Rorate Caeli

Bertone: Instruction to correct "wrong positions" on the motu proprio

From an interview granted by Cardinal Bertone, Secretary of State, to the largest Italian Catholic weekly, Famiglia Cristiana (excerpts: Apcom and A. Tornielli):

"It is predicted that an Instruction which clearly determines the criteria of application of the motu proprio will be made available... There have been confused reactions. Some have accused the Pope of having disowned the Conciliar teaching. On the other hand, there have been those who have interpreted the motu proprio as an authorization for the return of the pre-Conciliar rite only. Both [are] wrong positions, exaggerated episodes which do not correspond to the intentions of the Pope.."

51 comments:

Anonymous said...

The intentions of the Pope are confusing to say the least.

coitus said...

Who says that the mp authorized return to the older rite only? It sounds like he's just reflexively throwing that our there for "balance." This is a typical politic response.

Anonymous1 said...

More weasel words and conciliarspeak from the Cardinal Secretary of State. Yawn.

Bertone and Co. are running scared. The end game of the MP (surely unintended by this all-too-Conciliar Pope) is the return of the Traditional Mass as the one rite of the Roman Church. They know it and they fear it.

nick jones said...

I think the Cardinal is saying that the MP has an effect on OF too, not ONLY the EF.

John Mastai said...

I agree with coitus. It's the same thing as when liturgical documents have the first couple of paragraphs talking about how wonderful and fruitful the Vatican II renewal has been (to which we say, "say what?!") and then the rest of the document hammers away at problems and abuses.

Eg. Redemptionis Sacramentum

Anonymous said...

It really isnt a return of the pre-conciliar rite of the mass only, but of all the others sacraments, of the pre-conciliar mentality, of the pre-conciliar paraments used by the pope, etc...

Jordan Potter said...

"Mr. C." said: Who says that the mp authorized return to the older rite only?

Anonymous1 seems to think that's what Summorum Pontificum is really all about.

By the way, "Mr. C.," could you perhaps choose a screen name more suitable and less vulgar than the one you have now? This is a Catholic website, after all.

Br. Anthony, T.O.S.F. said...

I agree with Anonymous1. The Novus Ordo is surely on its way out. The time will come when it will be clearly proclaimed by a pope that the Tridentine Mass is the ONLY Mass of the Roman Rite. The Novus Ordo was a big mistake!

Jay said...

"The end game of the MP (surely unintended by this all-too-Conciliar Pope) is the return of the Traditional Mass as the one rite of the Roman Church."
Anonymus1 - how incredibly boring you are, yawn, yawn!

Anonymous1 said...

As Bishop Fellay has said, the MP is a supernatural act. It will accomplish more than Pope Benedict XVI intends, thanks be to God. This is what makes Cardinal Bertone's remarks both ironic and pathetic. Salvation history will bypass these modernists and their historicist approach to the liturgy.

Anonymous said...

For the time being the 2 uses will co-exist,but down the line we will proably see the Ordinary Rite banished with the Extraordinary Rite also allowed in the vernacular. This is the only sensible conclusion.

Anonymous1 said...

If the triumph of the Mass of All Time is boring, then count me among the blessed bored.

Jordan Potter said...

Fine, "Mr. C.," just don't say I didn't warn you . . .

Jay said...

"(surely unintended by this all-too-Conciliar Pope)" - Anonymus1 this is why you are incredibly boring. Yawn, yawn, yawn.

Castor said...

None of you have understood. I am in favour of returning to the Old Rite but, let's face it, it's not going to happen overnight. The Motu Proprio does NOT invisage parishes returning exclusively to the Old Rite! What part of that is not clear? What it does is permit the Old Mass to be celebrated in parishes without restrictions, alongside the new rite. In Italy, a big problem was when two parish priests insisted on returning to the Old Rite, effectively depriving their parishes of the new. That was a misunderstanding of the MP and, as parish priests, they are required to provide the new rite for the parish and to obey their bishop. If they want to return to the Old Rite (I'm all for it), they must give-up their office as parish priests and perhaps join the FSSP or other group, or just celebrate the Old Rite. Who, then, will pay their salaries? A dumb move at present, which even the FSSP counselled them against. Who was the Mass for, for them or for their parishioners? It seems a majority was for the Old but a minority was opposed. Who was supposed to serve them in their own parish? Let's do this right people.

jordan potter said...

on second thought, "Mr. C" (or should I say "Mr. I"?), what you wrote did bring some needed comic relief to what is threatening to become another rather humorless thread here on rorate-caeli . . .

