Rorate Caeli

Una Voce consultation:
Help Una Voce compile a worldwide report by the lay faithful
while the episcopal letters are being written

Our friend Mr. Leo Darroch, President of the International Federation Una Voce, wrote this as a comment in our last thread, and we believe it deserves a post of its own:
Readers of Rorate Caeli may be interested to know that the International Federation Una Voce has just started a consultation exercise; the third since the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum was promulgated.

In September 2008 all member associations were asked to provide information about the implementation of the motu proprio in their countries during the first year. This first report was presented in Rome to the PCED and a copy for the Holy Father was entrusted to Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos. Subsequently, I received a letter from the Substitute at the Secretariat of State thanking me for the report and advising me to contact the Prefect of the Papal Household for a brief audience with the Holy Father.

The Una Voce Federation then conducted a second consultation exercise in September 2009 to monitor developments during the second year of the motu proprio and I was able to place this report directly into the hands of the Holy Father on 28th October 2009 (see our website for report and photographs). I was accompanied by Vice President Jack Oostveen, Secretary Rodolfo Vargas Rubio, and Treasurer Mrs Monika Rheinschmitt. We were able to spend several minutes explaining the contents of our report and present other documentation. During that visit to Rome we also presented copies of our report to all the Prefects and Secretaries of all the major dicasteries and also to l’Osservatore Romano.

I believe this forthcoming Una Voce report on the third anniversary of the motu proprio, which coincides with the accounts being produced by our bishops, will be of vital importance in the safeguarding of the traditional Mass and liturgy. It is no secret that many bishops are against Summorum Pontificum and their reports may well reflect this antipathy. It is for this reason that I have asked our members for comprehensive reports and documentation that truly reflects the situation in their countries so that Rome will be in no doubt about the reality of the implementation of the motu proprio. Despite the lack of episcopal enthusiasm in many parts there is a real growth in interest in the traditional liturgy; the International Federation Una Voce is receiving requests from many parts of the world for information and help, and none more so than in Central and South America – and from young people. Anyone who is not a member of any group and would like more information may I suggest that you check out our website www.fiuv.org and contact the member association in your country or area. Although it is right and proper for the Pope to consult his bishops it is quite clear from the motu proprio that the Holy Father's concern is for priests and the laity. Therefore, it is perfectly in order for the laity to make their feelings known to Rome about how it is being implemented.

Leo Darroch,
President - Foederatio Internationalis Una Voce


By the way: if you can help the great work accomplished by the International Federation, consider their latest appeal. Donations can be made by PayPal.

32 comments:

Felipe said...

Thanks New Catholic.

And thanks Mr Darroch for all your great effort, we are working in our report. We'll send it to you ASAP.

Anonymous said...

How can one get a copy of the report?

Jack P Oostveen said...

You can find the report here http://www.fiuv.org/docs/AA_FIUV_Dossier_for_Rome_SP_2nd_Anniv.pdf and make your own copy.

Anonymous said...

It is time we moved past counting the number of dioceses that have TLM available, although it is obviously still important to ensure that every diocese does have one. If a diocese which cover a large geographic area offers one TLM in the middle of the afternoon in one location, is it really fair to compare that to St. Louis, for example. It has been three years since SP. I think it reasonable to expect that everyone in a major metropolitan area should be able to attend TLM daily and without extraordinary travel to get there.

Anonymous said...

The most important thing for the Vatican to know is this. The Bishops (not all) are still under the impression that a priest needs their permission to say the EF. Also, even if a bishop will concede that a priest may say it sans permission, in some dioceses (like mine), there would be hell to pay for doing so.

Sad, but that's the reality.

Delphina

Anonymous said...

NOTO BENE: Everybody, please note Delphina's observation, as she is absolutely correct. And many of the most mistaken bishops are our dear "conservative" bishops. Tom Doran for one, but there's a host of others, and that's just in the good ol' USA.

Mornac said...

I wonder if it would be possible to compile a list of places where the TLM is offered by priests of their own accord which are not publicized by their local dioceses. Maybe such a thing already exists and its publication would compromise the priests involved. Anyone know anything?

Afonso Miguel said...

Jack P Oostveen,

The documment in that link doesn't showns only part I and II of the report!...

I´m very interested to read part IV, especially about developements in Portugal.

Anonymous said...

