Rorate Caeli

PCED Secretary is interviewed

Messainlatino.it has a very interesting short interview granted by Mons. Guido Pozzo, Secretary of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei (translation by Gregor Kollmorgen, of The New Liturgical Movement, adapted):

Monsignor, a widespread restrictive interpretation of the motu proprio argues that the Papal provision is primarily if not exclusively, directed towards those groups and institutes that were already attached to the traditional form, and is not, by contrast, intended in any way to promote the extraordinary form. To this had already answered Card. Castrillón Hoyos, saying in London, in June 2008, that the Pope would actually like to have the 'Gregorian Rite' in all the parishes. What is your opinion?

The Motu Proprio is addressed to all the Catholic faithful who desire the extraordinary form of the Roman liturgy, not just to those who, prior to its promulgation, were attached to the ancient form of the Roman rite. Certainly it does intend to accomodate these latter and to heal old wounds, but the purpose of the document is also to allow the spreading of the extraordinary form, for the benefit of those who do not know it yet (for being too young to have had it experienced), or of those who rediscover with joy the Mass of their youth. The ever increasing spread of this liturgical treasure, the Church's patrimony, can bring many benefits, spiritual and vocational, also through the mutual enrichment between the two forms of the Roman rite.

The Pope's letter accompanying the motu proprio refers to a term of three years, after which reports of the bishops will be collected to assess the situation. That may mean, as some argue, that the liberalization of the old Missal stipulated by the motu proprio is to be understood ad experimentum, or at least that at the end of this evaluation there may be restrictions regarding the the extraordinary form, such as for instance the return to a regime similar to that of the indults of 1984 or 1988?

The three-year term simply refers to a balance of the first three years of application. If there turn out to be serious difficulties, appropriate remedies will be found, always keeping in mind the essential purpose of the motu proprio.

From many parts obstacles opposed to the implementation of the motu proprio have been reported. We, too, have experienced them... What should an adequate group of lay people who find themselves in such situations of difficulty do to obtain a weekly Mass in the extraordinary form? And in what way can the Commission Ecclesia Dei intervene?

The answer is already written in the motu proprio: ask the parish priest and possibly look for a priest ready. Should this prove impossible, it is necessary to turn to your bishop, who is called to seek an appropriate solution. If even this way no satisfaction of the request is obtained, write to the Commission Ecclesia Dei, which, however, deals with the bishops, who are naturally our interlocutor: they are asked for an assessment of the situation, to see what the actual difficulties are and how to find a remedy.

... Changing the subject, have you seen the results of the Doxa survey commissioned by Paix liturgique and us?

Yes, I was given a preview a few days ago. These figures are truly remarkable and encouraging, especially that absolute majority of practicing Catholics who, at least according to the poll, regard the coexistence of the two forms of the Mass in the parishes as perfectly normal. I understand that a copy of the survey has also reached the Holy Father.

Thanks again Monsignor, and keep up the good work.

23 comments:

Anonymous said...

I agree with the interviewer, there are some serious problems with the implementation of SP. In the Pittsburgh Diocese, where I have tried to have SP implemented locally, the interpretation is that SP only applies to groups who have a previous attachment to the EF (i.e. it will not be expanded beyond the original indult location). Although it is too much to get into here, I have a host of correspondance which illustrates the road blocks created by the diocese very nicely. I have sent these documents, along with my commentary to PCED, in addition to sending them to the SSPX team involved in the negotiations with Rome. I illustrate the point that the EF needs a seperate juridical structure because it, along with the people attached to it, are not going to be able to exist in the local dioceses the way things are presently. I appreciate this interview because it reveals that PCED is very aware of hostility of the bishops to SP. Maybe at the end of three years, and as a result of the SSPX discussions, a juridical structure will be considered as the solution to this situation.

Anonymous said...

Summorum Pontificum is a dead-letter in the Dallas Diocese.

I've asked conservative to moderate priests to offer the TLM.

