Reform at Ecclesia Dei?
Pontifical Commission downgraded?
Excerpt of a report in the current issue of French magazine Monde et Vie, on rumors regarding a reform of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei:
The pope wishes to use the nomination of his right-hand man [Cardinal Cañizares Llovera] at the helm of the Congregation for Divine Worship [as a means] to profoundly reorganize the Ecclesia Dei Commission, where Cardinal Cañizares is already a member. According to the rumor, which seems to be just backstage gossip, Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos, who has surpassed the age limit for a long time, would cede his place to his current second, Mgr. Camille Perl, a personal friend to Pope Ratzinger, who would be consecrated a bishop for the event.
And the Commission would then be attached to the Congregation for Divine Worship, bearing responsibility, within a dicastery, for the Traditional form of the Roman rite, under the patronage of Cardinal Cañizares. [...] This means, at any rate, that the Ecclesia Dei Commission is placed within the ecclesial landscape. [Rorate Note: And where is the commission now? Outside the Church?]
Besides, its supposed man in charge, Mgr. Perl, is certainly the one in Rome who knows the Traditionalist world best, its twists, its turns, or its detours. He has had the Pope's ears for a long time. In more than one occasion, his diplomacy has done wonders.
__________
Tip: Le Salon Beige.
Tip: Le Salon Beige.
posted by New Catholic at 11:04 AM
37 Comments:
Odd. This blog places this in a negetive light, the NLM places the news in a positive light!
I see this as an up-grade not a down-grade. Ecclesia Dei is being compined with the CDW because now it's a part of the mainstreem. After all it concerns divine worship, no?
I think readers should not be alarmed but happy as this places the work of the Commission not on a special level as it has been but as regular everyday Church business for the Congregation to handle. In other words, it is normal and not "extrordinary". I would compare it to giving the treatise on the Blessed Virgin Mary the Eighth Chapter of "Lumen Gentium" rather than a document extrinsic to the Constituion on the Church. She is not an after thought, She is part and parcel of what the Church is. So, too, the Reform of the Liturgy and its Restoration, can be here likened to regular Church and sacramental business and not just at the "whim" of this or that Pope, as some would have it. So, I think this gives us cause to rejoice rather than to weep. Take this in conjunction with all that has ensued since the "Motu Proprio" was promoted by His Holiness, this should give us cause for hope and joy. Viva il Papa!
Rev. Fr. Héctor R.G. Pérez y Robles, STD
St. Stephen Roman Catholic Church
Pensacola Forida, USA
It is not a "negative" view, but a realistic one; but the risks of placing the commission responsible for the Traditional Roman Rite under the umbrella of the Congregation responsible for the overwhelmingly more numerous and dominant new Roman Rite are staggering. The "mutual influence" between both "Forms", which has already weighed more heavily on the Traditional Rite since 1988 than any influence in the other direction (since the "Reform of the Reform" still remains mostly dependent on the preferences of each celebrant), may reach alarming levels.
In any event, these are just rumors, and Cardinal Castrillón's mission is not yet complete.
It certainly will not be an "upgrade", since the commission, as it is currently placed in the structure of the Roman Curia, is directly connected to the Holy Father, and always headed by a Cardinal (an old or retired Cardinal is still a Cardinal), not another subsection of a large dicastery, and indirectly linked to the Holy Father through its head and his superior, the Prefect of CDW. It is true that the staff of Ecclesia Dei is still diminute - but there is no need to integrate it to a larger dicastery in order for this problem to be solved. And, while this arrangement may work under the current Prefect and the current Pope, the return of the radical Bugninists to the helm of CDW would not be a surprise - and would ruin the integrated Ecclesia Dei. Many Bugninists, it should be remembered, still hold extremely important positions at Divine Worship. We apologize for not wearing the famous pink glasses.
I think we can trust that Cardinal Canizares will make short order of these Bugninists.
Like many others I understand the danger inherent in "mutual influence" for the traditional rites. But I believe the influence is going to be very slight and I can't see how it won't be worth it in terms of making the Usus Antiquior a part of the Church's everyday life.