Well, I can tell you that resistance is pretty fierce in parts of England. If you ask for baptism in the extraordinary form under the terms of Summorum Pontificum there, then they will probably tell you flat out no. It is not for lack of capable and willing priests either. There are many priests who are willing to celebrate the sacraments in the extraordinary form if asked, but some are apparently forbidden to do so by their bishops or other influential individuals who find ways to obstruct the process.

Anonymous said...

You left off part of the website to get the dossier

Leo Darroch said...

Message for Afonso Miguel,

Please send an email to our FIUV enail adress and I will give you a contact in Portugal. I have received enquiries from four people and an introductory meeting is being arranged within the next day or so. There is a move to form an Una Voce Portugal.

Leo Darroch.

Afonso Miguel said...

Leo Darroch,

I think I know what you are talking about... Anyway, I'll send an e-mail.

Thanks

--

Afonso Miguel
http://tribunaonline.blogs.sapo.pt/

Anonymous said...

Is anyone able to comment on the conditions for the TLM in Springfield-Cape Girardeau? When Bishop Johnston was a priest in Knoxville I would talk to him about my concerns since I was just an inquirer wondering how to enter the Church under the circumstances. My impression was that he was genuinely sympathetic but not well versed regarding the issues. Last I spoke with him, probably a year before his receiving the episcopate, he asked me whether ad orientem was the manner of celebration in the Eastern Rites as well. Despite his perhaps naive understanding of the issues that concern us, he is a sincere and holy priest, and I had a sense the first I encountered him that he would be made a bishop. I would be very encouraged--though I think it unlikely at this point given his many duties--to find that he had become more deeply sympathetic toward tradition and even an active champion and promoter of it.

Anonymous said...

Anon. 23.59:

Springfield - Cape Girardeau has now had an every-Sunday T.L.M. for some time. The problem is next door in the Diocese of Jefferson City. I'm afraid to comment much on that case. I'd ask faithful here to pray for the traditionalists of the D. of Jefferson City and to pray that our Lady may mollify the heart of the Bishop there. The less said after this, the better.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

I disagree strongly with Anon 16.33:

I have found that getting a minimum of one every-Sunday T.L.M. per diocese is essential. Once one is offered or permitted, there is a very STRONG tendency for other priests to offer more, and a bishop who allows one will almost always be open to encourage others.

The problem arises when a bishop shuts the door and threatens all involved. No priest in the Diocese of Las Cruces, for example, would dare to offer the T.L.M. on any basis. The reason is the opposition of the Bishop there. It's that simple. Sorrry if not everything is complex. This is simple. I can also think of good examples from France.

If the Bishop of Juneau can allow our Mass for only 5,000 Catholics and if all the bishops in Alaska allow it every Sunday, then there is no excuse in the Archdiocese of Mobile or the Diocese of Laredo or the Dioceses of Saginaw or Las Vegas. I know what you're up to, Bishop Pepe of Las Vegas, or should I call you Pope Pepe? is it Your Holiness now or will you accept Summorum Pontificum?

P.K.T.P.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

In the Dallas Diocese, a young priest wished to offer the TLM.

However, his pastor refused to permit the young priest to offer the TLM.

The Dallas Diocese has a TLM church (Mater Dei in Irving, Texas).

But the diocese permits its pastors to block TLM celebrations.

That doesn't make sense.

Tim

Anonymous said...

Mr. Perkins,

I wasn't trying to say that getting a TLM in every diocese wasn't essential. What I was trying to say was that we should not be satisfied with this minimalist goal and work towards ensuring that a daily TLM is available at multiple locations within larger dioceses.

Anonymous said...

As Bishops continue to be ABLE to use their power to obstruct it is probably time in that spirit of Vat II ideology to revise their office completely, perhaps limiting their role to a ceremonial and give more power to Parish Priests and lay people. That is what they are all for, isn't it? It has become so obvious through scandal after scandal that they are burdened with too much power. That they continue to involve themselves in the working of the MP when it is clearly a letter for Priests and trickle down laity they continue to stick their noses into its' implementation.. This is the heart of the matter, removing Bishops from any power that can be used to discipline Priests or threaten them when they offer Holy Mass. Imagine, a Bishop who denies a Priest or threatens him when he wants to celebrate Mass in the Catholic Church. This is the essence of it. Not whether a NO or TLM but the fact is they are stopping Mass or obstructing it. This is downright indecent and lay people need to speak up with their outrage.