Anonymous said...

Clearly the problem is centered on: the correct interpretation of Vatican II and whether the council and the interpretation are a super-dogma. Clearly the pope's teachings on the nature of Vatican II do not penetrate the block head of many clerics, even inside the Holy See. An encyclical on the nature of Vatican II is needed.

sophia said...

I think some of the people commenting on this blog are suffering from what I would call a theological myopia.

They think that because the old mass is the true mass, the mass of all times, the right mass - what have you - that therefore it will be universally restored and the novus ordo will fade away inevitably. we just need a long enough time table.

i'm the first to admit that the present day church is spiritually bankrupt and the new mass a flop. probably it will not continue in its present form for our whole lifetime - but its universal replacement by the old rite is even less likely than its continuation as is.

the sociology of the church has changed. do you expect all anglicans someday to renounce homosexuality? will all lutherans accept the pope? neither should you expect a universal restoration of ancient traditions in the catholic church. go out and actually meet the bishops, the priests, the people working in parishes and schools, etc. that's what we have to work with. they don't share your views, which are far from the operative status quo.

you're liv'in a dream kids.

Castor said...

p.s. Castor is not Coitus. Just in case there is any misunderstanding.

castor said...

Sophia, you have elaborated on what I wanted to say.

Anonymous1 said...

What's incredibly boring, Jay, is a Pope whose every move in favor of Tradition is hedged and qualified by expressions of endearment for Vatican II.

Here's to living on hope in the triumph of the Immaculate Heart and the full restoration of the Mass of All Times. Hope is more than a dream.

Coitus Interruptus said...

shouldn't hope be brought into relation with some kind of realistic assessment of the chances that the object of one's hope may be realized?

for instance, i can devote myself to a life of mortal sin and still hope for my salvation. in fact, i ought ot to lose hope since that would itself be a sin. but certainly i have no good grounds to expect that, perservering in my present course, i will in fact be saved. hope requires only the most remote possibility.

sophia was commenting on the fact that some of the people on this blog were expressing expectations -the mass of all times will be restored and the novus ordo abolished, they said. certainly they are entitled to hope this, but sophia's point was that their expectations are myopic.

Anonymous said...

"the sociology of the church has changed."

Amen. Today's Catholic Church is not the same as pre-Vatican II, sociologically.

Adam Barnette said...

Sophia,

Your comment carries with it a strong sense of the democratization of the Church. We are fully aware that the majority of bishops, priests, religious and laity don't share our support for the return of traditional Catholicism. However, this has no bearing on the future.

If the Church were a democracy, where the majority ruled, your comment would be very incisive. However, the Church follows a monarchial pattern and liturgical, disciplinary, and all other changes are imposed by the Pope and the bishops in communion with him, with the assumption that complete fidelity to Tradition will be maintained in any changes.

If the majority of people in the Church don't desire a return to Tradition, they will have to either learn to (or at least begrudgingly go along with it) or decide to leave the Church. When we get a traditional Pope who fully applies his monarchial authority as Pope and, more specifically, as Roman Patriarch, we will see the restoration of the Church.

Anonymous said...

"Roman Patriarch". Interesting that Benedict XVI assumed power with the pledge of not taking out anything from tradition and one of his first acts was, with the strip of a pen, to blow away the title of Patriarch of the West for the Pope. Yes, power is being used to strip away, layer by layer, the essence of the Traditional papacy. Hum!

John L said...

The 'Roman patriarch' thing was a non-issue. The Pope cannot prevent himself being the Roman patriarch in the only interesting sense of that title, which is being the bishop of an apostolic see - of which there is only one in the Latin church; Rome. There was an idea current that the powers and prerogatives of the Pope stem to some extent from his having the canonical post of patriarch of the Latin church, but this is wrong; the traditional and theological basis for the power of the Pope is his being the Pope, i.e. the successor of Peter, which is what confers on him the universal jurisdiction referred to by Vatican I.

Chironomo said...