I truly hope this happens. It would be a powerful sign of Divine justice. Anyone who has read Archbishop (the former) Marini's book knows first hand- as they admit- that the post-conciliar reforms of the Sacred Liturgy were hijacked as the work of the Congregation of Rites was given to a fabricated committee-the well-known consilium. As Cardinal Ratzinger has stated, this has never happened in the history of the Church. How can the Council's call for a renewal within continuity be answered not authoritatively by one of her Congregations entrusted with Divine Worship- but a small committee of so-called "experts"??? Now, 40 years later, how appropriate it would be for (what is in one way) the separate "committee" Ecclesia Dei (with totally opposite goals that the former Consilium had) to be rejoined to the Sacred Congregation of Divine Worship! Then, starting afresh- and both being on the same page- the Congregation rightly entrusted with the governance of the Church's Sacred Liturgy could authoritatively answer the Council's call in light of the Tradition and the hermeneutic of Continuity. This sounds like a big part of what Fr. Z calls the Holy Father's "Marshall Plan". Così sia.
"I think we can trust that Cardinal Canizares will make short order of these Bugninists."
As I had said, there is not much doubt that the rumored situation could work under the current Pope and the current Prefect of Divine Worship. But the liturgical revolutionaries remain there, and they are patient, as they were for 50 years before the reforms of the 1950-1970 period. A Bugninist Prefect in a future pontificate will enjoy having Ecclesia Dei fully under his leadership.
I don't see this as an upgrade or a downgrade. I think it brings matters into a much more realistic and streamlined situation. Is PCED outside the Church? No, but it seems to be an "alter Vaticanus". It almost seems as though the the CDW governs the Divine Worship of the Ordinary Form and the PCED governs the Divine Worship of the Extraordinary Form, which makes it seem like the Extraordinary Form is still the red-headed stepchild. I think this legitimizes the Extraordinary Form as a part of the "mainstream" Church, not something that needs it's own commission. With that said, there are a number of major concerns that need to be hammered out that this could help. Namely, the reconciling of the calendar. Like I said, this isn't an upgrade or downgrade...this seems to me like an attempt to streamline bureaucracy and legitimize PCED to those who are STILL challenging the extraordinary form.
How does one 'LEGITIMIZE' a pontifical commission. I don't know but I can tell you how to castrate one and that's by making it a section of another dicastery.
Can anyone here name a section of the CDWDS? Can anyone tell me the last time that the CDWDS took action to stop an abuse on the ground or to start a reform on the ground (other than issuing a stern letter)? Then again, did the PCED do that either?
Here's a suggestion - this is another example of government by leaks. SP was exactly the same. Get the opposition over with before the decision. Save our Pontifical Commission. It wasn't much but it was all our own.
Could you take a little time to look at our blog. This news deserves to be broadcast. Maybe you could put up a post about it. The original website is in French. A link to it is on this post:
http://tradvocations.blogspot.com/2009/01/little-sisters-of-good-shepherd.html
Anonymous,
No, Ecclesia Dei wasn't "all your own"--it's the Church's.
sacristy-rat,
You say NLM places this in a positive light?
From NLM: "the intgeration would also bring a number of curial officials experienced in the questions of the usus antiquior into the CDW, where still many officials have very little knowledge of it and are sometimes completely unaware of its content and rubrics."
So, the people who "have very little knowledge of it (the usus antiquior) and are sometimes completely unaware of its content and rubrics" will be in charge. Hardly sounds like a positive development to me.
"Save our Pontifical Commission. It wasn't much but it was all our own."
This is an example of the other side that I think this move is meant to squash; the idea that PCED was the lone voice of reason. It's all we have.
It is mere speculation, but I think it is the hope of the Holy Father to bring the two forms together, not continue them as exclusive of each other.
There is also a very difficult matter of authority. Who exercises authority over the extraordinary form Masses? the CDW? PCED? For example, take the transfer of feasts (a tragedy in my opinion, but a good example): Why is it, in a diocese where Epiphany is celebrated on the Sunday between January 2 and 8, those using the calendar of 1962 can use either the traditional feast day, or celebrate it on the Sunday between January 2 and 8, but those priests celebrating the Ordinary Form are bound to the Sunday celebration? It has come to a point that extraordinary form communities seek recourse only to PCED while ordinary form communities go through the ordinary and CDW. How much sense does that really make?
