Rorate Caeli

The "Traditional Reservoir" and the French Bishops (Revised)

Valle Adurni now has a (revised) translation of the lead article of the latest issue of Paix Liturgique.

The 'Traditional Reservoir' and the French bishops

This is an article from the French Paix Liturgique, today's issue (my rough-and-ready translation).


The French bishops met in Lourdes last week under considerable psychological pressure. Even though it was not explicitly on the agenda, they were thinking of only one thing—and which the media constantly kept in the forefront of their minds—that the life of French dioceses is mortally sick from the lack of priests.

In La Croix of 5th November, the President of the Episcopal Conference, Archbishop Vingt-Trois, lost his legendary self-mastery and attacked (not by name, but the inference was obvious) his colleague, Bishop Dominique Rey of Fréjus-Toulon. ‘One might have a bishop who believes in the New Communities: he rings the bell and calls six new communities into his diocese, and thinks that everything will now be fine! Well, it might be fine insofar as these communities are there, but what about afterwards?’ He is quite obviously talking about the pastoral strategy of Bishop Rey; in particular the welcome accorded to these communities. But he passes over in silence his principal reproach that he bears to his colleague; his generous welcome to those priests who celebrate according to the Extraordinary Form, or according to both forms: in short, his application of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum. Because, to the Episcopal Conference, the subject remains strictly taboo.


Asphyxia on its way


1. The number of French diocesan priests working in France is fewer than 9000. For a number of dioceses, (Digne, 25 priests, Nevers, 38, Auch, Saint-Claude, Gap, Digne, Viviers, Verdun, Pamiers, Langres, etc) in ten years time the number of priests in active ministry will be ten at the most. In Bishop Gueneley’s diocese of Langres, the most liberal of French dioceses, one frequently finds one sole priest for 60 churches.


2. The number of seminarians has now fallen below the mark of 750 (740 in 2008, and this number includes a good hundred seminarians from non-diocesan communities). Pamiers, Belfort, Agen, Perpignan, &c, have no seminarians.


3. The number of ordinations remains fewer than 100 (90 in 2009—Paris, which is one of the best situated, had 10, 2 for the Emmanuel Community; 7 are predicted for 2010, and 4 for 2011)


4. 120 vocations have been declared for the class beginning in 2009.



The conclusion is dramatic: a third of French dioceses will cease to exist but will have to regroup within the coming 15 years.


Yet the majority of bishops, above all Archbishop Vingt-Trois, do not despair. Despite everything, the Church remains visible; she remains alive despite appearences. Archbishop Vingt-Trois has given a marvellous example of ‘visibility’ which was heard on Radio Notre-Dame (interview of 5th November): in a parish without a priest, the laity got themselves together to say the Rosary in a village hall: there they also had the idea of cleaning the church to recite the rosary in; so, nothing is lost; this church will live again…



A useful ‘reservoir’



The use of the ‘traditionalist reservoir’ won’t sort out every problem of the French dioceses like magic, but it might breathe some life into them, and above all, it will change the ideological tone. However it is just because of that, that for the Episcopal Conference, the subject remains rigorously taboo. For now.


Because the traditionalist world (not including the Religious) is becoming more and more difficult to ignore.


1. 3% of working priests are traditionalists (officially traditionalists, that is, not even mentioning the diocesan priests who observe the same liturgical practice). There are 260 priests equivalent to diocesan priests (140 in the SSPX and allied communities, around 120 priests in the communities under Ecclesia Dei).


2. More than 14% of ordinations are for the Extraordinary Form. (Paix Liturgique, 183, 22.06.2009): in 2009, 15 French priests were ordained for the Extraordinary Form (of whom 6 were for the SSPX).


3. Almost 20% of seminarians are destined for the Extraordinary Form (there are 160 of them, of whom about 40 were for the SSPX in 2008-9): op cit. 5.04.09. If this crossover continues as in past years, then in two years or more, a quarter of seminarians will be destined for the Extraordinary Form. Everybody knows that if the traditional priests had the assurance of a ‘normal’ apostolate in the dioceses, the number of these seminarians would be even greater.


4, Finally, 25% of vocations are inclined towards the traditional form (op cit 12.10.09). At the beginning of the academic year, September 2009, there were 41 entries (of whom 17 for the SSPX) into a traditionalist seminary.


However, the ‘Extraordinary’ clergy serve 400 Mass Centres in France, of which 184 are served by the SSPX and their allies. One should not forget in this regard that according to an important CSA poll, September 2008, that a third of practising Catholics would willingly attend a traditional Mass if it were available in their parish. It is no exaggeration to say that if we add to the fully traditionalist vocations those vocations of traditional sensibility that are found in diocesan seminaries, that a third of priestly vocations, were it permitted to them, would regard themselves as directed to the Extraordinary Form, or to Bi-Formalism.


A third of the laity, and, eventually, a third of the priests. It would only seem reasonable, then, officially to give these priests a proper freedom—no longer in ghettos, but now in the hearts of the parishes—to celebrate Mass according to their preferences (which is how they speak of the sense of the faith). Is this not the spirit (and the letter) of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum? And by this act, these priests would be able to give help by administering many other sacramental services, conduct missions, catechize…


But for the majority of the French bishops, this group of their flock, priests and faithful—who are willing, who demand nothing, but to be allowed to live and let live—simply do not exist, except as a thorn in their flesh. The dioceses are dying, but their ideology remains alive and kicking.


1. One remembers that the little diocese of Fréjus-Toulon has about 80 seminarians, destined for the Ordinary form, or the Extraordinary Form, or for both forms. The next biggest seminary (Paris, Issy-les-Moulinaux, for the Paris region) has at most 50.


2. These should have been the last to have flung mud against their confreres: there remains the scandalous fact that ‘Bishop Centène; we made him buckle. Bishop Aillet; we give him three years. Afterwards, we will see. Bishop Dominique Rey; his diocese will end up sinking.’. (Op cit. 02.11.09)

57 comments:

Anonymous said...

Rome has reiterated that the Holy Father's Apostolic Constitution regarding the Anglicans is a "generous response" to the pleas of Anglican traditionalists who had turned to the Pope for help.

The time has arrived in dramatic fashion — dramatic in that the Latin Church is in a state of liturgical collapse — for His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI to respond "generously" to the pleas of millions of Catholics who desire His Holiness to offer the TLM regularly.

The Pope is the only person who is able to salvage the Anglican situation.

The same applies to the Latin Church.

The Pope is the only person who possesses the Divine authority and ability to salvage the collapsed Latin Church.

His Holiness must respond to the pleas of millions of Catholics who have requested that the Holy Father offer the TLM.

The Holy Father must lead the way in France and elsewhere.

Catholic-Anglican ecumenism had reached dead-in-the-water status.

The Pope's response to the Anglicans has energized tradition-minded Anglicans in that they have now a legitimate way forward in their liturgical and spiritual journey.

Regarding the Novus Ordo situation — for example, in France — there simply is not any way foward as Novus Ordoism is dead-in-the-water.

Only through dramatic and to-the-hilt liturgical action by Pope Benedict XVI — that is, offering the TLM regularly — can Latin Church Catholicism in France (and any number of Catholic regions throughout the world) be saved.

Anglicans needed the Holy Father's Apostolic Constitution.

Latin Catholics in France (and elsewhere) need TLMs offered by the Holy Father to lead the way to a new liturgical springtime.

Why should we expect bishops and priests to offer the TLM when they look to the Pope who, in turn, doesn't offer the TLM?

Actions speak louder than words.

Therefore, the time has arrived for the Pope to offer the TLM.