To get back to the actual POINT of this thread. Bertone's point may have been that there are those who think that the MP "only authorizes" a return to the pre-conciliar Rite, much like the indult did, whereas it actually changes (or perhaps clarifies?) the canonical situation of the Missal of 1962. In other words, the MP did not authorize a return to the Missal of 1962, but stated that the desire to make use of this Missal is, and has always been, totally lawful. This would be a refutation of those Bishops who would like to claim that the use of this Missal would only be to pacify those who were already attched to it, rather than the actual intention (I think) of having the TLM influence the future of the Church's liturgy.

Tiny Tim said...

There don't seem to be many women commenting on this blog. Perhaps none.

sophia said...

master barnette,

i don't except my musings will persuade you, but i can hope.

you concede that the overwhelming majority in the church - including most members of the hierarchy and the pope - does not share your views about the restoration of tradition and that they are committed to the reigning institutions (such as the novus ordo) which you would like to see overturned.

yet you conclude that "this has no bearing on the future." This is the kind of wild flight into fantasy that I am criticizing. What authorizes you to dismiss as completely irrelevant a set of facts that seem to be supremely relevant to making the right prediction in this case? You seem to substitute what you would like to be the case for what is likely to be the case.

Your argument is: The church is in essence a monarchy that imposes authentic tradition on itself through the papacy and the bishops in union with the pope.

First, this argument misunderstands the nature of monarchy as a kind of rule that governs without referece at all to the thoughts and desires of the people. Even the most absolute monarchy has never been able to do this in practice.

More importantly, why do you expect there will be a pope of tradition who will arise and impose tradition again on all the church? Why do you expect the cardinals, who do not share your views, to elect such a man? Why do you expect that the church would obey such a person were he - however unlikely - somehow to ascend to the thone of Peter?

Does not the best answer to all of these questions require some reference to the actual facts about the church today? Or is your view simply altogether prophetic - that somehow you know that, contrary to all appearances, what is truly unlikely is going to happen?

And what is the basis of this prophecy? Even if you are right that God prefers the old rite to the new, why are we not permitted to beleive that God will allow the church to have an inferior right fitting to its inferior spirituality and theology of today?

Is is possible that you have transfered some of your Christian hope for the future life into this world and this life, making it into the expectation of a future triumph here for the tradition you love?

sapiens said...

I wouldn't worry too much about this, folks. You have to expect some "on the one hand...on the other hand" rhetoric from the Vatican - in the interest of "balance". I imagine the document will 1. emphasise the continuing "ordinariness" of the new form while 2. making it clearer under what conditions the older form may be used, as well as tidying up doubts about readings in the vernacular, prefaces, new saints etc. The clarification document will take nothing away from the MP - it will clarify it. So relax.

Adam Barnette said...

I was under the impression that the titles "Patriarch of the West" and "Patriarch of Rome" were two distinct titles, with the former only being officially added to the Vatican yearbook in the late 19th century. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Coitus Interruptus said...

Adam,

If the opinions of the people who led the liturgical revolution had a bearing on the past - bringing in the Mass of Paul VI and the changes - why shouldn't we conclude that the majority that agrees with them will have a bearing on the future?

Your argument suffers from an obvious weakness: the counter-example of what happened in the sixties and thereafter.

Adam Barnette said...

"Is it possible that you have transferred some of your Christian hope for the future life into this world and this life, making it into the expectation of a future triumph here for the tradition you love?"

This is exactly what I've done. I do this because, in the Catholic Faith, the Kingdom of God is not seen as only a future goal, but as something that we are called to spread on the earth and which is incarnated in a special manner in the Church. Because of this belief, it is inevitable that the Church and her Tradition will triumph over all odds and that whatever afflicts her (currently the Second Vatican Council and the confusion emanating from it) will be overcome. Certainly, the restoration will not be easy, but a great hope motivates those of us involved in its progression. I pray that you come to share this hope and strengthen your confidence in the cause of Catholic Tradition.

Adam Barnette said...

Coitus Interruptus,

As I pointed out to Sophia, the cause of the restoration of the Church must take into account the Christian hope that comes from seeing the Church as the Kingdom of God. Ergo, our hope in once again finding a peaceful home in the Church Militant should be no less than our hope in inheriting a place in the Church Triumphant. Both examples of hope derive from our belief in the Kingdom of God, which motivates blessed hope in all Christians.