What bothers me about this rumored change is the effect it may have on the FSSPX and the removal of the excommunications and suspensions levied against them. On the one hand they were dealing with Cardinal Hoyos at a level almost directly below the papacy itself.
Now, it seems they will be left to deal with an adjunct to a dicastery whose power structure is in the hands of the modernists at least for the most part.
Is this another way of saying the negotiations with the FSSPX are ended and there is no further room for discussion? It's hard for me to see this as a positive sign.
Msgr. Perl in charge of the Commission is the fox in charge of the henhouse. He has sought to undermine the Traditional Roman Rite for twenty years. His own stated goal is to reintegrate Traditionalists into the current Novus Ordo. His promotion would be a world-wide disaster.
Unless he has undergone a conversion of heart, I can vouch for this from first-hand knowledge.
Having been denied the gift of prophecy I am uncertain whether or not this will be a good thing in the long term - like other I have some reservations but time will tell. However I do think this is a prelude to addressing some of the pressing liturgical issues which are important to Pope Benedict, e.g. the oft-mentioned calendar.
There is really no need for the P.C.E.D. to be absorbed into the C.D.W. if the goal is simply to baby-step the 1962 Missal toward 1965 or even 1970. However, if any serious attempt at improving the O.F. is envisaged it is difficult to imagine the E.F. exercising the desired "gravitational pull" if it's advocates are not part of the congregation charged with the work.
Maynardus said, no cause for alarm "...if the goal is simply to baby-step the 1962 Missal toward 1965 or even 1970."
Babysteps to hell.
"Baby Steps to Hell"
I see that there is no need for this conversation to continue. I love the extraordinary form and have criticized the ordinary form, but if this forum or members of this discussion are going to equate the use of the ordinary form, even when done properly, to incurring damnation, I prefer to extricate myself from the conversation.
I hope we see now that their put in the mainstream that Father John Berg or Father Bisig will be considered for diocesan bishops
In re: "Babysteps", I'd hope "anonymous" would do us the courtesy of refraining from putting words in the mouths of others and actually *reading* posts before dispensing his magisterial judgments in this forum.
The plain language of my post is not that that there is "no cause for alarm" - rather it is that *IF* in fact the intention *IS* to follow such a course (the now-notorious "baby steps" toward '65 or '70) it *COULD* be done without bothering to incorporate the P.C.E.D. into the C.D.W. Thus, my opinion is that this change *IF TRUE* is logically for a different purpose.
Rose-colored glasses distort reality - so does paranoia!
"I hope we see now that their put in the mainstream that Father John Berg or Father Bisig will be considered for diocesan bishops."
Anonymous, I've been hoping for that for a long time. Consecrate two FSSP priests as bishops (using the traditional ceremony), so they can do ordinations at the two FSSP seminaries. Also, they would be able to consecrate additional trad bishops, with Rome's approval.
If the rumor is true, then Mr. Haley is certainly right that the Vatican is writing off any further efforts to reconcile the SSPX -- other than keeping an eye out for an opportunity to get the SSPX leadership to sell out its principles, after the example of Bishop Rifan. Msgr. Perl of course has not an ounce of sympathy for the traditional Mass.
But it should be noted that the Vatican really has never done anything much to reconcile the SSPX. Cardinal Hoyos has been kept on to try to do another Rifan if he can, but the real focus has been on trying to use the indultist branch of tradition to limit the impact of the SSPX, and if possible eventually to defeat it. The 2007 motu proprio can fairly be viewed as a significant tactical change in that exercise, but no more than a tactical change; the indultists have just been converted into motuists. The MP does make it impossible to choke off the traditional Mass entirely as long as some priests wish to say it and are prepared to pay the price of doing so; but it is perfectly consistent with a campaign to gradually absorb most traditionalists into a reform of the reform, which is clearly what Pope Benedict has in mind.
