Rorate Caeli

Archbishop of Paris to celebrate Traditional Mass

It is true: as reported elsewhere, at the High Mass (according to the Missal of 1962) celebrated at Saint-Germain l'Auxerrois every Sunday, a special guest will be present at the altar this Sunday - the Archbishop of Paris, Cardinal Vingt-Trois, who never was a great friend of the motu proprio

22 comments:

David said...

Deo gratias!

Let's all be sure to pray for the Cardinal, that whatever grace brought him to this will continue to draw him closer to Tradition.

thetimman said...

Missa Et ecce terrae motus?

Flambeaux said...

Deo gratias!

Anonymous said...

Huge! This is gigantic! Praise be to God!!

Anonymous said...

His Eminence will also celebrate a Pontifical High Mass at Saint-Eugène on the fourth of January.

Anonymous said...

Now, if this super liberal Cardinal can publicly say a Traditional Mass, there is no reason preventing the Pope from doing so.

Londiniensis said...

Remember that in France the SSPX, and by association traditionalism, carries the bag and baggage of Vichy and the Action Francaise. It is the shame of this, rather than hate of the Tridentine liturgy, that lurks in the subconscious of a whole generation of contemporary French churchmen and colours their acceptance of the new Benedictine reforms.

We must pray for the eldest daughter of the Church and applaud the Cardinal.

Anonymous said...

The form of Mass that the Popes celebrated up until the liturgical forms of Paul VI were more than the Pontifical Mass, and required all sorts of things that just don't exist anymore - for example the extensive Papal Courts, etc. So I do not doubt the Holy Father's desire to publically celebrate the extraordinary form, it probably will be only possible for him to attend in choir at this point in time.

Anonymous said...

I wasn't aware that hell had frozen over.

Anonymous said...

NOW WHEN IS THE HOLY FATHER GOING TO DO IT??

Syriacus said...

The fact is, in my humble opinion, that this Cardinal is not a typical arch-liberal, but rather is an epitome of the worst 'neocon' attitude towards 'trads' !

New Catholic said...

By the way, thank you once again, Syriacus - for having sent us this most interesting bit of news.

Michael R. said...

"The form of Mass that the Popes celebrated up until the liturgical forms of Paul VI were more than the Pontifical Mass, and required all sorts of things that just don't exist anymore - for example the extensive Papal Courts, etc. So I do not doubt the Holy Father's desire to publically celebrate the extraordinary form, it probably will be only possible for him to attend in choir at this point in time."

But that is insane. If these things no longer exist and cannot conveniently be revived, what is wrong with the Pope celebrating a Pontifical Mass just as any other bishop can do? Necessity knows no law.

Anonymous said...

He is a true liberal --- he'll accept the Traditional Latin Mass, modern liturgies, teen liturgies, etc. all in the name of pluralism. It's just like Bishop Fellay called Pope Benedict XVI a true liberal --- the allowance of everything possible.

Anonymous said...

How anyone can have think this is an appropriate time for name calling is beyond me. It's idiotic. Thank God for our Pope. If you have a problem with him or are suspicious of the Cardinal's motives keep silent and pray for them.

Anonymous said...

Dear Anonymous 13 December, 2008 22:57:

Silence is consent! The modernists will certainly do anything to destroy the real Catholics. This is all a show. And you can take it to the bank! This is simply another ploy to silence tradition.

Tom S. said...

I find it impossible to believe that the Pope is bound to celebrate mass according to all of the traditions that existed prior to 1964. Surely he, being Pope, can decide which accoutrements he wants or needs, and which he can do without. I am no Canonist, or even historian, but this is just common sense. The Pope should be able to jsut say "I'm the Pope, and this is what I choose to do".

Also, surely every public mass every Pope celebrated in all the centuries prior to Paul VI was complete with "all the trimmings". If a Pope was on vacation, or even a trip, to another country, surely he didn't bring the whole court, entourage, throne, flabella, and everything else along.

Syriacus said...

Yes, he did!


See:

http://www.leforumcatholique.org/message.php?num=453105

Athanasius said...

I find it impossible to believe that the Pope is bound to celebrate mass according to all of the traditions that existed prior to 1964. Surely he, being Pope, can decide which accoutrements he wants or needs, and which he can do without. I am no Canonist, or even historian, but this is just common sense. The Pope should be able to jsut say "I'm the Pope, and this is what I choose to do".

