THE HEAD of the Vatican’s Ecclesia Dei commission has reprimanded the Archbishop of Manila, Cardinal Gaudencio Rosales, for setting “unduly restrictive” conditions on use of the Tridentine Mass, saying they were “in direct contradiction” to the wishes of Pope Benedict XVI.
“Your ‘Archdiocesan Guidelines’ are simply not acceptable as they stand and I ask you to reconsider them,” said the Ecclesia Dei president, Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos, in a letter dated 6 March and seen by The Tablet this week. It said “guidelines allowing only a monthly Mass in a chapel of [the] Metropolitan Cathedral” were in violation of the norms established in the motu proprio, “Summorum Pontificum”, issued by the Pope in 2007 for the widespread use of the Tridentine Mass. Cardinal Castrillón said the papal decree was “part of the universal law of the Church” and could not be limited by the “particular law” of a diocesan bishop. The Archdiocese of Manila ministers to more than 2.8 million Catholics.
“There is simply no legitimate reason why this [Tridentine] Mass cannot and should not be celebrated in any church or chapel of your archdiocese,” Cardinal Castrillón said in his letter to the Archbishop of Manila.
He insisted that Cardinal Rosales actively promote the implementation of the motu proprio by “helping priests who are desirous to learn how to celebrate” the old rite Mass, which he said only required that the priest be “reasonably competent in Latin”, and that there were faithful who wished to assist at its celebration. The Archdiocese of Manila published the Tridentine Mass guidelines on its website last year. But they were quickly removed when supporters of the old rite protested to Rome.
We thank all our friends, who helped to spread the news of the guidelines set by Cardinal Rosales, translating the text in Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, and other languages, and making this serious matter widely known through their declarations (particularly the International Federation Una Voce). It is excellent to see that Summorum Pontificum is working, under the guidance of Pope Benedict XVI and his loyal subordinate, Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos.
13 comments:
Praise be to God...at last we are seeing some emphasis from Rome that the Holy Father's initiatives cannot and will not be supplanted by local bishops.
This is particularly good news for the Phillipines because there are many there who cherish Tradition. Bishop Lazo comes immediately to mind.
What about this letter From Jakarta (Indonesia) Bishop?
Someone please make a translation of this to Spanish, Italian, Dutch, German, Latin etc so +Hoyos will know
THE 1962 MASS PRIOR TO THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL
Position of Jakarta ArchBishop
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 ordinaria) while the old form of 1962 he calls non-ordinary form (forma extraordinaria). (note: yes, that’s how His Eminence + 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 use 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 songs 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.
From Fr. Z:
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2007/12/julius-cardinal-darmaatmadja-sj-says-summorum-pontificum-doesnt-apply-to-jakarta/
Why are the Filipino clergy so behind on providing the traditional mass?
In fact, why is the Catholic church in Asia so liturgically backward?
How wonderful and encouraging to see the head of Ecclesia Dei, Dario Caradinal Castrillon enforcing our Holy Father's motu proprio. God willing, this treasure of the Church (TLM) will continue to spread and reverance, respect, silence and a true knowledge of The Sacrifice of Lord, the Mass, be restored for the glory of our God. God bless our Holy Father!
If it works in Manila why not in Jakarta. The letter from HE ++Julius Cardinal Darmaatmadja SJ so far used as a mandatory rule for every priest in Archdiocese Jakarta not to implement SP. If Jakarta as a leader not using the old mass so then other dioceses in Indonesia.
He will leave office in two years ahead and let's hope a new policy coming.
There is a SSPX mass every two month outside Jakarta.
Cardinal Darmaatmadja, The Archbishop of Djakarta writes this:
"For the sake of reunification and reconciliation on 1984 Pope John Paul II allowed the Lefebvrist[s] to use the form of 1962."
This is false. The Indult of 1984 had little to do with any insistence of the S.S.P.X. I suggest that the Archbishop READ the preamble of "Quattuor Abhinc Annos", 1984. The Preamble mentions a report circulated to the bishops in 1980, asking them about the implementation of the New Rite of Mass, asking, in particular if priests and faithful were receiving it positively. The bishops, it admits, say that the problem was "almost completely solved. [New paragraph:] Since, however, the same problem continues, the Supreme Pontiff, in a desire to meet the wishes of these groups [viz. those faithful of dioceses desiring the old Mass, and NOT the S.S.P.X] grants to diocesan bishops the possibility of using an indult, whereby priests and faithful, who shall be expressly indicated in the letter of request to be presented to their own bishop, may be able to celebrate Mass by using the Roman Missal according to the 1962 edition . . .".
