Rorate Caeli

Cardinal Cañizares to visit IBP in Bordeaux

On Saturday, July 10 at 9:30 am we will have the great pleasure of welcoming to Saint-Eloi in Bordeaux, His Eminence Cardinal Antonio Cañizares Llovera, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship. It is a great honor to have this prelate at the Institut du Bon-Pasteur, which he has always held in high esteem. He will perform the ordinations of a priest, Father Jean-Francois Billot, a deacon, Father Remy Balthazard, and a sub-deacon, Father Stephen Lecarme.

I therefore have the pleasure of inviting you all to this moving ceremony to see and hear the head of the liturgy for the Universal Church. His commitment to the extraordinary form is well known and he is a master of its use.

I also have the pleasure of inviting you all to the first Mass to be celebrated by Fr. Billot the following day, July 11 at 10:30 am in the same parish….

I look forward to seeing you for this great event in the Church!


Abbé Philippe Laguérie

24 comments:

Anonymous said...

Did not Pope Paul VI abolish the Sub-Diaconate in 1972?

Jordanes said...

Yes, pretty much the way he "abolished" the traditional Roman Mass in 1970. It would appear that the subdiaconate in the Roman Rite is just as "abrogated" as the 1962 Roman Missal (i.e., it's not).

Cruise the Groove. said...

"is just as "abrogated" as the 1962 Roman Missal (i.e., it's not)."

as is[or isn't] the Office of Prime.
Which I am obliged to pray daily.

Paul Haley said...

I applaud His Eminence Cardinal Antonio Cañizares Llovera, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, for performing these ordinations and for his commitment to the extraordinary form. My only hope is that the extraordinary form becomes the ordinary form in the near future and that the restoration of all things in Christ is realized while there is still time.

Cruise the Groove. said...

Mr Haley,

Have ye no fear.
It will.

Stéphane said...

Abbé Laguérie seems to be somewhat confused: Cardinal Cañizares is not the head of the liturgy for the Universal Church but only for the Latin Church. Why do Latins catholics keep taking the Latin Church for the Universal Church and themselves for the only Catholics? "Katholikos", not "latinus", means universal.

Jordanes said...

Stephane, in reading JOhn Paul II's Pastor Bonus (1988), I find nothing there that limits the competence and jurisdiction of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments to the Latin Church only. Here are the relevant articles (note what I had bolded in Article 62):

Art. 62 — The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments does whatever pertains to the Apostolic See concerning the regulation and promotion of the sacred liturgy, primarily of the sacraments, without prejudice to the competence of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Art. 63 — It fosters and safeguards the regulation of the administration of the sacraments, especially regarding their valid and licit celebration. It grants favours and dispensations not contained in the faculties of diocesan bishops in this matter.

Art. 64 — § 1. By effective and suitable means, the Congregation promotes liturgical pastoral activity, especially regarding the celebration of the Eucharist; it gives support to the diocesan bishops so that the Christian faithful may share more and more actively in the sacred liturgy.

§ 2. It sees to the drawing up and revision of liturgical texts. It reviews particular calendars and proper texts for the Mass and the Divine Office for particular Churches and institutes which enjoy that right.

§ 3. It grants the recognitio to translations of liturgical books and their adaptations that have been lawfully prepared by conferences of bishops.

Art. 65 — The Congregation fosters commissions or institutes for promoting the liturgical apostolate or sacred music, song or art, and it maintains relations with them. In accordance with the law, it erects associations which have an international character or approves or grants the recognitio to their statutes. Finally, it contributes to the progress of liturgical life by encouraging meetings from various regions.

Art. 66 — The Congregation provides attentive supervision to ensure that liturgical norms are accurately observed, and that abuses are avoided and eliminated where they are found to exist.

Art. 67 — This Congregation examines the fact of non-consummation in a marriage and the existence of a just cause for granting a dispensation. It receives all the acts together with the votum of the bishop and the remarks of the defender of the bond, weighs them according to its own special procedure, and, if the case warrants it, submits a petition to the Supreme Pontiff requesting the dispensation.

Art. 68 — It is also competent to examine, in accordance with the law, cases concerning the nullity of sacred ordination.

Art. 69 — This Congregation has competence concerning the cult of sacred relics, the confirmation of heavenly patrons and the granting of the title of minor basilica.

Art. 70 — The Congregation gives assistance to bishops so that, in addition to liturgical worship, the prayers and pious exercises of the Christian people, in full harmony with the norms of the Church, may be fostered and held in high esteem.

Anonymous said...

"Art. 62 — The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments does whatever pertains to the Apostolic See concerning the regulation and promotion of the sacred liturgy, primarily of the sacraments"

If the Pope had tried to do anything with the liturgy of another patriarchate in the first millenium, the schism would have happened earlier.

