Rorate Caeli

The Instruction - II
Ghettoization must start in Ordination

Very few points of the current draft of the Instruction for the Application of Summorum Pontificum seem to be  available to us. The first we mentioned, on blocking the application of the liberality of the motu proprio to all non-Roman Western rites and uses may seem minor - yet it is quite significant in what it reveals: an interpretation of the rights recognized by Summorum as privileges or "indults" that can be curtailed.

Our revelation today, made jointly with Messa in Latino, could seem even more limited in its extension - but it certainly is much, much, more serious and insidious in the extent it shows that the anti-Summorum field has infiltrated the composition of the Instruction. In short, the Instruction, in its current draft, will explicitly prevent Bishops from using the Traditional Rite of Holy Orders.

There will be two exceptions. One, dedicated to the those institutes (the 'Ecclesia Dei' institutes) and particular Churches dedicated exclusively to the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite. The other exception is that the Bishop that desires to ordain a certain seminarian in the ancient Rite will have to ask prior permission to Rome (to the Pontifical Commission 'Ecclesia Dei'), which will then evaluate if said permission should be granted or not.

While the motu proprio is unclear on the use of the Traditional liturgical rites of the Roman Pontifical for Holy Orders (Baptism, Matrimony, Penance, Extreme Unction, and Confirmation are expressly mentioned in art. 9, and the Holy Eucharist throughout the text), this is no loophole. While it might make sense to clarify some points regarding other Sacraments, as directed by the "Pastor" (art. 9 § 1), it would obviously be unnecessary to "allow" these same Pastors to do what they can always do: ordain priests of the Roman Rite using the books of the Roman Rite, including the rite of Holy Orders that was used in the Latin Church for well over a millennium.

What is to be achieved by this odious restrictive interpretation? Why should Bishops be forbidden to choose with which Rite to ordain their own deacons and priests? Since the advent of Summorum, in a few privileged places, Bishops have furthered the establishment of a biritual mentality in their seminaries, and have indeed celebrated Holy Orders in the Extraordinary Form; it seems clear that, if a Bishop so desires, for an unlimited number of pastoral and spiritual reasons, he should be able to do so freely.

The intention is, among others, to ghettoize the Traditional Rite of this most pivotal of all Sacraments, Holy Orders; and, further, to identify "problematic" Bishops and future priests, with all consequences that could entail (including for their careers). It is an alarming sign that the thrust of the Instruction is once again to make, even in law, all Catholics attached to the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite or those who merely appreciate it (and, in this case, even Bishops and poor hopeful seminarians) second-class Catholics.
___
As a note, the current draft of the Instruction bears indeed the date of Feb. 22. This date is, naturally and as it is common with many Roman documents, symbolic and fictitious- in the sense that alterations may take place between the date indicated in the text and its publication.
________

Update, and for the record:

Since we always wish our readers to know all sides in all matters mentioned by us, we leave you with a partial confirmation (and partial denial) of the Instruction, by Andrea Tornielli (in Italian, confirming both our bits of information, but trying to paint the overall aspect of the Instruction as positive, as a reinforcement of Summorum Pontificum).

Comments below.

55 comments:

Anonymous said...

This attack is proof, once again, of the devil's hatred and fear of the traditional form of administering the Sacraments. The use of legalistic restrictions to marginalise and push out traditionalists brings to mind the evil Nuremberg laws that were implemented in Germany in the 1930s. Sadly, the devil seems to have his own legion of disciples working in the Vatican. We should pry to St Michael

Anonymous said...

What is unclear in SP about the use of the Pontifical? What books that are permitted for use are clearly listed. The Pontifical is not listed - did someone forget to add it - or was this the clear will of the legislator that the Instruction will confirm and clarify?

Anonymous said...

Could it be that there is a problem inside the traditional movement?

I mean: Could it be that the idea is to give to the traditional (PCED) orders more importance, as secular priests and bishops would be restricted somewhat in their freedom?