Anonymous said...

Anon. 14.53 wrote:

I wasn't trying to say that getting a TLM in every diocese wasn't essential. What I was trying to say was that we should not be satisfied with this minimalist goal and work towards ensuring that a daily TLM is available at multiple locations within larger dioceses.


Fair enough. I'm only saying that a priority is to get at least one every-Sunday T.L.M. in about 95% of the dioceses (there will always be a few special exceptions). In the case of France and the U.S.A., this is achievable. In the case of Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Belgium, and England, we are almost there now. Ditto for New Zealand. I give up on my own country, Canada. We Canucks are natural-born losers. We should re-name the country as 'The Loser Dominion of Canada'.

P.K.T.P

Anonymous said...

In Brazi, Diocese of Santo Andre, neighbourg town to Sao Paulo, the bishop D Nelson Westrup, told parishioners:
1)The pope should have priorly consulted the Brazilian bishops to publish the MP.
2)He would be meeting the pope and inquiring him: Why did you do that (the MP)?
Antonio

Anonymous said...

The problem in the Diocese of Spokane is that there are few in the pews left to speak up. Most gave up and left for the SSPX or the sedevacantists decades ago. My ardent prayer is that things will change greatly with a new bishop.

Delphina

Anonymous said...

Who painted that beautiful paintin of Our lady's coronation in the above article?

New Catholic said...

Velázquez. The work is in El Prado.

NC

Anonymous said...

Croatia

Anonymous said...

Dear Croatia:

I read your article with interest. The auxiliary Bishop in Zagreb is totally wrong. Some bishops in England tried this same trick. They tried saying that a 'group' had to be worshipping at the old Mass *before* it was provided to anyone. This is a sick joke, of course. Rome, to my recollection, said that this was not so. One can be attached to the previous Roman Mass without having ever attended one. Also, the group only has to manifest its desire to worship according to the T.L.M. in a parish: the very request makes it a group 'in' the parish. This is all old hat. It is interesting that the same old nasties are using the same stupid tricks time and again. They don't seem to be very intelligent or very imaginative to me. Wiser bishops have learned by now that the way to stop the T.L.M. is to threaten its celebrants with transfer to tiny chapels in the countryside or to a prison or hospital chaplaincy.

We need a clarification, Holy Father. No, we need jurisdictions for the T.L.M. Anyone who cannot see that is just ignorant. Jurisdictions can supplement current provisions; they needn't replace them. But they are necessary at this point. As long as the local ordinaries have sole jurisdiction over the T.L.M., it will be hindered and obstructed. Guaranteed.

A public recognition of Society Masses to fulfil the Sunday obligation would also do much good. If the Pope does not follow through on this, his motu proprio will become a dead letter and he will look bad. And that is not good for the Church either.

Consider that there is not even one every-Sunday T.L.M. in the following places:

Lisbon, Mexico City (at least not publicly), all of Catholic Malta, Buenos Aires, Caracas, Cali, Quito, Parma, Zagreb, Essen, Reims, Cambrai, Soissons, Verdun, Diocese of Arundel & Brighton, Belfast, Rimouski, Winnipeg, Gatineau, Las Vegas, Bombay, Manila, Singapore, Szczecin, Lagos, Kinshasa, Cape Town: need I go on?

In the entire Catholic country of Peru, there are only two dioceses offering the T.L.M. every Sunday. There are two in Argentia, two in Chile, none in Bolivia or Venezuela or Uruguay or the Guianas, only two in Bolivia, none in all of Central America, zero in the Caribbean, only four in Mexico, none in Asia except for one in Hong Kong and about five in the Philippines.

Your m.p., Holiness, has been completely flouted. It resulted in important adavances for the first eleven months after publication. Little has happened thereafter. Please do something!

P.K.T.P.

Una Voce said...