Besides, it should be noted that the actions of Pope Paul VI and others in the 1960s were unique events in the history of the Church. They derived from a misunderstanding of the role of the Pope, while forgetting that the Church has always seen the Papacy as the chief guardian of Sacred Tradition and not its replacement. Thankfully, the traditional movements in the Church have successfully restored a consciousness of the true nature of the Papacy in the minds of the traditional faithful, thus ensuring that a repeat of the '60s won't happen again.

Long-skirts said...

Adam said:
"...a great hope motivates those of us involved in its progression. I pray that you come to share this hope and strengthen your confidence in the cause of Catholic Tradition."

TRADITION

Tradition drives in cars
Through country and through city,
While Bishops shift in sand
And sink with souls, a pity.

Tradition flies in planes
From ocean coast to coast
Under Mary's mantle blue,
Our solitary boast.

Tradition travels far,
Twas all in Our Lord's plan
To preserve the Holy Faith
For woman and for man.

Tradition lives and moves,
The pews, the families fill,
While Bishops sink in sand...
Tradition takes the Hill

Quirinus said...

Folks,

Bertone is right on this. Here in Italy, some parish priests have begun to celebrate TLM exclusivley, while refusing to celebrate NO when requested. I understand the decades of sufferings, but this is crazy and suicidal AND contrary to SP. If you want to help liberals all you have to do is have some more of these oddballs providing ammo to certain bishops and media.

I think some comments here only prove that certain rad-trads are happy only when they are unhappy, and there is little else to make them happier than when they can criticize a bishop or a cardinal, shooting from the hip without checking facts. Why rejoice for something good and wise and help the Pope as one is able, when it's so comfy to win the daily sour-grapes award and spread the gloom. Sheesh..THAT will bring back orthodoxy and reverent liturgy, and win over hearts...

This is NOT about our itsy-bitsy "feelings", this is NOT about ME-ME-ME! Let's not reason like liberals who have elected themselves as Pope, CDF and Holy Spirit. Try to love the Church that actually exists and saves souls and not romanticized delusions that have always helped satan

Anonymous said...

"There was an idea current that the powers and prerogatives of the Pope stem to some extent from his having the canonical post of patriarch of the Latin church, but this is wrong; the traditional and theological basis for the power of the Pope is his being the Pope, i.e. the successor of Peter, which is what confers on him the universal jurisdiction referred to by Vatican I."

But this is a matter of education, not to take it out of the Vatican yearbook. This was a flop in Benedict's papacy.

Jordan Potter said...

Well, it looks like the adolescent Beavis-and-Butthead troll calling himself alternately by the Latin terms for copulation and contraceptive sexual activity is a lying jokester too. He has falsely posted this comment under my name:

jordan potter said...
on second thought, "Mr. C" (or should I say "Mr. I"?), what you wrote did bring some needed comic relief to what is threatening to become another rather humorless thread here on rorate-caeli . . .
29 December, 2007 21:53


Have your fun while you can, whoever you are . . . .

Anonymous said...

Adam,

Are you advancing the noble cause within the profession of substitute teaching? I imagine you have tremendous possibilities to influence the direction of the church in that capacity.

Anonymous said...

The whole idea of SP was to permit priests to celebrate TLM without hindrance. If priests wish to celebrate TLM exclusively that is their right under SP. It is not "crazy" lest you also judge Padre Pio who was determined NEVER to celebrate the NO novelty. Since when is it 'crazy' to exclusively love the 2000 year old Tradition of the Apostles over. 38 year old novelty that is clearly failing?

New Catholic said...

Quirinus said: "Bertone is right on this. Here in Italy, some parish priests have begun to celebrate TLM exclusivley, while refusing to celebrate NO when requested. I understand the decades of sufferings, but this is crazy and suicidal AND contrary to SP."

That is not correct, Quirinus. We have reported on this tiny incident in a small diocese in Italy; it is true that in the end a couple of priests refused to celebrate the new Mass. What happened to them and their congregations first is what matters in that case.