I continue to be amazed that almost none of the indultists turned motuists hold it against the Vatican that for nearly twenty years it in effect lied to them about the status of the traditional Mass, or reacted to the Pope's ordinary-extraordinary-form-of-the-same-rite notion with anything but hoots of derision. But I suppose that if they weren't easily fast-shuffled, they'd long since have gone to the SSPX.
John Mcfarland states
"I continue to be amazed that almost none of the indultists turned motuists hold it against the Vatican that for nearly twenty years it in effect lied to them about the status of the traditional Mass, or reacted to the Pope's ordinary-extraordinary-form-of-the-same-rite notion with anything but hoots of derision. But I suppose that if they weren't easily fast-shuffled, they'd long since have gone to the SSPX."
You ae incorrect. First just because I do not go to a SSPX Chapel does not make me an "indultist" (what-ever that is). I attend the Traditional Latin Mass several times every week and it is as Traditional as any SSPX Mass I have attended. I know many of my fellow Traditional Catholics are not happy with what has been denied them for forty years (not twenty) but we must move on and be thankful that the Bugninists did not completely win. After the MP came out a very wise young SSPX Priest gave a sermon on Bitter Zeal and warned us not to practice it. He is correct. I do believe that the Pope should make a public apology to us all as well as our local Bishops but that will probably not happen. We should be thankful that we were given the Graces to stay with the TLM and offer everything else up for our salvation.
Perhaps the Pope will lift the SSPX excommunications and sanctions before the reform of the Ecclesia Dei.
I think that those who are disapproving of this rumor need to have a little more faith in the Mass. It conquers all!!!
All will be ok either way.
Attn. to Gabrille:
I am an SSPX advvocate who happens to attend the Indult Mass more frequently because of distance. it appears that you are an Indulter who happens on occasion to attend the SSPX Mass. On average there is much more variance around the U.S.
with the Indult Mass.
You indicate being thankful that Bugnini did not completely win. I would hope you give thanks that God sent Archbishop Lefebvre to fight for Tradition which has allowed you the opportunity to attend the Indult Mass. It was
established to counter the success of the SSPX but God had other plans.
The reason I remain loyal to the SSPX is that it does things to uphold truth regardless of the cost. Even the cost of obedience to the Holy See when it is wrong. The position of the SSPX on the Mass never faltered while many in the hierarchy lied about the status of it. Even today the carrot of "Full Communion" is held out if only the SSPX accepts the reforms. What is partial communion
anyway? Partial grace? It is ridiculous.
I remember many years ago in Rome during the pontificate of John Paul II that a church was lent to the Lutherans for the installation of one of their Bishops. Outside of the church there was a prcession of protest that was conducted by the SSPX. Do you think it was approprite do so?
Do you think the FSSP or the order of Christ The King will ever risk doing the same? How about the SSPX protest a couple of years ago in the Twin Cities, MN when a church was to be used by Budhists? The reason why Orders inspired by Ecclesia Dei will not be present at any such protests is that their main priority is obedience to the
Holy See, no matter what. The SSPX congregation entered the church and continually recited the Rosary to the consternation of the Pastor til the Buddhists gave up. You will not see an FSSP congregation do likewise because they will be dissolved by the Diocesan Bishop.
I believe there is a difference.
Please pray for me as I will for you.
A.M LaPietra
Attn: A.M LaPietra
For the record there is no such thing as an Indult Mass and that is why myself and every other Traditional Catholic that do not go to the SSPX Chapels cannot be called indultist. I have the utmost respect and will be forever grateful to Archbishop Lefebvre and was fortunate to have met him twice but the legacy he has left sometimes leaves a lot to be desired. Yes the SSPX do some wonderful things that I fully support but unfortunately those wonderful things are then spoilt by some of the most hateful things they say and write. A good example of this is the disgusting way that the some of their Bishops, Priests and faithful have treated the Transalpine Redemptorists and any other Traditional Catholic that are not one of their faithful. The hateful lies that were told about the TR's and are still being told about them is certainly not Catholic, or not the Catholic Faith I was brought up in. The SSPX must realise that they do not have a monopoly on Tradition.
