posted comments on this page. The same people who appeal to Pope St Pius X when it suits them and who consider themselves free to disregard his teaching whenever they feel like it.

Anonymous said...

Entrevista com o cardeal Darío Castrillón Hoyos, de Gianni Cardinale

Domingo, 9 de Setembro de 2007

CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: O bispo é o moderador da liturgia em sua diocese. Mas a Sé Apostólica tem a competência de ordenar a liturgia sagrada da Igreja universal. E UM BISPO DEVE AGIR EM HARMONIA COM A SÉ APOSTÓLICA* e garantir os direitos de cada fiel, inclusive o direito de participar da missa de São Pio V, como forma extraordinária do rito.

* Cum Petro et sub Petro.