Indeed, even though the great majority of the faithful in those communities desired the Traditional Mass, as did their priests, the Bishop ordered not only that there should be one Traditional Mass every Sunday, but that it should be celebrated in late afternoon or early evening. If the "stably constituted groups of faithful" comprises almost an entire community, it is the obligation of the Bishop to show some (to use a favorite modern expression) "pastoral sensitivity", and not to try to impose the new Mass on unwilling communities. Summorum allows for such arrangements when it predicts the existence of exclusive personal parishes or chaplaincies - which would have been a much better solution for priests and faithful than trying to impose the new Mass as the main Mass on unwilling communities.

I do believe that Bertone is providing a typical diplomatic "balance" - though God truly knows what balance there may be between a herd of disobedient elephants and a couple of harmless bacteria...

B. said...

Sophia:
I agree with your reasoning that expecting the Church to turn around is a bit too much. Yet I also agree with those who think that the NO will vanish. The reason is simple. You write:
go out and actually meet the bishops, the priests, the people working in parishes and schools, etc. that's what we have to work with. they don't share your views, which are far from the operative status quo.
The thing is, if I do exactly that, what I see is that in 40 years from now there will be hardly any priests and bishops and even less people working in parishes and schools. Where should we expect them to come from?
I'm in my mid-20s and I do not know *one single person* (from school, friendhood, university,...) of my age that attends mass. If I go to my parish Church (or the neighbouring parish Church, or its neighbouring, etc.) what I will not find is *one single person* other than myself between 20 and 30. There'll be some people in their 30s and 40s, those are the parents of the children that have first communion that year.

So if I say, I expect a return to the TLM, I don't say I expect a glorious restoration of the Church. I expect a Church with the TLM and the significance and the membership of the Jehova's Witnesses, because that is exactly what I see when I go out on a normal sunday to a normal parish church in the middle of Europe. That is the reality of the new springtime.

Anonymous said...

All here are layman, as far as I can tell. What about the priest who, in conscience, cannot offer the post-conciliar Mass. He doesn't believe it's invalid, but he does believe it's deficient and/or the liturgical practices now permitted (eucharistic ministers, altar girls) are completely unacceptable to him. Should he be forced to say both forms of Mass?

benjoyce said...

It seems that all the inovations of the '60s were a big mistake. It appears that eventaully the Novus Ordo will go into the dustbin along with the "wacky" game twister.

Ben

Anonymous1 said...

Sophia writes:
'... go out and actually meet the bishops, the priests, the people working in parishes and schools, etc. that's what we have to work with. they don't share your views, which are far from the operative status quo.'

Been there, done that. Well, I haven't met the bishop, but I have met and spent time with the priests and people who are busy implementing their version of the "new springtime". Indeed, they do not share my views, which are, as Sophia correctly notes, very far from the operative status quo.

From a purely human standpoint, there is very little reason to be optimistic. I'm not optimistic. I have HOPE. I hope for the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and the restoration of the Traditional Mass as the one rite of the Roman Church. I hope, in short, for a miracle. Our Lady of Fatima calls us to precisely that kind of hope.

Anonymous1 said...

Regarding the hope described above, and back to the topic of the original article, it is evident that Cardinal Bertone does not hope for these things. That's the point.

Anonymous said...

The Novus Ordo was a 1960's era invention which was a tremendous failure practically from day One.
In 1967 it was presented to the Synod of Bishops for consideration before final approval. To a man, nearly all the Bishops at the Synod REJECTED the Novus Ordo as not even Catholic!!!! That Paul VI pushed it through anyway is a disgrace, not only on His papacy, but to the Church. The evil results that have come from it over 40 years are Paul VI's rewards.
I would not trust Cardinal Bertone, even if He is Secretary of State. He is not traditionally minded, but rather "Vatican II minded". Some people have accused him of having Papal ambitions. Let is hope not!!! Thank God he is already 73. I hope Benedict XVI lasts another 10 years, thus cancelling out the chances for Bertone, and other closet Vatican II cheerleaders out of the running.
The one good thing is all this, is that those who pushed for the Novus Ordo, those who cheered it, championed it, helped formulate even more deviations and experimentations in the name of Novus Ordo liturgical reform are all OLD MEN. Even the youngest of them are in their late 60's! (Piero Marini, etc.). There are very few rabidly pro-Novus Ordo, pro-Vatican II priests or religious younger than 50. That is the hope of the Church. The younger generation sees the disaster, sees the roots of the disaster (the Novus Ordo and all of Vatican II), and wants no part of it. They give it lip-service because they have to. But not for long.
If we get a Pope after Benedict XVI who is a rabid supporter of Vatican II and tries to quash the Tridentine Latin Mass and Catholic tradition, He would run the risk of a tremendous revolution against him and a split in the Church. That's how strongly the Tridentine Latin Mass has taken root in the Church even since September. So I think Cardinals of the mindset of Bertone, who are anti-Tradition Cardinals, are through.
Finally, notice how Bertone only mentioned how one tiny area misapplied the Moto Proprio in favor of tradition. He did not mention the thousands of cases where Bishops are rufsing to apply it at all, and are persecuting tradition.
I predict the "instruction" will come out more in favor of the Tridentine Latin Mass than against it....because that's the way the wind is blowing.
Bertone was just spouting off his mouth. Hopefully He'll look like a fool in the end.