I also remind you that we are not in the pontificate of John Paul II and things have changed for the better and it time to support the Holy Father instead of continually criticising him.
First of all, we need to remember that this is still just a rumor. The most important thing to remember, however, is that the Holy Father is the Vicar of Christ on earth. We should support him and realize that he, as Vicar of Christ, not any of us privately but only in "communion wiht the Vicar of Christ," has the guarantee of the Hoy Spirit.And ultimately, the Holy Spirit is in charge. One of the things that has continually set the so-called Traditionalist movement back in the Church is the almost incessant fighting and back biting that the Devil uses to divide and conquer us. That is how he Bugninists acquired so much power. We need to stop this and get behind the Pope. We need to row in the same direction instead of every which way and just creating a maelstrom. Let us pray for the Pope and then let us get behind whatever he decides.
Gabrielle, in your response to A.M LaPietra, you did not respond to the main points of that post, which were expressed in the final two paragraphs. I do not know as much about these matters as the two of you appear to know, but those points struck me as worthy of response.
That you chose to respond to A.M. LaPietra's post but failed to respond to the main points raised in that post (instead trying to change the focus to what you consider to be "hateful things they say and write"), leaves me wondering whether perhaps A.M. LaPietra's points are valid.
Anonymous
I did no respond as I did not feel it needed a response. I was not there and know nothing about it. I cannot speak for the FSSP as I do not have much to do with them and do not know what their reaction would be. But we must be careful that we are not rash judging anyone. I do know Traditional Catholic that have protested against a wrong in their Cathedral and I was one of them and it had nothing to do with the SSPX. A M La Pietra stated these things were done in the time of JP.II. We all agree some bad things were done then and maybe they will be in the future but there is also many good things being done under Pope Benedict and it is time we gave him some credit. I do not believe he would allow these things to go on. As I said, the SSPX do some wonderful things and I would be right there beside them, along with many Traditional Catholics, but then they spoil it by fortgetting about the virtue of Charity.
"According to the rumor, which seems to be little more than backstage gossip..."
All of this, admittedly by the publication itself with its own leftist motives, is sheer speculation. Why are we even discussing it? May be completely made up by a few journalists to stir up trouble, would not be the first time.
Gabrielle,
I'm somewhat surprised that a serious traditionalist like you doesn't know what "indultist" means. From the early 80s until 2007, the Vatican implicitly maintained that one needed permission to say the traditional Mass, by establishing an indult under which, subject to certain conditions (most notably the acceptance of Vatican II), the traditional Mass could be said. An indult is the canonical term for permission to do something that otherwise would not be permitted. In 1988, the major figures of the Curia (including then Cardinal Ratzinger) met and agreed all but unanimously that the traditional Mass had not been abrogated or superseded by the new Mass, and that no priest could be forbidden to say the traditional Mass. But this fact (which of course was identical with that the SSPX has been saying all along) was hushed up, and the Vatican continued to brazen it out even after Cardinal Stickler, the eminent liturgist who had been part of the 1988 session, let the cat out of the bag in 1991. During that whole period, an "indultist" was one who believed that he could only attend a traditional Mass offered under the Vatican indult, and believed that because the Vatican suppressed the truth that the Vatican iself had arrived at in 1988.
But the chief point is not the word. The chief point is that the faithful were deliberately deceived through that entire period.
The deceit ended with the 2007 motu proprio. Or did it? For nearly twenty years, the current Pope went along with the deceit. Can we be sure that he's being altogether candid with us now?
For example, how can one accept the Pope's statement that the new Mass and the traditional Mass are two "forms" of the same rite? As the creators of the new Mass made abundantly clear, it was meant to replace the traditional Mass; Pope Paul just thought that he could get the job done by just giving the impression that the traditional Mass had been eliminated, without actually doing anything canonically to eliminate it. Can the Pope just change history by saying it?