Please do so Your Holiness.

Tim

Anonymous said...

Oh, this is just from Alsaticus again. The truth is that France is far more important than is any other country when it comes to Tradition. I'd never deny that. But it's not appropriate for the French to interrupt this interesting unity thing with the Anglicans.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

The translation of the last sentences is now corrected in the original post, upon the suggestion of a native speaker/translator, as follows:

"Bishop Centène; we made him buckle. Bishop Aillet; we give him three years. Afterwards, we will see. Bishop Dominique Rey; his diocese will end up sinking"

LeonG said...

The social reality now can no longer be denied: the post-conciliar modernist experiment is a catastrophe. Deo Gratias. The negligent bishops of France have to awake to the traditionalist revival that has survived their ignorance and frequent persecution, while the NO presbyterate vanishes slowly but surely - more than half of the presbyters remaining are over 53 years of age with a large percentage of those over retirement age.

It also needs intimating that the French episcopate reorganised the country into larger pastoral units and close down parishes by the hundreds- Lyon,for one example only, lost about 500 parishes that once each boasted its own parish priest for 30 or so "units" none with its own priest. And so the destruction of Catholicism is so marked that their are in fact too many bishoprics.

The most striking factor rising above all of this scandalous ruin is the effective denial by the french bishops, ignoring appeals by their aging cures, that something was radically wrong. This is a remarkable condemning parallel with their graces attempts to actively prevent a traditionalist restoration of The Church in France.

It is that or nothing - no Holy Mass in Latin and everything this brings with it or no Catholic church in France.

How the tide is turning! And France is the benchmark.

Callistus said...

Regarding the French episcopacy, the WORST punishment Christ can permit is for Catholics / clery to lose the Faith while remaining defiantly ignorant of the very fact itself.

All the while the crescent of the 'prophet' Muhammed continues to rise above Western Europe's cities.

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us!

Paul Haley said...

The impact of the SSPX and other independents on the shortage of priests in France is enormous and the lack of canonical status and faculties for the SSPX weighs heavily on the situation. The Holy Father could, in an instant, grant faculties a tempore but does not, evidently preferring the current situation for whatever reason.

One has to ask: "What is it that the SSPX, or any independent traditional priest, must accept in theological terms, that is outside of what Holy Mother Church has always taught, held and professed to be true from Apostolic times to now?"

We all know there are discussions going on between Rome and the SSPX but the aforementioned question has never been answered to my knowledge. The reason, I submit, is that it cannot be answered without implying that 2,000 years of Traditional Catholic Teaching must be discarded. Does anyone really expect Rome to reverse course from the path chosen at Vatican II?

So, the reason must be something else and I submit it is the intransigence of the episcopacy to render Justice by incardinating the SSPX and other independents, preferring to keep them marginalized and under "suspension" for not accepting the modernistic influences prevalent in the local dioceses, not to mention the atrocious liturgical abuses chronicled on youtube. I know of at least one instance where this is true but I shall not reveal names for it would do no good at all for those concerned.

So, yes, there is a reservoir but the local bishops refuse to tap into it and this is the greatest tragedy unfolding in our beloved Church.

Athelstane said...

These are shocking figures. Not surprising to those of us who know a little about how bad it has gotten in France; but they ought to shock us. They ought to shock the episcopate.

The definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing, expecting different results. The French episcopacy has been trying the same thing since 1965, and the results have been the same: collapsed vocations, a withering of resort to the sacraments.

At first they could perhaps believe this was only due to larger cultural trends. But now that they can see the much higher vocations and mass attendance rates of traditionalist communities (or even those that lean that way), the empirical evidence gets pretty hard to deny. But perhaps the French bishops prefer to wait until they can hold their conference meetings in a bathroom.

Joe B said...

These percentages are more remarkable than I expected. I didn't realize traditionalist priests made up that large of a percentage of French priests. Even three percent is enough to start an effective reform with, seeing as how at least one entire order has the vision and courage to fight for the cause with total dedication.

It does appear that all we need is a Pope that is truly committed to the traditionalist direction. (This one isn't, even though we have much to thank him for. He has stifled some of the injustices against traditionalists, but it isn't nearly enough.)

Maybe Pope Burke. Don't laugh. The situation is that serious. Politics may yet take a back seat.

Anonymous said...

"What is it that the SSPX, or any independent traditional priest, must accept in theological terms, that is outside of what Holy Mother Church has always taught, held and professed to be true from Apostolic times to now?"

Indeed; are the Anglicans being made to bow before the Golden Calf of Vatican II to be readmitted? Why brow-beat the likes of SSPX with that passe pastoral perfunctory council of pastoral provisions?

http://hospitallers.blogspot.com/2008/09/holy-sacrifice.html

Anonymous said...

"their ideology remains alive and kicking"

Yes, their ideology is not only alive and kicking but succeeding, for their ideology demands the destruction of Christ's Church.

crusader88 said...

Very interesting! Thanks for the translation.

Well anonymous, if the bishops don't give up their liberalism, the SSPX will realize that it is the Church in France in a decade or two, the opposition having gone extinct.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Haley:

I agree with every word of what you have written. The problem, in a word, is pride. The Modernists are demonic fanatics who would rather suffer drawing and quartering than admit to error. Most of them are outright Marxists. When a liberals cannot 'win' at Mass, he will not stop there. If need be, he'll go to the police, the courts, the municipal by-laws, whatever. Your church is a fire hazard. GET OUT!

The problem all along has been that conservatives treat liberals as if they were chums who came over for a game of table tennis. But these are not chums. They play without a net and use hand grenades for balls. Had they received the punch in the face they deserved back in the sixties, we'd have been spared much of this. But we all had become too soft by then.

Liberals are good at one thing and that is selling off churches so as to pocket part of the proceeds in 'administration fees'. In France, the problem is that they don't own most of the churches. Sure, they have the cheek to sell off others' property but the gendarmes won't let them.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Joe B. is also dead on: the figures are hard to believe. To save their egos, the French bishops could announce that they are really Satanists and then they'd have proof at how brilliant they are. Who could deny how effectively they have destroyed the Catholic Church in France? Only a genius could manage this in such a short time.

P.K.T.P.

FranzJosf said...

France has never fully recovered from the Revolution and the particularly pernicious French expression of the Enlightenment. If that wasn't bad enough, the Romantic movement which followed, with it's emphasis on seeking happiness and truth OUTSIDE the Western norms, created even more havoc. It is said that in the 1890's one could find as many as 90 Black (Satanic) Masses in Paris. Yet in the countryside one could, and can, find many traditional monarchists who prefer the old ways, which is one reason why Tradition is so strong in France. Tradition will win.

Anonymous said...

Franz Josf, would it not be more accurate to say that France has never recovered from the attack on the person of Pope Boniface VIII by Philip IV's henchmen in 1302, which resulted in his death and which has made France a bucket of blood ever since?

Knight of Malta said...

"In France, the problem is that they don't own most of the churches. Sure, they have the cheek to sell off others' property but the gendarmes won't let them."

Ironically, this is the one thing from 'wreckovating' the churches and Cathedrals in France: the clerics and bishops simple don't have the legal ability to do it, in france at least.

A couple of years ago I was in St. Severin in the Latin Quarter of Paris, and all of the Relics are still in place in cases, and all of the traditional art is in place (a thing the modernists in America would have trash-canned years ago.) But above the 'altar' (if it could be called such, since Severin ushered-in the liturgical Revolution in France, in keeping with her Revolutions) was a giant, literally ten by fifteen feet in dimension, solstice-time evergreen cross.