Quirinus said...

New Catholic said: "That is not correct, Quirinus. We have reported on this tiny incident in a small diocese in Italy; it is true that in the end a couple of priests refused to celebrate the new Mass. What happened to them and their congregations first is what matters in that case."

exactly. And what happened, for instance, is that these guys didn't even wait for sept 14th to introduce the changes. What's the point in such a silly provocation? How is that not going to provide a legitimate if legalistic high ground to the predictable reaction of the average wishy-washy to modernist bishop and curia? Why announce in defiant tone that they were not going to say NO anymore no matter what? All they had to do was what liberals have done for decades with Magisterium: say "ok, we'll celebrate NO of course" and then go on with TLM starting on sept 14th, "ops! sorry, no requests for NO, but we'll say Latin NO as per Sacrosanctum Concilium and Missale Romanum, though, for the time being. Should we give a call to Card. Castrillon Hoyos to hear what he thinks of this, your excellency?". The difference would have been that they would be now be sincerely and unassailably WITHIN THE LAW, totally, unambiguously on our side for the first time in 40 years, with the Vatican able to back them on both legal and doctrinal level.

Also there isn't just Novara. There are other similar and even older episodes elsewhere. In case it isn't clear, I am no fan of Bertone's and I am all for a total return to TLM (and Mortalium Animos, and Pascendi and...), I don't even believe that a "tertium quid" is a realistic option, especially since modernist don't want an accomodation, but victory, and so do I. Yet I realize that it can't be done overnight. These things cannot just be done "ope legis" like in a totalitarian dream, that doesn't work. It takes years of reconstruction brick by brick. It takes years of prayer, action and sacrifices and men and the time to form them. Diktats are liberal delusions that only cause the disasters we've been witnessing all our liturgically devastated lives.

Folks, things are REALLY beginning to change and the good guys are slowly but surely gaining ground here in Rome (and it's largely due to 26 years of John Paul II, even if people who have almost never seen Rome but think they know everything about running the universal Church will hate to hear this). Believe me: only one thing hurts Benedict's daily work of restoration more than liberal theologians and disloyal bishops: the attitutde of certain rad-trads. All bishops have to do is say "see? these guys hate you more than they hate us, and there is no way to make them happy. AND they disobey you".

This is the time to be "prudentes sicut serpentes et simplices sicut columbae.", with an accent on the first part! And pray for the Holy Father. If people only knew what he has to endure every day in terms of disloyalty, hatred and turf wars by people who just can't believe that Bugnini is dead and Marini's gone and Martini isn't the Pope.

New Catholic said...

Quirinus,

Cold you please e-mail us at
newcatholic AT gmail DOT com ?

schoolman said...

Quirinus, I think you make a really valid point. There is a certain segment of "radTrads" that do much more harm than good for any hope of true reform. The Novara priests have, in my opinion, given an example of a severe lack of prudence and only supply progressive bishops with the amunition they are looking for. There are subtle ways to sideline the OF in favor of the EF without giving the impression of rejecting the OF in "principle". We all need to keep our heads as we navigate through this Benedictine reform.

Anonymous said...

I guess clarification is needed to pull in the reins of those with agendas who wish to misinterpret SP/MP for their own ends.
It is clearly written but the "spin" will always be there by men of ill-will.
Some Bishops are ignoring MP/SP. The only thing these rebellious bishops are inviting is that WE in turn ignore THEM.

MOPS