Just one, a young priest with a strong sense of tradition, stated that he desired to offer the TLM.

Unfortunately, he was informed that he's nt permitted to do so.

One conservative charismatic priest informed me that the TLM is simply limited to elderly Catholics and that a parish that hasn't offered the TLM during the past 40 or so years is forbidden to do so.

He also insisted that he would never use Latin even for one prayer at Mass as Latin is opposed to his spirituality.

One young priest informed me that kneeling for Holy Communion is forbidden by the parish and American bishops and that traditional practices are pre-Vatican in nature and belong to a time that we are unable to recover.

Incredibly, he is conservative and delivers otherwise fine homilies.

wheat4paradise said...

Removing the bishops who resist the will of the Pope is an even better solution. Better yet, go to the root cause: correct the false interpretation of collegiality.

Dirk said...

so after 3 years the old rite can be restricted again??? Oh my God!!!

M.A. said...

We have been having problems, too. Our bishop invited one FSSP priest into the diocese, but his mission to minister to all in the diocese is simply impossible. I asked the bishop for permission for our group to invite an out-of-the diocese priest to celebrate a Mass for us on occasion so that between the appointed FSSP and the other, we might be able to have 3 Masses PER YEAR; that this arrangement would be helpful to us until he could invite another FSSP priest.

He replied that he would consider my suggestion to invite another FSSP priest into the diocese, although his reply might take some time in coming, and that it would probably be in the negative; but at this time he could not concede us the weekly Mass!!!

It is infuriating. Something must be done.

(BTW, the verification word, 'kouse' rhymes with 'louse'.)

Paul Haley said...

It's hard for me to determine what the future holds with respect to the Traditional Mass but I recall the words of St. Pius V in his Motu Proprio Quo Primum of 1570:

Quote:
"Furthermore, by these presents and by virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We give and grant in perpetuity that for the singing or reading of Mass in any church whatsoever this Missal may be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment or censure, and may be freely and lawfully used. Nor shall bishops, administrators, canons, chaplains and other secular priests, or religious of whatsoever Order or by whatsoever title designated, be obliged to celebrate Mass otherwise than enjoined by Us. We likewise order and declare that no one whosoever shall be forced or coerced into altering this Missal; and this present Constitution can never be revoked or modified, but shall forever remain valid and have the force of law, notwithstanding previous constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal councils, and notwithstanding the usage of the churches aforesaid established by very long and even immemorial prescription, saving only usage of more than two hundred years." Unquote

Why is it then that clerics refuse to admit that "permission" is not required and that bishops who refuse permission will be punished severely, even to the point of removal from office by the Holy See? This cutesy business of working hand-in glove with recalcitrant bishops has got to stop. With "friends" like them we hardly need any enemies. Now for all those bishops who allow the TLM freely and have even established parishes for the exclusive use of the EF I send kudos and ask them to influence their colleagues to do the same. And, I plead with the Holy Father to grant immediate faculties pro tempore to the SSPX. His Holiness must know that his intentions for wider use of the TLM are being disregarded, even obrogated, by many local bishops.

Tinchus said...

Very recent interview (In spanish) with Msgr. Bernard Fellay in Chile.

http://diario.elmercurio.com/2009/10/18/nacional/nacional/noticias/F6E4CFDC-BD48-4BC4-AEDF-24FB87907771.htm

A very rough translation of the most important part:

-A lot has been speculated about that the FSSPX could be elevated to a Personal Prelature just like the Opus Dei. How much of truth there is in this?

"There is a lot of truth. I think that the Vatican is going forward (orig: caminando, i.e. walking) to that canonical solution".

Anonymous said...

In the Diocese of Spokane, it's a secret! Yes, if you don't hear about it by word of mouth, you don't know it exist. It has never been, or is, advertised in the diocesan paper, nor have I ever seen it in various parish bulletins.

It has been set up to fail.

Anonymous said...