Thank God the French clerics have been disbarred from wreckovatiting their churches like they have been allowed to here, in America.

In Santa Fe, NM, for example, the Cathedral Basilica of St. Francis of Assisi used to be an utterly breathtaking edifice, inside and out. It still is on the outside. On the inside, then Archbishop Sanchez--who was sent to Catholic-Siberia for sleeping with young women (at least that's a change)--utterly gutted the Cathedral of her nineteenth century French architecture. They put the sublime Stations of the Cross in a park, where they were slowly destroyed. One of them survived at La Tertullia Restaurant, until it closed. The hispanic owner saved it. I spoke to another person whose family who has been in Santa Fe for 400 years who is disgusted by the gutting of the Cathedral.

You have to go to the non-Church owned Loretto Chapel to see a similitude of how the Cathedral looked even in the 1950's, before ego and political-correctness took over.

Anonymous said...

Will someone please explain to me why we are so happy with these numbers. I see the Modernists attracting three times as many men into their seminaries as the Traditionalists. In 20 years, won't there still be many more Modernist priests in France wreaking havoc?

Malta said...

Mark and Snow--

Remember: it's well and good to post on a site such as this, but unless we live our faith--not just intellectually, but physically through good works--we are doomed according to St. James. We need to work and strive; toil and suffer for Our Lord. Sacrifice isn't just for Christ, but for His followers, also. We must take up the mantle when the mantle seems all but lost....

Anonymous said...

Anon. asks why we are so happy with these numbers. There are thrice as many modernist priests being ordained as traditionalist priests. Yes, but only a short time ago, there were four times as many. Shortly before that, six times as many, as so forth.

What counts is not the ratio between modernist and traditionalist priests but the rate at which that ratio is chanaging--and in what direction.

Compare with Brazil. The real per centage of Catholics is 67%, which sounds high. Why, it's two-thirds! But it was over 90% not so many years ago.

P.K.T.P.

Malta said...

"What counts is not the ratio between modernist and traditionalist priests but the rate at which that ratio is chanaging--and in what direction."

One of my favorite books is Willa Cather's "Shadow on a Rock," about Catholic Quebec, but that once holy land is far from Catholic these days:

http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=29929

It's more like a desert; a land to be re-evengelized. Sad, the Jesuits who died evengelizing the Iroqui Indians have to martyr themselves all over again since we've swung full-circle...

Malta said...

"Québec is Canada's largest province by area, five times bigger than Italy, but with fewer than 8 million inhabitants. They speak French, and until the middle of the last century they preserved a strong Catholic character. The rivers and villages there bear the names of saints, there are many churches, and almost all of the schools and hospitals were the result of religious initiatives. Vocations also flourished."

And it was all lost after Vatican II, why?

robert said...

Malta writes:

"'Québec is Canada's largest province by area, five times bigger than Italy, but with fewer than 8 million inhabitants. They speak French, and until the middle of the last century they preserved a strong Catholic character. The rivers and villages there bear the names of saints, there are many churches, and almost all of the schools and hospitals were the result of religious initiatives. Vocations also flourished.

"And it was all lost after Vatican II, why?"


Well, even before as well as during Vatican II, Pierre Trudeau and his secularist-cum-indifferentist-Catholic buddies in La Revolution Tranquille - which got going in Québec after the old-fashioned hard-line Catholic Premier Maurice Duplessis died in 1959 - had a lot to do with the losses.

Under Duplessis, and for the preceding century or so, French-speaking Québecois had such a high fertility rate (the highest of any Catholics in the world, apparently) that their dominance was known as "the revenge of the cradle" (la revanche du berceau). But now ...

Anonymous said...

The Pope wastes time with these Anglicans, when he should be correcting the disasters broungt on by Vatican II in his own Church.

John Paul II spent his 26 1/2 years on 104 foreign trips which produced nothing, while the Church collapsed. The situation in France and elsewhere is largely his fault. He appointed these radical liberals. He oversaw the demise of the Church in Europe.
His chief concerns was not how to stop the rot, or to save the Church, but rather in the opposite directions.
INter-religious dialog, appeasment, appologizing, and above all ECUMENISM with Protestants was his abiding concerns. Not the Mass and the state of the liturgy, not the corruption of the priesthood, not the radical liberal bishops or femminist nuns who destroyed their own Orders.

It is a violation of valid judgement for Pope Benedict XVI to be so weak and timid and cautious in the face of these disasters. It is a violation not to immediatly mandate a return to Catholic tradition.

He hesitates in making the decisions that must be made.
Bishop Fellay, and even priests of the Society of Saint Peter (Ecclesiae Dei group), have said that to hesitate to return to Catholic tradition out of fear of a rupture in the Church is misguided, because the rupture has already occured. The liberals and radicals as in France, their bishops, priests, nuns etc. are not Catholic anyway. Cardinal Vinght-Trois, and Cardinals Schonborn, Kasper, Re etc. certainly are not Catholics in their belief system either.
So if the Pope were to mandate a return to tradition, it would not drive millions away, because they have gone already. THat is the belief of Bishop Fellay, and others about France and elsewhere.

And it is true.

The only way to rescue the Catholic Faith in France, and elsewhere and to strengthen and save what is left, is NOT magnanimous gestures to these Anglicans (for they have nothing of any spiritual value to offer the Catholic Church), but rather to mandate a return to pre-Vatican II Catholic tradition....in France and everywhere.
Don't fear driving the liberals away, because they are gone anyway. And have been for 40 years. To have tried to accomodate them or keep them in the Church has been the biggest mistake the Popes could have made.

Jordanes said...

In response to the anonymous rant:

The Pope wastes time with these Anglicans, when he should be correcting the disasters broungt on by Vatican II in his own Church.

How do you know that his solicitude toward Anglican converts won't contribute to correcting the disasters you bemoan?

INter-religious dialog, appeasment, appologizing, and above all ECUMENISM with Protestants was his abiding concerns. Not the Mass and the state of the liturgy,

Are you referring to the Pope who oversaw further revisions to the Pauline Missal and issued Liturgiam Authenticam, Redemptionis Sacramentum, and Ecclesia de Eucharistia? Seems he wasn't unconcerned about the state of the liturgy.

not the corruption of the priesthood

Seminary visititation, Pastores Dabo Vobis?

John Paul II was concerned about stopping the rot. His actions to that end may not have always been that effective or successful, and some of his actions may have contributed further to the problems, but it's a falsehood that he wasn't concerned about stopping the rot.

Cardinal Vinght-Trois, and Cardinals Schonborn, Kasper, Re etc. certainly are not Catholics in their belief system either. So if the Pope were to mandate a return to tradition, it would not drive millions away, because they have gone already.

You're confusing material heresy and material schism with formal heresy and formal schism. They have not yet been formally severed from the Church, and it is much more difficult to bring back those who have definitively broken with the Church than to correct erring members of the Church.

The only way to rescue the Catholic Faith in France, and elsewhere and to strengthen and save what is left, is NOT magnanimous gestures to these Anglicans (for they have nothing of any spiritual value to offer the Catholic Church),

There is more joy in heaven over the repentance of a single sinner than there is in 100 righteous who have no need of repentance. You seem more concerned to keep the elite cadre of the pure and righteous than about evangelising sinners.

Furthermore, Anglican tradition is hardly entirely devoid of spiritual value, but then you probably know nothing, or worse, next to nothing, of their spiritual patrimony.

but rather to mandate a return to pre-Vatican II Catholic tradition.