The 1984 Indult was never granted for the S.S.P.X., who were operating in (rightful) disobedience for four years before John Paul II even circulated the 1980 report. This is balderdash. It's rubbish.
The Cardinal uses this false premisein an attempt to build a case. Here is the development: "There [is] no Pius X group, the lefebvrist group". Actually, he is wrong. There are S.S.P.X supporters in Indonesia. But this is beside the point. He is trying to say that the old Mass is mainly being offered owing to the S.S.P.X. Since there is no S.S.P.X here, we can ban the old Mass.
It's a point of view.
P.K.T.P.
Perhaps another blessing is that this Cardinal Rosales might soon be unceremoniously removed from office and replaced by a Catholic.
Every time I read "Quattuor Abhinc Annos", I find I have to struggle to control myself when I reach the words: " the PROBLEM of those ahearing to the old rite has been almost completely solved".
What a disaster, is it any wonder that Archbishop Lefebrve didn't trust them.
In fact, why is the Catholic church in Asia so liturgically backward?"
Believe me, I ask myself the same question every day. I guess it is due to Latin and the entire pre-1965 liturgical tradition being identified as "colonialist" and "foreign"
I'd like to point out that Catholic liturgics in the Philippines is completely under the sway of one man: Anscar Chupungco OSB, the master of incluturation and "dynamic" translations. He and some of his disciples also advocate a further reform to the Mass, such as the abolition for ferial Masses of the Kyrie, Sanctus, Agnus Dei and the prayers between the Pater Noster and Communion.
Given that more and more, the Asian churches are sending their students to the Philippines (and not to Europe and US) for advanced studies, the "Philippine school" of liturgics is slowly spreading its influence.
The only counterweight to Chupungco had been Msgr. Moises Andrade, who was marginalized for much of his life (despite getting the title of Msgr.) and who has now reposed.
I have a question for those who are knowledgable about Canon Law.
What about those who would reply (to this) that ‘the ultimate interpretation of Canon is left up to the local Bishop, who is free to interpret it in the way that he sees best fits with his diocese’?
Or that 'that the Pope is the Bishop of Rome and while other episcopates look to him for general direction, they are free to interpret and reinterpret Canons as they see fit in their diocese'?
While this might be true, I don’t think “interpretation” is the same as what we have seen in these “conditions” set by various dioceses. Some of these conditions completely disregarded the MP and created difficult restrictions. What really is ‘interpretation’?
Someone above asked why the Church in Asia is liturgically backward. I can tell you why, at least here in Korea, the TLM enjoys absolutely no support.
For years foreign missionaries have teased the Koreans that the Church here is "25 years behind" even the Church in India. What an insult to a nation that prides itself on coming from ashes in 1953 to being one of the world's leading manufacturing and technologically advanced nations.
The cream of the crop of Korean seminarians have been sent to the USA and Europe for graduate studies where they were taught that anything before yesterday is junk. They didn't have the real 'sensus catholicus' to know that the Americans and Europeans were lying to them, and so they brought theological heresy, and liturgical nonsense back with them. They have become the bishops and seminary professors who have been telling their students and priests to "get with it" and try to catch up with the USA and Europe.
There was a bright spot, that sadly died in 2000. Bishop Ignatius Park of Andong was a Thomist teaching at the Daegu seminary. Back in 1999 he wanted to send a student or two to the FSSP seminary, but when I called to talk to someone about helping the Bishop set it up, I was very rudely rebuffed. One excuse was that a) who was I to represent the bishop of Andong, and b) the seminary wasn't prepared for ESL students. Both reasons were garbage. A) I was asked by the bishop to call because I speak English better than he did and it was I that had recommended OLGS to him. And B) Koreans study English from Middle School onward, and he would have sent his best students.
A month before we were going to have the first licit TLM in Korea since the NOM came into use, he died on a hiking trip with a group of priests and religious. I had to go back to his library and fetch the 1962 missal I gave him so that they wouldn't throw it away.
The FSSP had a chance to put a toehold in one of the most advanced Asian nations. They not only dropped the ball, but put a knife through it. The only excuse I can think of for them is that they had just been through the ringer when the "Sweet Sixteen" bent their own order over the barrel and inspired Protocol 1411, and they didn't have the energy to deal with anything but putting out the fire in their own house.
Why is Asia liturgically backward?
-Because they have been taught by Americans and Europeans that this new way is the way to go, and B) no traditionalists other than the SSPX have sought to help them.
---mvs
Manila isn't the only situation...in one Diocese after another around the world the situation is more similar to Manila than different. I have friends all over the world and most have access to the TLM only because of the SSPX.
Post a Comment