John Paul II wrote that we cannot demand more from the Orthodox Churches than was demanded in the first millenium, so the CDW has no power over non-Latin rites.

Jordanes said...

If the Pope had tried to do anything with the liturgy of another patriarchate in the first millenium, the schism would have happened earlier.

That does not establish that the CDW only has competence over the Latin Church and not the entire Catholic Church.

John Paul II wrote that we cannot demand more from the Orthodox Churches than was demanded in the first millenium, so the CDW has no power over non-Latin rites.

Gigantic non sequitur. The Orthodox Churches are not in communion with the Catholic Church. What the Church decides to demand of the Orthodox whenever, if ever, they return to the Catholic Church has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not the CDW's competence and jurisdiction extends over non-Latin rites of the Catholic Church.

Article 62 says the CDW "does whatever pertains to the Apostolic See," whose jurisdiction is universal and immediate, not limited to the Latin Church. In practice, the CDW does not directly moderate the liturgy of Eastern Catholic Churches — and properly so — but that does not mean the CDW lacks the lawful jurisdiction to do so. The Abbe is not at all confused about Cardinal Canizares Llovera's office.

Stéphane said...

Jordanes, my point is not the self-styled orthodox (and actually every bit heterodox) Churches but the non-Latin Catholic Churches. Cardinal Cañizares has no power whatsoever upon them. What you leave out of scope is the general rule that the non-Latin Catholics Churches are not subject to any organ of the Roman Curia except the Holy Office (now CDF) and the Secretariat of State. In all other matters, the Congregation for Eastern Churches has exclusive jurisdction on them.

The sheer fact that you regard as conceiveable that they should be subject to the prefects of the other dicasteries is one more proof of the latinocracy that is stifling the universal (i.e. truely catholic) Church - and pushing many non-Latin Catholics towards schism. More of the same old story!

Anonymous said...

Jordanes:

The problem with this entire issue is not the scope of the Congregation's authority but its precedence. Abbé Laguérie (or his translator) used the term 'head'. The head or chief of a Rite is not the Prefect for Liturgy and the Sacraments in any Rite, INCLUDING THE ROMAN. The head of the Roman Rite is the Pope himself as Patriarch of the West, a title he still bears, even if he declines to use it. The chief of the Ambrosian Rite is the Archbishop of Milan even outside the Archdiocese of Milan. Etcetera.

So the the good Abbé (or else his translator) simply did not choose the most accurate terminology here. Jordanes's comments about the scope of the Congregation are correct, nevertheless. The Prefect for Liturgy's authority (wnich is not a headship) is not limited to he Latin Church.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes writes:

"The Abbe is not at all confused about Cardinal Canizares Llovera's office."

Perhaps this is so, I'm not sure. But the Pope exercises universal and immediate authority over Eastern Churches not as Patriarch of the West but as Supreme Pontiff of the Church Universal. The Prefect for Divine Worship is the Pope's deputy as Pope, not as Western Patriarch; therefore, Jordanes is right that his authority extends to the Eastern Catholic churches.

However, whether or not the Pope can impose major changes to the liturgy of any of the ritual churches, including the Latin one, is not so simple. Cardinal Stickler, in his interview following the 1986 Commission of Cardinals' meeting, implied that even a Pope did not have the authority in Moral Law to suppress or replace any traditional liturgy. The reason is that the Sacred Liturgy is the work of the Holy Ghost, and the Holy Ghost is higher on the totem pole than is the Pope. According to St. Thomas Aquinas, any ordinance in positive law that violates a norm of Moral Law does not make for bad law; rather, it fails to qualify as law in the first place. In such a situation, we are bound to obey the illegal ordinance only in consideration of the principle of proportionality.

Naturally, this leads to the question of how much alteration of a liturgy is within the power of a Pope to impose (impose, not enact: he can enact what he likes but the question is what he can forbid here). Since there is no authority on earth higher than that of the Pope, this ultimately becomes a question each faithful might answer in a matter of conscience. In the Byzantine churches, there is a tradition that the faithful can prevent liturgical abuses of priests or even prelates by saying 'no, no' from the pews. One Ukrainian priest told me that the postconciliar Western changes could never have happened in the Byzantine Rite because the elderly ladies in the Ukraine (for example) would have exclaimed 'ni, ni' and that would have stopped the reforms right there! It reminds me of the ancient rule that a king or pope had to be 'confirmed' by an acclamation of the people, a mediæval concept.

Should a pope try to eradicate a Mass hallowed by the Holy Ghost, as Paul VI tried to do in 1971 in De Missali Romano, it could be regarded as an abuse of power that justifies resistance. God has a way of winning in the end; hence the T.L.M. is the Mass that would not die.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Context:

In my previous comments about popes amending liturgies, to consider Moral Law, one must take into account all the circumstances.