Even if that were pastorally advisable (it's not, as we see from your having written off perhaps most members of the Church as beyond help and beyond hope -- fatally diseased limbs to be sawn off rather than tended by a physician), one would have to delineate what is and isn't included within "pre-Vatican II Catholic tradition." I've noticed that some traditionalists don't just object to Vatican II and post-Vatican II developments, but sometimes object to things that formed an accepted part of Church teaching and Church life prior to Vatican II.

Paul Haley said...

Jordanes said in part:

but rather to mandate a return to pre-Vatican II Catholic tradition.

Even if that were pastorally advisable (it's not, as we see from your having written off perhaps most members of the Church as beyond help and beyond hope -- fatally diseased limbs to be sawn off rather than tended by a physician), one would have to delineate what is and isn't included within "pre-Vatican II Catholic tradition." I've noticed that some traditionalists don't just object to Vatican II and post-Vatican II developments, but sometimes object to things that formed an accepted part of Church teaching and Church life prior to Vatican II.

With all due respect, Jordanes, I believe you are being a bit hard on someone who obviously is dismayed and devastated by the "new springtime" of Vatican II which turned out to be the "dead of winter" for many of us schooled before that dreadful departure from all that we knew and loved about the Faith.

Though I may disagree with the poster about the intentions of the Popes involved (we cannot know those intentions), I can well understand the hurt that he or she feels about losing such cherished traditions both in the liturgy and in other areas of Catholic life. One of these cherished traditions is the May crowning of Mary as Our Immaculate Mother and Our Queen. How often do you see such things today?

So, to you it may be a "rant" but to others a cry for help and sanity in these diabolical times.

Luiz said...

P.K.T.P.,

And from these 67%, how many are really catholics?

For example. In my family. My father, my mother and I are traditional catholics. My mother has three brothers and three sisters. One of his brothers is now an evangelical pastor; two of her sisters are kardecists. The other is "catholic". My other two aunts (my father's sisters) are catholics.

It's always the same story. People regard themselves as "catholics", but they are not.

In the parishes, we just find liberation theology, modernism etc!

It's very hard to find a good priest, one who teaches catholic doctrine without error.

I use to attend the Divine Liturgy in a Ukrainian-Catholic church twice a month. Even there things are getting worse...

Anonymous said...

"The Pope wastes time with these Anglicans, when he should be correcting the disasters broungt on by Vatican II in his own Church."

The Holy Father hasn't wasted time with the Anglicans. He responded to requests that Anglicans presented to the Holy See.

There are plenty of hours in each day for the Holy See to deal with 1,001 issues.

That said, it's fair to wonder whether there is more that the Holy Father could do to lift the (Latin) Church from Her state of collapse.

The Apostolic Constitution regarding the Anglicans is a tremendous earth-shaking action that His Holiness has undertaken.

Very good.

In the meantime, we're in desperate need of at least two tremendous earth-shaking actions from the Holy Father in regard to TLM.

1. The Pope must offer the TLM regularly. If the Latin Church is to overcome Her crisis of Faith, which in large part is a liturgical crisis, the Holy Father must promote the TLM to the hilt.

2. As much as I believe that we need less talk and more action, we also need from the Holy Father an earth-shaking Anglican-like "Apostolic Constitution" if you will...an Apostolic Exhortation...to the Church in which the Holy Father:

1. Urges bishops and priests to offer the TLM regularly.

2. Instructs the Faithful as to the history and importance of such Traditional liturgical practices as Latin, Mass ad orientem, Communion received on the tongue while kneeling, royal vestments, Church design, silent Canon, etc.

The Holy Father needs to impart a liturgical history lesson to us.

The Holy Father needs to impart to Latin Catholics the reasons as to why they should embrace, cherish and promote always and everywhere the Latin Church's ancient and great Roman Liturgical heritage.

For example, impart to the people the Church's ancient rich and mystical understanding of Mass ad orientem.

In 1996, Rome presented to Eastern Catholics a wonderful document that explained various Eastern Catholic liturgical traditions.

http://www.byzcath.org/faith/documents/instruction.htm

An example from said document is:

#107. Prayer facing the east

Rome explained said practice to Eastern Catholics then urged Eastern Catholics to embrace always the rich and mystical tradition of ad orientem liturgy.

Rome should should certainly do the same in regard to Latin Catholics.

Unfortunately, as long as Rome remains committed to the Novus Ordo, the chances of such a document issued by Rome is nil.

The Novus Ordo structure is one massive novelty.

To promote among the Faithful a strong sense of the Latin Liturgical Tradition would be to destroy the Novus Ordo.

That is something that Rome, despite the obvious failure of Novus Ordoism, won't do.

That is a shame.

Tim

Dan Hunter said...

Tim,

Read the book: "The Fourth Secret of Fatima" by Antonio Socci, who presents many documented facts in the narratives favor, and you will have a better idea why, what you state will most likely not happen.
Its avaiable in English now.
God bless.

Knight of Malta said...

Amazing! While Rome is burning (the Church collapsing), it is busying itself with the study of extraterrestrials!

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hf92aHEwYT87J1XPP4JrIusKBT-AD9BSTO1G1

Anonymous said...

"Dan Hunter said..."

Thank you, Mr. Hunter, for the information regarding the fourth secret of Our Lady of Fatima.

Pope Benedict XVI must make a choice between the Novus Ordo novelty and the TLM.

The existence of both Masses within the Latin Church is puzzling.

To adhere and promote the Novus Ordo is to adhere to and promote novelty within the Church.

Conversely, the TLM promotes a spirit of Holy Tradition and sense of Catholic identity that stand in stark contrast to that which the Novus Ordo promotes.

How can a parish (or Church) present a unified front when liturgies collide?

At one Mass, reverence abounds...the Mass instills people with humility...heads are covered...people are reminded that they are dependent totally upon God.

The other Mass is approached by people dressed in T-shirts and shorts...the Mass is democratic and the focus is more upon the people than God.

What are we? The people of Holy Tradition or novelty?

The Holy Father must choose between one or the other.

Tim

Anonymous said...

MOst of the posts and contributions on this site are awesome. Especially with regard to these Anglicans being admitted into the Catholic Church.
Though their tradition is at the core, Protestant, they can still become true Roman Catholic. Especially since the Pope said in his Apostolic Constitution that the Anglican services will NOT be celebrated exclusively in the Ordinate, but they will be expected also to have the Roman Rite (notice that the Pope did not specify NOVUS ORDO...that's a big plus for tradition). These new Roman Catholics if exposed to the Tridentine Latin Mass will be exposed to true liturgical expression, and thus many Graces.


The Pope's Apostolic Constitution has been judged by many as very ridgid....which is good. But he made one mistake....allowing former Anglican "bishops" who convert to keep wearing the vesture of a Bishop even though not serving or functioning as such since the Anglican "episcopacy" is 100% illegitimate.
But it gives the wrong impression of legitimacy, as exemplified by the liberal Catholic website www.whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com" which makes a big deal about Benedict XVI supposedly wanting the Anglican bishops..."wives and all." NOT. He didn't read the text very closely.
The Pope wasn't reffering to the married "bishops", but rather to those who are celibate.
The day a Pope allows for bishops complete with their wives (even if converts) to be acknowledged as BISHOPS is the day the Catholic Church will be ruined beyond repair.

Knight of Malta said...

Tim, have you read this article, (by a person I know):

http://www.newoxfordreview.org/article.jsp?did=0107-conlee

Something terrible happened at Vatican II: under the auspices of an "Ecumenical Council," the Church basically denuded itself in the resulting documents, which were the results of liberal periti who took-over (cf. "Rhine flows into the Tiber").