Could this in fact be seen as a first step into a "new" rite, or apostolic administration, or prelature, or use, which is governed as a separate body? Or a traditional ordinariate?

How else could the SSPX problem be solved? If they would be incardinated, do we really think it would be possible for example in Germany?

M

Anonymous said...

Again, I suggest at least the possibility that the bad items are being leaked in order to placate the liberals before the release of the document and to infuriate traditionalists. If we are to get something important, it must seem to be much less important than it is.

These two items might not be all that serious. We shall see. I'm not sure what this reference is about 'ghettoisation'. I hope that it is not the absurd idea now being promoted yet again by some that the correct route is S.P. over particular churches for the Latin Mass. Particular churches (i.e. our own personal dioceses and apostolic administrations) would be far better than the current 'integration' wtih the local sees. Ghettoisation in our own structures is exactly what I want, thank you very much. I don't want to be infected, if possible, by even handling the same church door knobs of those from the N.O.M. Only in our own personal parishes and personal dioceses can we restore all things in Christ peaceably.

I admit entirely that our moderators here might be completely correct: that is, these two items might be a sample of a bad and restrictive document--something even worse. Therefore, we need to pray. However, there are other possibilties and one of them is that these are about the only bad parts and are being leaked in advance as a consolation prize to liberal bishops--to keep them from bawling and blowing their tops.

Note that most pro-traditionalist documents of the past included negative items to placate liberals. For instance, "Quattuor Abhinc Annos", 1988, said that our Mass could not be offered in parish churches; "Ecclesia Dei Adflicta", 1988, said that the S.S.P.X bishops had incurred excommunication; the 1991 Instruction of the good and traditionalist Augustin Cardinal Mayer neverthless included a horrible clause allowing the New Lectionary to be employed for our Mass in place of our own; the wonderful Campos agreement of 2002 was originally meant to cover all of Brazil and not merely the territory of one of its 266 dioceses; and S.P. of 2007 allows vernacular ALONE to be used in the lections of the Latin Mass as an option. Then there was also Protocol 1411-99; and the lifting of the excommunications on the Society bishops also reiterated that they were not regularised. In addition, Rome has admitted since 2002 that Society Masses fulfil the Sunday obligation and yet refuses to make this public or to publlish it in the A.A.S., making it valid at law.

Do I see a tit-for-tat pattern here? Rome is afraid to grant us total freedom. Every time we are granted something, restrictions are included with it. Interesting how Rorate Cœli has been allowed to see these two negative items but nothing else. Obviously, the source, if dependable, must know the rest--but we are not allowed to know it. Why not?

Notice that the earlier German source was right about the date: 22nd February. This confirms that. The German source said that we might see the text in the first week of March. Perhaps.

Let's pray. And, while Fr. Zuhlsdorf does not know the meaning of the term "literal" (he wrongly thinks that sacral English is somehow not literal), he is right this time: we should pray and not fret. Turn to the Holy Mother of God.

As for petitions, I'm not against them but I won't participate. I've just had enough of them. I don't need to write yet more letters that nobody will ever read. The Pope is no fool and he will do what he can. Let's have a little faith.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Dear M:

Every word that you write is excellent except for 'prelature'. That is a very dangerous suggestion. Please consider removing it and re-posting. If we get a prelature, I will have to consider suicide seriously. Of course, being a traditionalist, I would only do it by noose. How I despise these people who use guns and pills.

Let us pray for an internationsl diocese or apostolic administration--a particular church in law. Ordinariates might also work. Those p.p.s are no good and could not include religious who are not clerics; nor could they opeate WITHOUT EPISCOPAL PERMISSION. So let us leave that structure to Opus Dei. They deserve it. We need a prelature like we need a hole in the head.

I agree that our own international particular chruch (or, if not, regional personal churches or at least ordinariates) is the way to go. I love ghettoisation. Give me ghettoisation. I don't want to be near the N.O. I don't even want to smell its foul odour.