First of all, there is a huge difference between making changes in a formative period and making them once a considerable time has passed during which forms have been hallowed by spiritual usage. In the sixth and earlier centuries, popes no doubt made larger changes, although they apparently did work from existing forms (Gelasian Sacramentary) and did not simply dream up new prayers at the time of insertions(as Bugnini did in 1970).

There is a parallel here with language. The fact that much change in spelling occurred in the fifteenth century does not, in itself, justify changing from 'might' to 'mite' today.

We must keep in mind that the authority of the Pope is limited by the end for which it was created by Christ, which is to build up the Mystical Body on earth. Precedent is the proper guide to the scope of papal authority over the liturgy. It is crystal clear that popes can enact and impose small changes, for example.

Liturgists (like grammarians) have, after the fact, categorised different types of change, and these can be ranked in accordance with their effects. Hence a substitution is more disruptive to liturgy than is a simple addition. The substitution of a concocted Offertory with no history of usage in liturgy for an Offertory of 500 years usage was a major disruption. A Pope might, perhaps, have the authority to allow such a substitution but I argue that he has no power to impose it (i.e. to make the old one forbidden).

Types of reform in liturgy include addition, deletion, substituion, re-ordering, alteration and addition of options. Alterations in official translations must also be included because translations can make liturgical difference. Musical settings and rubrics are also essential parts of Mass and are therefore contexts for liturgical change as well.

In the case of the New Mass, the changes were major and made throughout the rite and fall into every category, even re-ordering e.g. change in position of the Fraction and Pax). Bugnini and his coven of revolutionaries and heretical advisors left no stone unturned. Whether their new Rite is legitimate at all (and licit) is a matter of debate. But regardless of one's opinion about that, we can and do now affirm that forbidding the previous Rite was ultra vires.

Of course, again, the Pope (or Perl, who dreamed it up and then got the Pope's signature) is wrong that the two are forms of one Rite. No, they are separate Rites of Mass. What makes for a separate Rite? If I were to compose a supposedly Latin liturgy that had less in common with the T.L.M. than has the Ambrosian Rite, and then wrote 'Roman Rite' on the title page, would the revision make for the same Rite in a different form? If so, in what sense can we say that the Ambrosian Rite is separate from the Roman? Is the ascription of the term 'Rite' owing only to historical separation? Does it not pertain to content? Food for thought.

P.K.T.P.

John said...

So: one more priest with no ministry to speak of, and no prospects of ever having one, and two others further along the same path.

The Vatican has called Fr. Laguerie's bluff on his threat to return to the SSPX, and he is reduced to kissing his chains and flattering His Eminence for his commitment to the "extraordinary form."

Extraordinary, indeed: like the orangutans in the National Zoo.

We should pray that the Vatican will let the IBP out of the zoo; but we shouldn't count on it.

John said...

I would have thought that those who would go into schism over the Pope's asserting his authority over their liturgy are already schismatic in principle.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes,

See Pastor bonus, art. 58.

Anonymous said...

Let us pray that, soon, His Eminence will also be able to visit a canonically-ereted Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer!

Has anyone noticed HOW LONG it is taking to grant the Sons canonical form? Perhaps Rome wants a new name for the group, such as 'Hirelings of the Most Holy Redeemer'.

I am wondering if the delay is owing to some other jurdical enterprise of His Holiness, such as the provision of one or more particular churches for tradition. Just a thought.

P.K.T.P.

Jordanes said...

the non-Latin Catholic Churches. Cardinal Cañizares has no power whatsoever upon them.

That's not what Pastor Bonus 62 says.

One of our many Anonymi has referred to PB 58, but that does not limit the CDW's oversight of the Catholic Church's liturgy only to the Roman Rite.

What you leave out of scope is the general rule that the non-Latin Catholics Churches are not subject to any organ of the Roman Curia except the Holy Office (now CDF) and the Secretariat of State.

No such rule is mentioned in Pastor Bonus.

In all other matters, the Congregation for Eastern Churches has exclusive jurisdction on them.

There is nothing in Pastor Bonus that says the COC has exclusive jurisdiction over liturgical matters. PB 58 does not even mention liturgy explicitly -- it would be covered under "the exercise of the office of teaching, sanctifying and governing, or the status, rights, and obligations of persons." But PB 62 establishes that the CDW "does whatever pertains to the Apostolic See," whose jurisdiction is universal and immediate, not limited to the Latin Church.

In practice the CDW does not directly moderate Eastern liturgical matters, but not because it is not competent to do so. It clearly is.

The sheer fact that you regard as conceiveable that they should be subject to the prefects of the other dicasteries is one more proof of the latinocracy that is stifling the universal (i.e. truely catholic) Church - and pushing many non-Latin Catholics towards schism. More of the same old story!