As the sad spectacle of the 1960's illustrates in general, humanity was in open rebellion at the time, the Church not excepted. Why was it so necessary to revolutionize the Church and open her to the world, when the world was at its apex of revolution against the Church? It was a perfect storm: the world in revolution against Godly principals, and the Church in revolution against Herself. Together, it formed the witches brew at Vatican II: we even have a statement from the council that Hindus are on a "loving trusting flight towards God," without any warning that such a flight might lead to Hell.

In that sense, Vatican II is the antithesis of Fatima.

http://www.fatima.org/essentials/facts/hell.asp

John L said...

'You're confusing material heresy and material schism with formal heresy and formal schism.'

Let's look at the question of heresy here, rather than schism. A material heretic is someone who accepts a belief that is incompatible with the Catholic faith, but does not know that it is incompatible with divine revelation, because as a result of invincible ignorance they do not know that the Catholic faith is divinely revealed. People who are brought up as Protestants and never get a good idea of the Catholic faith are good candidates for being material heretics. But we are not talking about such people here. We are talking about cardinals, bishops and priests of the Catholic Church, most of whom were raised as Catholics and received a thorough theological training that left them well informed of what the Catholic faith is. So the presumption is that they are not material heretics, but formal heretics. The teaching of the First Vatican Council is relevant here; in its constitution Dei Filius, chapter 3, it says that 'those who have accepted the faith under the guidance of the church can never have any just cause for changing this faith or for calling it into question'. For the men under discussion to be material heretics, they would therefore have to be men who had never accepted the faith under the guidance of the church, even if only in childhood. This is most implausible.


'There is more joy in heaven over the repentance of a single sinner than there is in 100 righteous who have no need of repentance. You seem more concerned to keep the elite cadre of the pure and righteous than about evangelising sinners.'

This rather uncharitable remark ignores the fact that the heretics in question are not private persons, but men with high posts in the Church, who use these posts to spread their heretical views and to eradicate orthodoxy. That means that tolerating them leads to the leading astray of many, many souls. In fact it is tolerating them that restricts the Church to an 'elite cadre of the pure and righteous', the small number of people who have the education and will to see through the deceptions of these men. If you want to faith to be widely known and available, these men must be stopped.

Jordanes said...

we even have a statement from the council that Hindus are on a "loving trusting flight towards God," without any warning that such a flight might lead to Hell.

Except, as we have already shown, Vatican II never said that Hindus are on a "loving trusting flight towards God."

Jordanes said...

A material heretic is someone who accepts a belief that is incompatible with the Catholic faith, but does not know that it is incompatible with divine revelation, because as a result of invincible ignorance they do not know that the Catholic faith is divinely revealed.

No, the ignorance need not be invincible for one to be a material heretic. Catholic who do not hold the Catholic faith because they were never catechised or were mistaught can also entertain beliefs that materially are heretical.

This rather uncharitable remark ignores the fact that the heretics in question are not private persons, but men with high posts in the Church, who use these posts to spread their heretical views and to eradicate orthodoxy. That means that tolerating them leads to the leading astray of many, many souls.

You're mistaken about my comment being uncharitable. Furthermore, it's not, as Anonymous seemed to suggest, a stark dichotomy of choosing whether to tolerate them and or to write them all off and summarily kick them out because they hold false, heretical beliefs. Rather, efforts ought to be made to correct them, and only when that fails should they be expelled or allowed to depart if that is what they want to do. Nor should the Church take precipitous actions that lead to the spiritual shipwreck of vast numbers of people -- surely the disastrous actions of the 1960s ought to have taught us that much.

John L said...

'No, the ignorance need not be invincible for one to be a material heretic. Catholic who do not hold the Catholic faith because they were never catechised or were mistaught can also entertain beliefs that materially are heretical.'

In order to be a material but not a formal heretic, one must hold one's heretical views without guilt. For that to be the case, one must not know that they contradict divine revelation, and one's lack of knowledge must itself be without guilt. Ignorance is only guiltless when it is invincible. This is the accepted teaching of theologians. Of course, Catholics who were never catechised or were mistaught can as a result be in a state of invincible ignorance. But the debate here is not over Catholics who are uncatechised or mistaught; it is over cardinals, bishops, priests and nuns who were well educated theologically - Cardinal Kasper, for example, is certainly not theologically ignorant.

This point in turn means that your remark that 'it is much more difficult to bring back those who have definitively broken with the Church than to correct erring members of the Church' does not apply to the people under discussion. As Mr. Perkins remarks, they are not erring members of the Church. They are enemies of it; they consciously reject its teachings and are trying to get others to do the same thing. If you publicly reject the teachings of the faith, you are no longer a member of the church, even if you claim that your rejection is just a more advanced version of that faith. The false claim that the people in question are erring members of the church rather than enemies of it is, I think, the key to the disastrous papal policies of the previous (and to some extent the present) pontificate. How this claim can be believed is a mystery to me.


As for uncharitableness; you accusingly remark, 'Anglican tradition is hardly entirely devoid of spiritual value, but then you probably know nothing, or worse, next to nothing, of their spiritual patrimony.' How can you know this about an anonymous commentator?

Jordanes said...

In order to be a material but not a formal heretic, one must hold one's heretical views without guilt.

Father John Hardon, SJ, wrote: ". . . four elements must be verified to constitute formal heresy: previous valid baptism, which need not have been in the Catholic Church; external profession of still being a Christian, otherwise a person becomes an apostate; outright denial or positive doubt regarding a truth that the Catholic Church has actually proposed as revealed by God; and the disbelief must be morally culpable, where a nominal Christian refuses to accept what he knows is a doctrinal imperative.

"Objectively, therefore, to become a heretic in the strict canonical sense and be excommunicated from the faithful, one must deny or question a truth that is taught not merely on the authority of the Church but on the word of God revealed in the Scriptures or sacred tradition. Subjectively a person must recognize his obligation to believe. If he acts in good faith, as with most persons brought up in non-Catholic surroundings, the heresy is only material and implies neither guilt nor sin against faith."

If a Catholic does not hold a Catholic teaching, but doesn't even know that he doesn't hold it, but honestly misconstrues what the Church teaches or honestly believes the Church permits his opinion, he is a material heretic. Cardinals, bishops, priests, and religious can believe things that are not just theologically but doctrinally erroneous and yet be acting in good faith.

This point in turn means that your remark that 'it is much more difficult to bring back those who have definitively broken with the Church than to correct erring members of the Church' does not apply to the people under discussion. As Mr. Perkins remarks, they are not erring members of the Church. They are enemies of it; they consciously reject its teachings and are trying to get others to do the same thing. If you publicly reject the teachings of the faith, you are no longer a member of the church, even if you claim that your rejection is just a more advanced version of that faith.

And now you're confusing formal schism with material schism -- my comment does indeed apply to the people under discussion.

As for uncharitableness; you accusingly remark, 'Anglican tradition is hardly entirely devoid of spiritual value, but then you probably know nothing, or worse, next to nothing, of their spiritual patrimony.' How can you know this about an anonymous commentator?

I can't know it for sure, obviously. That's why I said he "probably" knows nothing or next to nothing of their spiritual patrimony. If he did, he wouldn't have made the erroneous claim that they have nothing of any spiritual value to offer the Catholic Church.

Anonymous said...

Knight of Malta said...

"Tim, have you read this article, (by a person I know):"

Thank you for having directed me to the article in question.

I found the following interesting:

"Forty years ago it wasn't acceptable to wear short skirts and tank tops to Mass,,,but most priests are too afraid -- too emasculated -- to speak out about those blasphemies these days."