By the way, this absurd 'ghettoisation' argument was raised long ago on ctngreg, long before Z.'s site existed or this one. The anti-ghetto gang was roundly defeated in open debate and, as I recall, we essentially drove them right off the list. That was back in the late 1990s.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

I think that Rorate Cœli overstates its case. While I agree that bishops should be allowed to use the ancient Pontificial freely, it is going too far to suggest that this will create a group of second-class Catholics. I note also that, to date, very few bishops have used the pre-conciliar Pontifical to ordain diocesan clerics. It is very rare to do this. Again, this might be a consolation prize for liberals. Anyway, even so, the rumour does allow the old Pontifical to be used with permission from Rome, so this is not a complete veto.

The Pontifical was not granted in S.P., whereas metnion was made for the other Sacraments. The job of the clarification is to explain what S.P. means in law, not to add law to the text.

The same thing applied here to the other Missals. Look, the apostolic letter only mentions the 1962 Missal, often calling it 'the Missal of ... John XXIII [I refuse to call him Blessed]". The Missal of John XXIII is obviously not that of the Ambrosian Rite or even the Braga Use. However, our moderators here forget something. In the main, S.P. FINDS something in law: that the 1962 Missal was never abrogated. (Yes, in light of that finding, it also enacts laws but only secondarily.) If S.P. neither finds that the Ambrosian Missal was or was not replaced, then it remains possible that a future m.p. could find that it was not. And, clearly, if the 1962 one was not abrogated, it follows as a likely parallel that nor was that of Milan. The fact that S.P. does not comment on this is entirely another matter. It just means that adherents of the Ambrosian Rite cannot use S.P. to claim rights for that Liturgy. But it remains probable that they can do so by other means.

Again, something tells me that these two negative aspects of the clarification are being leaked in advance to make the liberals think that they are getting some concessions, thereby preventing them from rebelling. Just a possibility.

P.K.T.P.

Quaerens said...

22nd - Feast of the Chair of Peter. Interesting.

Okay, so there are these two restrictions. Do you know are there any good things?

Johnny Domer said...

NC - Are you just posting one thing about the instruction per day for any specific reason? Is there any reason you can't just post everything you know at once? I don't mean to sound hostile; I'm just curious to know if there's a reason. If there isn't one, I would like to register my opinion that I think it would be better to reveal it all at once rather than stretching everything out and leaving us in this state of suspense. Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Our Latin Mass community has sent a sizable harvest of seminarians and novices to dioceses and non-Ecclesia Dei religious orders since 2007. I don't know of any of these young men who would think it pastoral or unitive to even ASK for ordination in the traditional rite, from an Ordinary who has difficulty saying it, and apart from (so far) the majority of one's classmates whose preference remains the other way. So why this restriction on the freedom of bishops? Is there really One Rite with Two Forms, or not? It seems that the curia dissents from the Holy Father's vision.

I can't think this move will have any practical effect except to discourage vocations from traditional communities to Novus Ordo religious groups and territorial dioceses--not because of their attachment to the traditional form of Ordination, but simply because the clear intent of the move is psychological attack. This is hardly an outcome which encourages Church unity and discourages divisiveness.

I have to ask -- what is it about the Novus Ordo that requires such protectionist measures from the highest levels of government? If the Novus Ordo is not on track for a quick replacement as the truly Ordinary Form, why put up barriers to prevent that exchange?

Anonymous said...

The Tractarian movement in the Anglican Church (1800's) was an attempt to recapture the Catholic roots of the Church of England. In Catholicism, Traditionalists, especially the SSPX, play a similar role as the Tractarians did, while the "Spirit of the Council" Catholics in charge of the Church today are the liberal Anglicans of the 19th century.

We know what happened to the Anglicans. Ever since, their traditionalists keep coming into the Catholic Church while their liberals...?