Croatia: since the PCED isn't answering, you could write again to your Aux. Bp., providing him with new evidence for your case; for instance, that "Summorum Pontificum" Section 5 §1, in the "original" text, ran "coetus fidelium continenter existens", but, when it has been published in "Acta Apostolicae Sedis", the text has been changed in "stabiliter existens": to have weekly celebrations, you need to be a "stable" group - could be an association, but this is not necessary - yet this group doesn't have to exist "continuously", which advern has been misinterpreted in the false meaning of "existing before the MP came into force".
The PCED clarified that much in the case of Ventimiglia-Sanremo (Italy).
But, since the Commission holds its silence, I think you should contact a canon lawyer and consider an appeal to the Supreme Tribunal of Apostolic Signatura: both Bishops and Roman Dicasteries are bound to answer petitions in no more than three months and, if Curial offices don't comply with the rule, you can, in the next sixty days, run to the Signatura.
As for the FSSP priest, who, I get, celebrates in private, your attending of his Mass would be covered by MP Section 4; but how come there's no leave for public apostolate on the FSSP's part, when there are both the meands and the need for it?
If you're run out of time for the Signatura, I suggest sending a new petition to Zagreb and providing PCED with additional information about the FSSP chance. You could even ask yourselves for the leave for public apostolate to be granted, then file a recourse to PCED over a Zagreb denial or silence.
Feel free to contact me for any clarification.

Guido Ferro Canale
Una Voce - Savona

Una Voce said...

P.K.T.P. (is that you, commenting on 'The Anglo-Catholic'?): even before "Summorum Pontificum", the PCED stated that attendance to a FSSPX Mass fulfilled Sunday obligation. Indeed, even if every FSSPX priest were excommunicated - which now would be impossible to believe - to ask him for the Sacraments you wouldn't need the state of necessity, but only a just cause. And this could be, it has been stated, the desire to attend a Tridentine Mass without extraordinary efforts.

Croat said...

Dear Mr. Guido Ferro Canale,

first of all, thank you for the suggestions.

I'm sure PCED noticed the version of Motu Proprio bishop was using. I don't know if we'll go with the Supreme Tribunal of Apostolic Signatura. The petition was answered as you can check here, but nothing further happened. It might be that they are working trying to convince the Archdiocese of Zagreb to give us the Traditional Mass. But it might just as well be that they decided that the effort in Croatia is useless. I'm speculating now, but who knows what was said to PCED from the Archdiocese, maybe they said we were some crazy people trying to bring disunity or whatever.

Catholic hierarchy in Croatia is still very strong. Numbers of Catholics are relatively high (especially compared to other countries), there are virtually no problems with pedophilia or the likes, there is very little public dissent from the priests or religious and dispite the constant liberal undermining it still enjoys authority in the society. I doubt it that PCED has any leverage with Croatian bishops, when you compare it to other problems the Church currently has, our bishops can confidently say they are doing a good job and who could say otherwise?

No, if the PCED does not help us, then we are left with prayer hoping that the hearts of those responsible will change.

Croat said...

With regards to FSSP:
Fr. Ante Sumich is working in Nigeria and there are no other priests from traditionalist groups in Croatia.

As P.K.T.P. said, we could perhaps find a priest to celebrate old Mass, but as soon as that became known, the people leading the Archdiocese would easily put obstacles in our way, transfering that priest into a rural parish, prohibiting the use of church, etc.
That is why we have to get their permission.
Even when fr. Sumich celebrated Mass, already next week the organizers had to answer to the Cardinal and assure him that was no schizmatic priest...

Paul Haley said...

Is there any doubt, Your Holiness, that your initiatives are being blocked by recalcitrant bishops and the legitimate desires of the Faithful are being undermined and obstructed by bureaucratic maneuvering?

Is there no way you can put an end to this by granting a worldwide juridical structure for the Sacraments according to the 1962 liturgical books and that any validly ordained priest without impediments may associate himself with such a structure?

This business of priests being assigned to less than desirable posts and missions because of their attachment to the Traditional Mass must end, Holiness, or the Faithful will lose hope that their just desires will ever be met. Submitted with all due respect for the Office you hold as Pastor of the Universal Church.

Edgar Fernandez said...

For the interested people you will find in the link below a powerpoint presentation on the status of the implementation of Summorum Pontificum in Mexico in spanish. It was created by the Aguascalientes Una Voce chapter.

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=6ZTKOLI6

Woodlawn Council said...

Fr. Antony Sumich, FSSP, does get around. We had the good fortune of having him offer the Traditional Mass last year at St. Titus Church in Aliquippa, Pennsylvania, for our local Knights of Columbus Council. We need several legions of priests like him.