I add his: I very much support what the first writer has added here. It is very well said: perhaps, by 7 July, 2010, YES! A structure. That would mean a particular church, such as a personal ordinariate (like those offered to the Anglicans) or a 'ritual' apostolic administration (the Campos writ large). It would mean anything but a personal prelature. NO PERSONAL PRELATURE, please NO.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

To those who have hit a brick wall, don't give up. In Alaska, we've been at it since September 14, 2007, and it looks like we will have the Sunday celebration of the EF soon. Write to Mons. Guido Pozzo. If you don't get an answer, write again, and again, and again if necessary. He graciously responded to us. Cf. http://summorumpontificumak.blogspot.com/

Persevere. Be charitable. Take what you get, but keep asking for everything. Recall what the saints suffered to attend Mass in the underground Churches throughout the centuries, compared to the sacrifice of writing a few letters.

(And now you know why my wife calls me the "Married Priest." I can't stop preaching.)

Anonymous said...

Once again, we have this nonsense about personal prelatures. I am convinced that Satan himself is behind this non-stop campaign to destroy tradition.

It is clear from Bishop Fellay's past statements, as I have recorded them here, that he is not very clear on what Rome is suggesting. Every time someone asks him, we get a different impression. In January, in an interview in "The Angelus", he was more definite. He said that Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos had offered a new structrue which was somewhat like a military ordinariate, somewhat like a personal prelature, and somewhat like something else (I've forgotten what). I suggest to everyone here that the structure referred to is the one now being offered to the incoming Anglicans: it is a personal ordinariate.

Notice how Fellay never says that it will be a personal prelature. He says that it will be somewhat like one or that Rome is walking towards that sort of solution. He is indefinite about it.

On several occaions in the past, Bishop Fellay has admitted directly that the Society was offered what the Campos later got in 2002. In 2003, he called this directly a 'personal apostolic administration' and went on to call this the 'Rolls Royce' solution. He repeated this many times thereafter.

It will NOT be a personal prelature and I'm betting that even Romanus, that enemy to tradition, would admit this now, given the new offer to the Anglicans.

The S.S.P.X would revolt against Bishop Fellay if he accepted a personal prelature because that structure, under Canon 297 (and for other reasons: under Canon 294) requires the assent of the local bishop for the structure to offer any Masses! Only a brain-dead fool would accept that. Also, under Canon 294, a p.p. can not include any lay subjects, not even monks and nuns and friars!

Could we please stop this now? Bishop Fellay is a good man, perhaps a holy man. But it is clear to me that the juridical question is NOT clear to him. He never says the same thing twice in a row.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

SPOKANE

Could the writer here from Spokane please give us an update on the sitaution there? I have heard that a certain Fr. Dunn has returned from Europe and will be offering the T.L.M. Is this so? If so, where does he offer it and how often?

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

I'm not the original poster from Spokane, but I do live there. The only diocesan traditional Mass that I'm aware of is Fr. Eugene Tracy at St. Charles Parish. As the original poster said, this Mass (IF Fr. Tracy is still offering it) is not mentioned on the Diocese's web site, the parish bulletin, or the Diocese's magazine. St. Charles is an ugly "church in the round." So, for all practical purposes, there is no authorized traditional Mass in Spokane.

However, Bishop Skylstad submitted his resignation to the Pope when her reached retirement age, so there may be hope for the future.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Perkins: I never heard of a Fr. Dunn - returning from Europe or otherwise. We're not that cosmopolitan here.

But we have two sedevacantist chapels and an SSPX Carmelite Monastery. So when Bishop Skylstad says that there isn't "much of a call" for the "Latin Mass"...

Alexander said...

Oh no:

through the mutual enrichment between the two forms of the Roman rite

It was good up until this point. Sure its good for the NO to be enriched by the TLM but its certainly not good the other way around seeing as how there is nothing to enrich the TLM with from the NO. The “mutual enrichment” mentality has to stop.

Anonymous said...