I pray that the Catholic Church will reform and decisively rejects the deformities introduced into it in the wake of V-2. If it does not, will Traditionalists remain part of an unreformed Catholic Church? Can they? I do not believe so.

Anonymous said...

Q: What is to be achieved by this odious restrictive interpretation? Why should Bishops be forbidden to choose with which Rite to ordain their own deacons and priests?

A: So that we do not end up with two "churches" or three, or four or...

Summorum gave traditionalists what we originally asked for: the right for all who wish it to use a Mass which was never abrogated. To demand more or everything suggests some reject the hermeneutic of continuity, and it brings disrepute upon us as the traditional Mass movement.

The trouble today is the external dragon relentlessly persecuting the bride. We musn't align ourselves to the persecutors and gnaw from within.

New Catholic said...

Really, anon? To have a Bishop who ordains 100 deacons and priests according to the new books ordain one seminarian according to the traditional Roman Pontifical means a "rejection of the hermeneutic of continuity", "brings disrepute upon us as the traditional Mass movement", and signifies that we "align ourselves to the persecutors" and "gnaw the Church from within"?

Is the Church this weak? It cannot handle the sporadic use of a rite of Ordination she has alwys used?...

No, no, this IS a problem; the problem is not WANTING everything, the problem is being treated differently BECAUSE we merely aspire to what the Church always did. This mentality of ghettoization and separation must end - but it must end, first and foremost, in the side that initiated it. We do not choose to live in a ghetto: do not force us into one.

NC

Kathleen said...

It is somewhat wryly amusing that some of those responding have time to write a dozen, or more, multiple page responses on this topic in just one evening, and assume others have the patience to wade through it all rather than skipping past it, and yet lack the patience themselves to review and sign a petition.

Thank you, New Catholic, for the continued updates and linking of outside resources on this.

Lautensack said...

SP indeed does not mention ordinations, nor does it explicitly refer to non-Roman rites and uses. Someone who is horrified by SP and tries to curtail it as much as its wording allows could indeed suggest that it only means the Roman secular use and excludes ordinations.

Someone could argue that the religious uses should indeed be regulated by their superiors (as is the case now, and, for instance, some provinces of the OP are quite open-minded) and that the non-Roman rites should be regulated by their most senior prelates (that has been troublesome in Milan, but they probably will get a new archbishop soon, anyway, hopefully someone who is a bit more traditional).

However, restrictions on the use of the old Pontifical for ordinations is just a petty and pointless restriction.

Anonymous said...

To P.K.T.P (and by the way to M. with whom I disagree 100%) :

"I think that Rorate Cœli overstates its case." (P.K.T.P.)

I think this time you're wrong on several levels and downplaying the threats on S.P. is certainly to be misguided.

1. The leaks are indeed incomplete but they are enough to draw a general orientation : "restrictive".
May I remind P.K.T.P. and M. that this January 2008 annouced (! no rumor then because it was by Msgr Perl then by cardinal Hoyos) Instruction is supposed to EASE the implementation of S.P. ... so turning it into a weapon of constrictions upon the Motu proprio is obviously not well-intended by those promoting it now.

2. have P.K.T.P. and M forgotten about FrenChurch the most vicious opponents to TLM and anything related to Tradition ?
To give you a clue (and a reminder) : Bp Rey is the one and only bishop in the world to have ordained diocesan priests with the traditional rite and he is ... French. Very recently cardinal Vingt-Trois, who is a n°1 trad-hater, has launched a thinly veiled direct attack against Bp Rey.
Another clue : FrenChurch bishops are going to begin their ad limina visits in 2011.

3. Have TLM and Tradition only friends in the Benedictine Curia ?
do I need to elaborate ?

4. Is cardinal Tettamanzzi a friend of Tradition and traditional liturgy ?

5. Has anyone forgotten about the 3 year delay in the papal Letter of 2007 ? Who said that after these 3 years, it was time to rescind S.P. ?