I encounter that every week at my parish.

Our spiritual fathers — our priests — are not interested and/or lack the nerve to take a strong stance against at Mass against such things.

I sometimes wonder whether fellow laymen should correct people who dress and act inappropriately at Mass.

But the following dawned upon me (perhaps priests believe the same):

The people have been robbed of the TLM.

As a result of having been deprived of the Latin Church's ancient liturgical tradition, how can we expect the majority of Latin Catholics to think and act in traditional fashion?

Latin Catholics simply do not know any better.

At probably the majority of parishes, the people truly do not know how to act appropriately at Mass.

Sanctuaries have been overrun by laymen. Communion in the hand abounds.

Pianos, drums and guitars sound at Mass.

Laymen, ten and twelve at a time, distribute Holy Communion.

People become out of control during the Sign of Peace.

Is there any wonder as to why people wear short skirts and tank tops to Mass?

Tim

Anonymous said...

PKTP: have you thought about starting your own blog?

"allowing former Anglican "bishops" who convert to keep wearing the vesture of a Bishop even though not serving or functioning as such since the Anglican "episcopacy" is 100% illegitimate."

This privilege was also given in the past to some converts who were exercising bishop ministry previously. See for example http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/W%C5%82adys%C5%82aw_Faron (Ha ricevuto la dignità di Canonico. Per il resto della sua vita, ha avuto il permesso di utilizzare alcuni degli attributi dei vescovi, ma non il diritto di essere considerato un vescovo cattolico.) - sorry, no English version.

This man was validly consecrated by the Old Catholics - just like some Anglicans.

Anonymous said...

John L is right.

We seem to have been conditioned the past fifty years or so to a great toleration and indifference of error. Also, a false idea of "charity." I am horrified that most Catholics aren't horrified at most of what goes on. If we had the same indignation and zeal toward heresy and knowing heretics as we do toward advocates of abortion...

St. John (you know, the "little children,love one another" apostle) ran out of a bath house rather than be under the same roof with an enemy of Christ.

Catholics need to get a back bone - and fast. Time is running out at a rapid rate.

Delphina

Dr. Herbert R. said...

"Why should we expect bishops and priests to offer the TLM when they look to the Pope who, in turn, doesn't offer the TLM?"

I have read somewhere that the reason why the Pope could not offer the TLM is that there is no person or expert who could guide the ceremonials in a Papal Mass using the Extraordinary Form. It is said that the ceremonials in a Papal Mass in the traidtional form is complicated and different from that of a pontifical mass celebrated by a Bishop. And the Pope is hesitant because he may not get it right or the delivery may not be good. A Papal mass in the traditional form needs assistants and masters of ceremonies.

In celebrating the Liturgy the Pope I would speculate is using his prudence - that is avoiding controversy and affirming the unity of the Church. Whether Extraordinary or Ordinary lets remember there is only ONE ROMAN/LATIN RITE. The Most important in any form of celebration is not so much the ceremony but the essence and what is signified by the Mass itself - that is JESUS CHRIST THE LAMB OF GOD WHO TAKEST AWAY THE SINS OF THE WORLD.

Anonymous said...

Dr Herbert R wrote :
"In celebrating the Liturgy the Pope I would speculate is using his prudence - that is avoiding controversy and affirming the unity of the Church. Whether Extraordinary or Ordinary lets remember there is only ONE ROMAN/LATIN RITE. The Most important in any form of celebration is not so much the ceremony but the essence and what is signified by the Mass itself - that is JESUS CHRIST THE LAMB OF GOD WHO TAKEST AWAY THE SINS OF THE WORLD."

NO, no and no !
1. there is no "one Roman/Latin rite" as you say : it's wrong. There is one Roman rite in 2 very differents "Forms" but there are several Latin rites (ex. the Ambrosian Rite).

2. Your final argument is typically the linik theory which is the source of the present chaos. Due to your drastic weakening of the Mass to the sole consecration, everything else could be done : clown "masses", worshipping the pumpkin, all the horrific or simply absurd abuses we know.
Please think a little bit before typing the "litnik creed".
The teaching of the Church and the whole teaching of pope Benedict XVI are contrary to this desastrous theory.
No, no and no it is not right to have anarchy in Liturgy, under the false pretext that "The Most important in any form of celebration is not so much the ceremony but the essence and what is signified by the Mass itself".
The whole struggle of trads in 40 years is against this litnik creed.

Alsaticus

Anonymous said...

It's a first! To turn from France to Canada, the land of Fr. Raymond Gravel, a former male prostitute who advocates abortion and inverted marriage on television and is not disciplined by the Church (including former papal nuncio Luigi Ventura, now sent to poison France), we now have this amazing story from Toronto:


TORONTO -- Canada's first openly gay Catholic priest is to mark another milestone.

Father Karl Clemens is getting married Saturday to his partner Nick.

He says he'll be the first man of the Catholic cloth to enter into a same-sex marriage in Canada, and maybe even in North America.

"I'm not doing it to start a revolution, but if people want to exercise their right, and so forth, that's terrific," Clemens told Sun Media yesterday.

"I feel very strongly about it.

"I'm leading the way, or pioneering, as it were, in something that I think is very important," Clemens said. "It's a human right."

Clemens, who is approaching 70 and who retired from the Kingston, Ont. diocese after serving there for 33 years, moved to Toronto more than a decade ago to work in, and advocate for, the city's gay village.

Regarding his same-sex marriage, he's prepared for a backlash from the church and some of its followers, as he was when he came out of the closet in 2005.

"There will be Catholics who feel, because of their lack of understanding, that this is a very wrong thing and therefore will not be pleased," Clemens said.

"But those are consequences we have to be willing to deal with because we feel strongly about the issue at hand, which is the right to be able to enter into same-sex marriages."

Clemens and his partner will be married Saturday afternoon in the couple's home.

Anonymous said...

Dear Alsaticus:

Whatever you and Jordanes and Benedict XVI may say to the contrary, the T.L.M. and N.O.M. are NOT two forms of one Rite. No, they are completely separate rites of Mass. I have made my case for this before so I won't repeat the proof. But I will keep saying it, over and over and over again, just as I will keep saying that communion, like pregancy and death, is an absolute, so that there is no such thing as partial communion either.

P.K.T.P.

Jordanes said...

Whatever you and Jordanes and Benedict XVI may say to the contrary, the T.L.M. and N.O.M. are NOT two forms of one Rite.

Alsaticus and I are nobodies, but as for that Benedict XVI fellow, there's something relevant about him in Pastor Aeternus." The Bishop of Rome is the guy who gets to tell us the form and content of the Rite of the Roman Church.

No, they are completely separate rites of Mass.

No "completely separate."

There are rites and there are Rites.

Anonymous said...

The Bishop of Rome is the guy who gets to tell us the form and content of the Rite of the Roman Church.

But he doesn't create reality by calling apples carrots. Both Msgr Ranjith and Cardinal Hoyos kept referring to "two rites".

Jordanes said...

But he doesn't create reality by calling apples carrots.

No, not just by calling them carrots -- but by ordering that both apples and carrots be served at the supper he does create a new reality.

Both Msgr Ranjith and Cardinal [Castrillon] Hoyos kept referring to "two rites".

That's because the two rites are two forms/uses of one Rite. There are rites and there are Rites.

Anonymous said...

Not surprisingly, Jordanes and most other posters here fail to realise the full significance of this rite verses form distinction.

Of course, in a general sense, the two Masses are two rites, just as each part of any Mass or office is a 'rite'.