On the contrary, the fact that you seem to have a problem with Pastor Aeternus 3 is a troubling indication that your grasp of the Catholic Church might be deficient. Please refresh your memory on the teaching of PA 3:

"Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman church possesses a preeminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world."

There is no way to read PA 3 and PB 62 in any way that restricts the competence and jurisdiction of the CDW only to the Latin Church.

As for Mr. Perkins observations about the accuracy of the Abbe's terminology, yes, the prefect of the CDW is not properly speaking the "head" of the Universal Church's liturgy -- that dignity is indeed proper to the Bishop of Rome.

But again, as Mr. Perkins said, that doesn't mean the liturgy is anything even close to the Pope's personal plaything that he may modify at his own whim. There's a reason Paul VI's wholesale liturgical reform has been almost entirely if not entirely a failure and a calamity, after all.

Stéphane said...

Jordanes is every bit wrong.
The Pope has jurisdiction over the universal Church but the Prefects of the Roman dicasteries have NONE WHATSOEVER, except for the Secretary of State and the Prefect of the CDF - and the Prefect of the Congregation of the Eastern Churches. The Pope exercises his jurisdiction over the Eastern Churches through the latter, which enjoys (quasi) exclusive authority on them.
Now, if you all Latinocrats are unwilling recognize this basic well-documented fact, if you don't know about Benedict XV's reform in this matter, just ring the Congregation for Eastern Churches in the Vatican and ask them - but please give us a break.

Jordanes said...

Prove it, Stephane. Cite just one authoritative document backing up what you claim. Explain how your assertions can be reconciled with Pastor Bonus. If you can't do that, then if you find yourself unable to admit your error, then at the least withdraw and cease making your unsubstantiated claims.

Anonymous said...

The reason that Stéphane is wrong here is because he has failed to distinguish between the Pope's authority as Universal Pastor (Supreme Pontiff) and his authorithy as Chief of the Roman Rite or Patriarch of the Latin Church (Patriarch of the West).

From strict logic, it is an established principle that a person's greater or larger authority is assumed unless the contrary is stated, for the larger scope can (and does, in this case) include the smaller. All the prefects are ministers of the Pope. Therefore, unless the contrary is stated in their statutes or constitutions, they are ministers of His Holiness as Pope, not as Patriarch of the West.

I note that Eastern churches are also allowed their own doctrine provided that it is not incompatible with the universal teaching of the Church (hence the difference between Eastern and Western traditions on whether our Lady died before she was assumed alive into Heaven). Does this mean that they are not subject to the C.D.F.? By no means.

To say that the Prefect for Liturgy has authority over the Eastern churches does not mean that he can change their liturgies. Even a small change to venerable forms would need to be a papal act and it would need to bear the Pope's signature.

Really, this is all mostly in the realm of theory. Churches that are sui juris have a patriarch or major archbishop who would resolve liturgical disputes in his ritual church, for those disputes are necessarily proper aspects of the ritual church or the Rite proper to it. On the other side, some of the smaller Eastern churches do not have this authority. Examples would be the Albanian Byzantine Church (the one in Albania), the Italo-Albanian Church in Italy, the Greek Byzantine Church in Greece and Turkey, the Russian Byzantine Church, and the Slovak Byzantine Church (jurisdictions in Slovakia, the Czech Republic, and Canada). I'm betting that the C.D.W. has exercised authority in their cases, probably together with the Congregation for Eastern Churches.

P.K.T.P.

Jon said...

Mr. Perkins, interesting idea re the status of Papa Stronsay. I was surprised myself two weeks ago when Fr. Michael Mary's response to Damien Thompson called my attention to the fact that Rome appears to be taking her time with the regularization.

I couldn't imagine the reason for the foot-dragging, but inclusion in a structure along with a regularized SSPX is certainly an intriguing and hopeful possibility.

John McFarland said...

Per Fr. Laguerie's blog, the original of the phrase is: "le responsable de l’Eglise Universelle pour la liturgie." My French is pretty rudimentary, but I would translate it as "the Universal Church's [person] responsible for [or in charge of] the liturgy."

I would read "Universal Church" as what one might say for "the Vatican" when one is enthusing about the imminent visit of an important dignitary who is sympathetic and perhaps in a position to do the IBP some good.

On the broader issues raised in this exchange, I just don't see why the Pope's authority does not run to anything not established by the Lord or the Apostles. I just can't see how prescription and custom can trump Peter's authority to bind and loose. The relevant limitations are prudential. "All things are lawful, but not all things are expedient. All things are lawful, but not all things edify."

Convenor said...

Please let the world know about this:

http://catholicheritage.blogspot.com/2010/05/little-sisters-of-good-shepherd.html

God bless you!