To the person in Dallas, I hope you are aware of the Mater Dei Latin Mass community that operates in the diocese.
http://web2.airmail.net/carlsch/MaterDei/
I have heard rumors that they are getting their own church soon also.
However I will say looking at their schedule for daily Masses one suspects they are purposely scheduled so early.

-A local student

Anonymous said...

Mr. Alexander got it spot on when he wrote:

It was good up until this point. Sure its good for the NO to be enriched by the TLM but its certainly not good the other way around seeing as how there is nothing to enrich the TLM with from the NO. The “mutual enrichment” mentality has to stop.


Yes, if you have a finely cooked meal in your dining room and a garbage dump outside, there is no way each can enrich the other.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous:

Sorry, I confused Spokane with Yakima. Fr. Dunn was supposed to come to the D. of Yakima. I don't know if he has so far.

P.K.T.P.

Dauphin said...

In Kingston, Ontario, Canada, the bishop has sent a very gracious response to our petition, is favourable to a more frequent Mass, and will be meeting with some representatives from our community this coming Tuesday.

You can follow our progress at http://kingstontlm.blogspot.com

Anonymous said...

"I have heard rumors that they are getting their own church soon also."

I heard rumors two years ago about wonderful things regarding the TLM in Dallas that was supposed to have transpired.

There is a priest who was tapped by the bishop to help evaluate whether a priest/parish is ready to offer the TLM.

That was two years ago and has one Dallas priest come forward to offer the TLM?

By the way, the priest in question is committed firmly to the TLM, speaks of the TLM as a thing of the past and has declared that the TLM was in need of widespread reform.

The Traditionalists in Dallas are to believe that the priest in question desires to promote the TLM?

Please.

Yep...when something positive regarding the TLM transpires within the Dallas Diocese, then I'll pay attention...until then, sorry, but rumors don't interest me.

Tim

Anonymous said...

Tim,

As to the possibility of Mater Dei getting their own church I will admit that it is a rumor as far as I know.

Sorry, I am new to the diocese of Dallas, as a freshman from another state, and unfamiliar with the situation here. If you or someone else could outline it for me I would be very grateful.

-UD student

Peter said...

PKTP wrote: "Yes, if you have a finely cooked meal in your dining room and a garbage dump outside, there is no way each can enrich the other."

This is just the sort of language that will ensure that any bishop not already attached to the EF will conclude that those requesting it are a bunch of nutters.

That's not to say that I, imo, can see that much from the OF that will actually enrich the EF.

However, there are some things that do spring to mind, especially if the typical edition 1962 is what we are talking about. 1) the option of the more ancient propers for the Assumption; 2) new prefaces - some of these are very fine; 3) the 7 lessons from the OF Easter Vigil (if you can't have the old 12, I'd personally prefer the 7 to the 4).

Anonymous said...

Same problem in Toronto, Ontario I am sorry to say. Just prior to SP being released I sent a formal request to Archbp Thomas Collins to provide a Traditional Mass in the west part of the Greater Toronto Area. There are 5 indult Ancient Masses, and only on Sundays - 3 in the heart of the city and 2 closer to the East end. But the West end with a population of over 1.5 million does not have a single Mass except for an SSPX parish, which presumably the Archbp does not consider legitimate. His response to a very respectful letter was a smoke and mirrors accusation that I rejected the authority of the Church to establish a new rite of the Mass! When I defended myself in a subsequent letter, I never received a response. To this day, 2.25 years after SP, the Toronto Archdiocese web site does not have a single reference to any Masses in the Extraordinary form.

My letter was part of a respectful campaign by the Toronto Traditional Mass Society (UV Toronto) - our president was granted an audience to the Archbp that summer but nothing came of it. She passed away 7 months later.


Quite tellingly, the same archdiocesan website states quite smugly "there are no Exorcists in the Archdioce. Exorcisms are not conducted" or something close to that.

May Christ the King illuminate Archbp Thomas Collins of Toronto to do the Pope's bidding in promoting the Extroardinary Form of the Mass, and that expeditiously.