But if they are two Rites in the juridical sense, I'd suggest that the implications are very bad for Rome and especially for Paul VI and NewChurch. In fact, such a conclusion would call into question not the validity but the liceity of the New Mass. No Pope can institute a New normative Rite without replacing the old one, and that was not done.

I'd also suggest that that rat, who is fortunately unemployed now, dreamed up this new terminology. This did not come from Benedict XVI. While he may agree with it in general, he has likely not considered the matter carefully. What was important for him (and for us) is that the two Masses are differenit "items in law", as I agrued with a certain canonists so determinedly. I think that the Pope wanted to come to the same conclusion but that he wanted to avoid the 'two Rites' implication because, in the law of the Latin Church, it would be extremely bad if any see had more than one rite proper to it at any given time. This would be a complete novelty in the Latin Church and it would indeed have possible canonical implications.

I suggest that, in time, once the New Mass is abolished, I shall be found to be correct: they are two Rites. You see, law must follow reality and the differences between them in every category of known to liturgiologists is substantial, even remarkable. Even a Pope cannot change the facts of liturgical realilty. He is not infallible in such matters and, like Paul VI in De Missale Romano, 1971, he has erred--and Perl is the cause of that error.

I agree with everyone here, however, that this matter will have no bearing on the current situation. The two will not be regarded as separate rites in law for the forseeable future, so we needn't quibble. Nevertheless, I shall continue insisting that the awe-inspiring Mass of the Ages is not the same Rite as that other thing.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes writes (not rites):

"No, not just by calling them carrots -- but by ordering that both apples and carrots be served at the supper he does create a new reality."

Or perhaps a false reality, a juridical illusion, such as the one created by Paul VI when he declared that a general right to celebrate the Mass of 1962 had been suppressed. We all make mistakes when not protected by infallibility.

P.K.T.P.

Jordanes said...

But if they are two Rites in the juridical sense,

They're not. The Church's tradition and law are clear as clear can be on that point.

I'd suggest that the implications are very bad for Rome and especially for Paul VI and NewChurch. In fact, such a conclusion would call into question not the validity but the liceity of the New Mass.

It is possible for the Roman Pontiff to juridically approve a Catholic Rite, or changes in a Catholic Rite, without liceity?

No Pope can institute a New normative Rite without replacing the old one, and that was not done.

Is there anything in the Church's Tradition and Faith that supports your assertion?

I'd also suggest that that rat, who is fortunately unemployed now, dreamed up this new terminology.

Please show Msgr. Perl due respect. "That rat" is not due respect.

I think that the Pope wanted to come to the same conclusion but that he wanted to avoid the 'two Rites' implication because, in the law of the Latin Church, it would be extremely bad if any see had more than one rite proper to it at any given time.

I think it's more likely that he wanted to avoid "two Rites" because it would require Roman Rite priests to obtain permission to celebrate the traditional Mass, which would have defeated the whole purpose of Summorum Pontificum.

I suggest that, in time, once the New Mass is abolished, I shall be found to be correct: they are two Rites.

But the longer it takes for the Pauline liturgy to be gotten rid of, the less likely that your opinion on this matter will be ruled to be correct. The new Roman liturgy was duly promulgated in accordance with all the norms. Paul VI may have intended to abrogate the old liturgy, but he didn't do that -- but he certainly did promulgate the new liturgy.

You see, law must follow reality and the differences between them in every category of known to liturgiologists is substantial, even remarkable.

But are those differences enough to prevent a Roman Pontiff from lawfully establishing a new form alongside the traditional form of the Roman Rite? I'm not aware of any limitation to his authority in that area -- especially when it is an juridical act that serves to help make right what an earlier Pope had made wrong.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes writes:

"Is there anything in the Church's Tradition and Faith that supports your assertion?"


Jordanes does not understand this subject adequately. In order for him to ponder it better, I suggest that re-read "Quo Primum Tempore" and attend especially to the tone of that Bull. The tone is as important as the content if he would acquire a deep and heartfelt understanding of the proper context for papal authority in liturgical legislation.

Popes should not be regarded simply as Supreme Legislators in matters of law. They are more than that. Their primary role is to preserve, to protect, and to foster a divine deposit which has been delivered. If they would rule in this matter they must serve first. They are to our sacred liturgy what the angel with the flaming sword was to the Garden of Eden: guardians. They are first and foremost *servants* of the Holy Ghost. They have no right in Moral Law, which is as far above every Canon Law as the sun is above the earth (and without which ordinances in Canon Law FAIL TO QUALIFY as law), to introduce substantial novelty into a Rite that has been hallowed by generations and that is a work of God Himself.

A Pope has no right to depart radically from what has been firmly entrenched and standarised by divine will. His authority is plenary, completely sufficient to fulfil his mission, not absolute. A Pope cannot simply manufacture a new Rite and impose it; nor can he compeltely suppress the ancient Rite of Mass and replace it. And he certainly cannot replace it WITHOUT suppressing it.

To think of the Pope as some absolute tyrant of the liturgy is a Protestant notion. He is not a Henry VIII of the Mass; he cannot do to the Mass what Henry VIII tried to do to it. Protestants can amend, reform, experiment, and revolutionise at will, for they do not see their liturgy as an Opus Dei. And they've got that part right: it isn't. Jordanes needs to immerse himself more in a mediæval sense of Catholic truth and less in a post-Tridentine one.

TO BE CONTINUED...

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

What Paul VI attempted to do was illicit in Moral Law. The differences between the two Masses are so substantial in every category that they make for two Rites of Mass, not two forms of one Rite. But it is unprecedented in the Latin Church to have two Rites of Mass proper to one see and especially to the see which is Mater and Magistra of the Church Universal. This would suggest a division right in the lex orandi itself. It would imply that Holy Church had become a double-headed monster.

That's why Perl, for whom I have zero respect, had to deny that there were two Rites, for it would call into question the liceity of the Pauline Rite, since it had been concocted and without lawfully suppressing the Traditional Rite. Since the old Rite was normative and was never abrogated, it presumably remains the normative Rite of Mass. They do not want to face these consequences. It suggests that Paul the VI made a fundamental error which undermines even the spirit of Mass in general in the Latin Church. The spiritual implications are staggering.

And please do not drag out the case of the Chaldean Church. Each individual church sui juris has its own ancient continuity, which is the legal context according to which laws have force. That's why the new Anglicatholics cannot be made a church sui juris. They must return from whence they came, to the Latin Church.

I am saying that the New Mass is a new Rite of Mass and that creating a new Rite ab ovo is to create something which does not come from God and then unlawfully replacing what did come from God. That makes the New Rite objectively illicit. It does not mean that anyone sinned in attending it or in failing to attend the True Mass; nor does it mean that the crafters of the New Mass necessarily sinned in concocting it, although I believe that several of them did (just a private belief).

This will all come out one day, just as I argued almost alone not only that the ancient Mass had never been suppressed but that the right of priests to celebrate it derived NOT from "Quo Primum Tempore" but from a law from immemorial custom which precedes Q.P.T. and was never replaced by it. The Pope almost came out and admitted that my argument was right. Clue: look at the essential argument he presented in the opening paragraphs of his letter to the bishops regarding S.P., and then compare this to the preamble in S.P.

I shall be proved right on this matter as well. In the mean time, I don't mind in the least if Jordanes can't see it or won't accept it. I'm not doing this for my own aggrandisement and don't want one iota of credit for it. I care only that the truth will prevail and by any licit means. I'm confident that this will be resolved in the end. I now realise that NewMass will eventually be suppressed. The truth of this matter will probably not be made public (if at all) until that happens. That's fine.

P.K.T.P.