In terms of Law, there is nothing stopping the Pope from amending the Ceremoniale Episcoporum for the purpose of celebrating a Solemn Pontifical High Mass without the papal court. Moreover there is nothing stopping the Pope from just doing it. There is a principle in Canon Law, and it likewise follows for liturgical law, the first law is the salvation of souls. Thus the grace which flows from the rites of the Church is more important than small technical details that are not truly relevant to the celebration of the sacrament. For example, if one is just beginning a Traditional Latin Mass community somewhere, and he does not have an aspergilum, or during Lent there is no purple cope, does one omit the sprinkling rite which is a source of grace? No, the priest can use a holy water bottle at need, and he can omit the cope. What if the priest does not have a maniple? He may celebrate Mass without one until he gets one (provided he is not simply saying I don't want one). Likewise if a small Church does not have a canopy or an umbraculum, must they omit the stripping of the altars on Maundy Thursday? Certainly not, because the grace which flows from these rites and the edification of the faithful is more important than the technical furnishings, items, or the presence of certain ministers which are not intrinsically necessary for the effusion of grace or the accomplishment of the sacrament.

A far more obvious example is the Missa Cantata. Its evolution is this very principle put into effect. You don't have either a deacon and subdeacon or two priests? Fine, the Church allows one to carry on the High Mass with only a priest and the MC will assume many of the deacon's parts. The ceremony for a Sung Mass omits very little from High Mass, even to the point of tolerating incense when it was technically against the rubrics (until 1958). Anyone who makes extensive study of ceremonials from pre-1962 will be shocked to see that the Bishop's ceremonial as well as the common estimation of liturgists generally required the MC at a Missa Cantata to be a cleric in minor orders, not to mention they lean heavily toward one server for Low Mass who is also a cleric.

Look now at the normative Traditional Mass not only in this country but in Europe. The normative High Mass has become the Missa Cantata rather than the Solemn Mass, (something which would have scandalized Pope St. Pius X), and the normative practice is to have altar servers who are laymen who have never been tonsured, often all young boys. No one suggests we should not do these ceremonies or that we ought to drop the Missa Cantata, because its use provides grace to the faithful, provided the bear minimum that is necessary is available, following the principle that it provides grace, and the first law is the salvation of souls.

Moreover, the Papal Court, and the other elements of the Papal Solemn Mass, are neither necessary for validity nor even for the proper celebration of a pontifical Mass, and while good and beautiful, and something which ought to be restored, there is simply no good reason for the Pope not to offer a pontifical High Mass in the meantime simply because he doesn't have the papal court. Since the Pope is above canon law in his authority, there is simply no good reason which the Pope can not set it aside in light of modern circumstances. There is no good reason from the standpoint of the salvation of souls and the good for the Church that would result from a Papal pontifical High Mass that the Pope ought not do it. Let us pray for the grace unleashed by the Motu Proprio (in spite of its flaws) to continue to work in the life of the Church.

John McFarland said...

Londiniensis,

The shame of Action Francaise? AF was an organization consisting mostly of Catholics but headed up by atheists who were prepared to make common cause with the Catholics. On the other hand, the Third Republic was headed up by the Church's deadly enemies. The net effect of the condemnation of AF was the beginning of the end of Catholic France: since all the monarchists in the French Church were purged or marginalized -- or, like Cardinal Billot, quit in disgust --, the hierarchy went to the bad guys by default.

The shame of Vichy? How about the shame of the U.S. and England collaborating with Stalin? How about the shame of the Epuration, when something like 100,000 Frenchmen were killed, most of them for nothing worse than an active dislike of the Third Republic? And how about the shame of Charles de Gaulle's complicity in the Epuration, not to mention his collaboration with the Church's deadly enemies of the Third Republic?

You're quite right that the French episcopacy's hatred of the traditional Mass and Archbishop Lefebvre is tied up with politics. But the politics in their case is the politics of the French Revolution, and that -- as Archbishop Lefebvre pointed out so effectively for those with ears to hear -- is not compatible with the doctrine of the Church. On Judgment Day, we'll see how the Lord judges between Archbishop Lefebvre and his cousin the late Cardinal Archbishop of Bourges, who used to come to him from the French episcopate to tell His Grace that as regards him, the fifth injunction of the Lord's Prayer was inapplicable.

Anonymous said...

As far as I can tell (and by no means am I any sort of authority in the church) I see nothing wrong with this action by the Archbishop.

As far as the Ecclesia Dei (an organization set up by the Pope) is concerned there is no real schism with the SSPX movement. In fact the priests, sisters, deacons, and brothers all ordained in the SSPX movement are vaild ordinations. However, the real friction is between the bishops of the Roman Catholic Church and the bishops of SSPX. The dispute is considered an internal matter of the Catholic Church. There is no sin or penalty with someone atending mass at a SSPX chapel.

Since 2007 priests have been able to say Catholic Masses in the latin rite without approval of a bishop.

Now in the very near future (end of 2009 or so) we will have the new mass translations in place (In the USA anyway)which brings the "main stream" Catholic mass back toward the more traditional latin rite anyway......SO I think its time for RECONCILIATION with the members of SSPX. A house divided against itself will not be able to stand.

Anonymous said...

The Mass of the SSPX is the ONLY Mass I will ever attend.To me,the novus ordo is an aberration I refuse to accept.