Similarly: what makes the new Mass "ordinary" and the traditional Mass "extraordinary"? The answer is that the Pope just said that they were, without even attempting an explanation, so that he could seem to free the traditional Mass without annoying the bishop's conferences, which of course are all dead set against any real freedom. Perhaps he figured that the former indultists would be so happy at their transformation into motuists (those who believe that with the motu proprio, the Pope is On Our Side and we're pretty much over the hump) that they wouldn't notice. If so, he was dead right.
To note these things has nothing to do with bitter zeal. It is a matter of simple prudence: once burned, twice shy.
Dear Marty,
There is no more dangerous notion than that the Mass conquers all.
The Mass is the Mass of our faith. Without faith it is impossible to please God, or for the Mass to profit us anything.
The Vatican's day-to-day magisterium is a deficient and adulterated version of the true faith. Until the Vatican's magisterium returns to teaching the faith of all time, the broadest freedom for the Mass of all time will profit the Church as a whole very little.
Furthermore, until that return comes, the notion that there will be real freedom for the traditional Mass is a delusion. The only reasonable thing for the Church of Vatican II to do with the traditional Mass is to find some way of getting rid of it, or absorbing it into a more conservative version of the new Mass, or at least making sure that it remains the quirk of a relative few eccentrics.
Dear Mr. McFarland,
Thank you so much for your explicit explanation of the "Indult
Mass" realities. I didn't believe that I expressed any bitterness in my post describing what I believed to be the difference between the SSPX and other Traditional groups.
I have been at odds with one of their priests who thought that I should attend their Mass rather than the Indult Mass. It didn't prevent me from making a generous donation to his church. The reason is, no SSPX, no Indult Mass. Referring to it as the Motu Proprio
Mass or Extraordinary Form hides the reality of history. To me this should not be forgotten since we are still in a profound battle for the rights of the Tridentine Rite.
Thanks for many of you good posts,
A.M.LaPietra
Reality dawns on people who know the difference between the rite of the old order (aka the Church) and the rite of the new order (aka Newchurch). Modern Rome always seeks to bury the old rite even if she uses it in some places as a tactic to out-manoeuvre those who would have nothing to do with the new rite or its promoters. But then how can she do otherwise? One is a contradiction of the other. Those who are fooled by Motu Proprio reside in a no-man's land, believing that somehow by magic the old will suddenly replace the new. Or maybe they have given up on that prospect and are happy to rely on just appearances. This would make their church another protestant one with some pleasing traditional touches.
That the Ecclesia Dei commission is to be part of the Congregation of Divine Worship is a good thing, as it shows that the Old Rite has been firmly integrated in the normal life of the Church.
But is Mgr. Perl a good choice as a successor to cardinal Castrillon Hoyos? he was placed many years ago as secretary of the commission for no clear reason, but has never really been a loyal friend to the Traditional rite; it has been quite clear during all his tenure that all his wishes are towards 1965 as a stepping stone to a more or less reformed Novus Ordo.
He has constantly advocated (and also obtained) changes to the rite, the calendar, etc., has blandly accepted and furthered Card. Tettamanzi's contention that the Motu Proprio does not concern the Ambrosian rite, but only the Roman rite, has clearly favoured those institutes which are willing to concelebrate and celebrate the Novus Ordo, etc.
In all the years he has been de facto in charge at Ecclesia Dei, as with the exception of card.Mayer, the cardinals who succeeded him were aged, or uninterested, he has had wide space for action, but there has never been any incisive, concrete action in favour of the Old Rite. Things have changed dramatically for the better only with the arrival of Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, who has done more in the relatively short time he has been at the head of the Commission than Mgr. Perl in twenty years.
Mgr Perl has, it is true, often helped individual priests, but has been generally been unreliable, advocating one course of action and then changing his mind, so putting those who had followed his advice in difficult and untenable positions.
That he is to be made a bishop and succeed Card. Castrillon Hoyos would also mean that the Holy See has abandoned talks with the SSPX, as he is well known and distrusted by them, and it is known that his consecration as a bishop would be the end of talks with them.
Frankly I hope that the rumour of his promotion remains a rumour!
I am with anon. Perl's public statements, pronouncements and actions speak for themselves, in addition to the fact that he is not on that level.
Post a Comment
<< Home