P.S. Send me an e-mail, Jordanes. It has nothing to do with this subject. I have important news to relate to you.

Jordanes said...

They have no right in Moral Law, which is as far above every Canon Law as the sun is above the earth (and without which ordinances in Canon Law FAIL TO QUALIFY as law), to introduce substantial novelty into a Rite that has been hallowed by generations and that is a work of God Himself.

One way I've seen it explained is that the Pope's supreme authority to make changes in the liturgy does extend even to the point of "substantial novelty," but that he would nevertheless lack the moral authority to make the extensive, unprecedented changes Paul VI made, which have proven to be a pastoral catastrophe leading to the loss of untold numbers of souls.

A Pope has no right to depart radically from what has been firmly entrenched and standarised by divine will. His authority is plenary, completely sufficient to fulfil his mission, not absolute. A Pope cannot simply manufacture a new Rite and impose it; nor can he compeltely suppress the ancient Rite of Mass and replace it. And he certainly cannot replace it WITHOUT suppressing it.

I would say that the Pope does lack the authority to suppress hallowed and immemorial Rites, but composing and authorising new Rites or rites is not beyond his authority -- in centuries past new Rites were composed by men of lesser standing in the Church tnan the Pope.

Summorum Pontificum recognises that the traditional Rite was never juridically abrogated, and that the traditional liturgy and the Pauline liturgy are juridically two forms of one Rite -- but SP leaves unresolved whether or not a Pope could have abrogated the traditional liturgy, and whether or not the differences between the two forms are such that they ought to be acknowledged as two separate Rites instead of two forms of one Rite. For the time being, they are two forms of one Rite, which neatly grants Latin Rite priests the right to celebrate the old Mass without having the get an indult or be recognised as biritual. What the Holy See may decide about "two forms of one Rite" in the future remains to be seen.

Jordanes said...

Got your email, Mr. Perkins. Thanks for sharing the news.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes writes:

"I would say that the Pope does lack the authority to suppress hallowed and immemorial Rites, but composing and authorising new Rites or rites is not beyond his authority -- in centuries past new Rites were composed by men of lesser standing in the Church tnan the Pope."

Well, hindsight is 20-20! I argued this vociferously *before* Benedict XVI found it to be so. I don't agree at all that Popes can compose a new Mass or that this has been done before. Even local Uses have forms which were mostly legislated into existence after they had been accepted locally by the Church at prayer. No, the Pope cannot do this because our Liturgy, especially the Eucharistic Liturgy, is composed over time by the Holy Ghost. You know Who He is, Jordanes. He's the one who appears as a dove. He doesn't just deliver a Rite of Mass whole and entire and drop it from Heaven on a liberal Pope's head. And he can't be heard in a committee because the Freemasons and heretics assembled in the Consilium would not shut their nauseating mouths for five minutes to let Him speak.

I am arguing, then, that the New Mass is (objectively) illicit because (a) it differs too much from the T.L.M. to be only a form of it and (b) it was composed in committee and not merely promulgated from traditional forms approved by the Holy Ghost over time.

On (a), suppose that the Pope had merely written the words 'Roman Missal' on a Byantinte Missal. Would that make for a new Rite of Mass? Obviously not.

What we have with NewMass is a completely novel Offetory having no liturgical precedent, three completely new Eucharistic Prayers based on no Canon which was known to have been actually used in the Primitive or later Church, a new Consecration Formula at the very heart of the Mass, two optional penitential rites having some precedence but not specifically in regard to actual petitons, a redically altered traditional penitential rite with a largely altered Confiteor and the Indulgentiam missing, and I could go on and on and on. They are two diffferent Rites of Mass!

The New Mass even engages in re-ordereing (Fraction and Pax; Last Blessing and Dismissal). It leaves no stone unturned and no method of change untested: addition, deletion, substitution, recasting, restoration (e.g. bidding prayers), re-ordering; and alteration in rubrics, in rubrical terminology, and in musical settings. It also has an entirely new system of propers and integral and fundamental changes to the calendar. How much change makes for a new Rite? Jordames would say that only the Pope knows. I'm saying that much less change than this would be fundamental. When you rip the heart right out of the Mass and change the very Consecration Formula itself (to the Protestant version, by the way), that makes for a new Rite.

Anyone having a developed sensus catholicus can tell you in a flash: the differene between these two is absolutely fundamental. Danny De Vito once said in a film that he and Arnold Schwarzenegger were identical twins: "We're practically indistinguishable", he said and everyone laughed. It's a point of view.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes writes:

"I would say that the Pope does lack the authority to suppress hallowed and immemorial Rites, but composing and authorising new Rites or rites is not beyond his authority -- in centuries past new Rites were composed by men of lesser standing in the Church tnan the Pope."

Well, hindsight is 20-20! I argued this vociferously *before* Benedict XVI found it to be so. I don't agree at all that Popes can compose a new Mass or that this has been done before. Even local Uses have forms which were mostly legislated into existence after they had been accepted locally by the Church at prayer. No, the Pope cannot do this because our Liturgy, especially the Eucharistic Liturgy, is composed over time by the Holy Ghost. You know Who He is, Jordanes. He's the one who appears as a dove. He doesn't just deliver a Rite of Mass whole and entire and drop it from Heaven on a liberal Pope's head. And he can't be heard in a committee because the Freemasons and heretics assembled in the Consilium would not shut their nauseating mouths for five minutes to let Him speak.

I am arguing, then, that the New Mass is (objectively) illicit because (a) it differs too much from the T.L.M. to be only a form of it and (b) it was composed in committee and not merely promulgated from traditional forms approved by the Holy Ghost over time.

On (a), suppose that the Pope had merely written the words 'Roman Missal' on a Byantinte Missal. Would that make for a new Rite of Mass? Obviously not.

What we have with NewMass is a completely novel Offetory having no liturgical precedent, three completely new Eucharistic Prayers based on no Canon which was known to have been actually used in the Primitive or later Church, a new Consecration Formula at the very heart of the Mass, two optional penitential rites having some precedence but not specifically in regard to actual petitons, a redically altered traditional penitential rite with a largely altered Confiteor and the Indulgentiam missing, and I could go on and on and on. They are two diffferent Rites of Mass!

The New Mass even engages in re-ordereing (Fraction and Pax; Last Blessing and Dismissal). It leaves no stone unturned and no method of change untested: addition, deletion, substitution, recasting, restoration (e.g. bidding prayers), re-ordering; and alteration in rubrics, in rubrical terminology, and in musical settings. It also has an entirely new system of propers and integral and fundamental changes to the calendar. How much change makes for a new Rite? Jordames would say that only the Pope knows. I'm saying that much less change than this would be fundamental. When you rip the heart right out of the Mass and change the very Consecration Formula itself (to the Protestant version, by the way), that makes for a new Rite.

Anyone having a developed sensus catholicus can tell you in a flash: the differene between these two is absolutely fundamental. Danny De Vito once said in a film that he and Arnold Schwarzenegger were identical twins: "We're practically indistinguishable", he said and everyone laughed. It's a point of view.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes writes:

"For the time being, they are two forms of one Rite..."

Change that this this and I would agree:

For the time being, they are regarded by legitimate authority as two forms of one Rite....

Of course, the same authority once told us that our Mass had been suppressed (1971-2007). That's right: they got it wrong for 36 years. What I want to know is this: When will compensation be awarded to all the good priests who were thrown out of their rectories for that period? While they're selling off our churches to pay for some priests' filthy habits, perhaps they could compensate those priests who were persecuted for saying the ancient Mass.

P.K.T.P.