As for the dream of a personal diocese that would be suddenly granted, it is as likely to happen as Bp Fellay to be named cardinal in 2011. Maybe the reconciliation is to be proclaimed with SSPX at Assisi III ???

How could SSPX react to such a restrictive Instruction after the terrible blow of Assisi III ?
A few SSPX friends I've asked about these leaks are ... extremely worried.

I naturally entirely disagree with P.K.T.P. on the idea "we are happy" ( handful of trads) and the rest of the Catholic Church can go down "we don't care". It's a foolish mentality.
TLM is given to the whole Church not to 3 or even half a million people.
The growth of TLM is a way to instill within the whole Church a genuine sense of liturgy. That's why what Bp Rey did is an important step forward.
Moreover restrictions put on TLM at every level will make it easier for all the trad-hating bishops to pursue their decade-long negative policy and their 3-year long obstruction to S.P. with the ... Roman Curia support !

It would also send the same signal as the dismissal of Fr Michel's case by the Signatura last month. is the "Ratzingerian" era OVER ? Has the pope surrendered to the wolves and harrassed by the liberal media campaigns is backing the Bertone-Filoni-Fisichella-Lombardi "appeasement" policy ?
These are very serious questions not to be taken lightly.

No definitely no : Rorate Coeli is NOT overstating this case ! On the contrary and the whole trad. world in Europe is getting increasingly alarmed.
It's time to put the pink glasses back onto the shelf and look at all these signs coming from Rome since 2010.

Alsaticus

Anonymous said...

This attack on SP and the effort to create restrictions has got Cardinal Levada written all over it.

Paul Haley said...

I am very pleased to see a number of young people signing the petition in the previous thread. Evidently, the tactic of the modernists to co-op the young has failed. It should also have a significant impact on the Holy Father himself. Deo gratias!

Alexander said...

This is certainly alarming.
Especially if you examine how watered down Catholic doctrine is in the New Rite compared to the Old.

Anonymous said...

again, too much panic, it doesn't forbid a Bishop to ordain the priest according to the Tridentine Rite, but determines that he should ask Rome for allowance, so it is a regulation to avoid too much free usage in order to keep the whole world Church under control of Rome, and it is genuinely Catholic, not separatist mentality.

Johannes said...

It is clear that likely little good can lie in the remaining content of the document. Thus far all we know concerning it has shown a tendency to hit the silences of Svmmorvm Pontificvm with unnerving precision so as to restrict rather than ease it's application. Two restrictions we have now seen. i) Non-Roman Latin Rites are not to be celebrated according to the conditions of Svmmorvm Pontificvm. ii) Ordinations require extra, explicit, permission from Rome.

The hypocrisy of i) is monstrous. Masses in several languages and according to the taste of the local diocesan committees or the land's (in partibvs infidelivm) particular pagan culture - but no Masses according to the ancient Milanese Rite without convincing a bishop (already basically impossible) to ask Rome permission. You can celebrate Mass in the vernacular wearing a cheese-hat as pleases you - but you need your local Bishop's permission and then Rome's to celebrate with sanctvs Ambrosivs Mediolanensis.

I cannot see any good cause for ii). It is a needless restriction and contrary to the direction of Svmmorvm Pontificvm - at best. There is some hypocrisy here as well. A faithful bishop cannot ordain priests or deacons according to the vsvs antiqvior without permission from the Bishop of Rome. German bishops can defy and ignore that same bishop - in ordinations more important than local lower clergy - and ordain whom they wish to be bishops. I agree with the editors of Rorate-Caeli; it looks like they are marking us.

All this from a document whose purpose was allegedly meant to facilitate and further the implementation of Svmmorvm Pontificvm - not hedge it round in restrictions or restrictive qualifications. What good has come from Svmmorvm Pontificvm looks to be in danger of being stifled in confusion and ambiguity because of this new document. I do doubt especially that the bishops or priests in France are going to continue along the line that understands the purpose of Svmmorvm Pontificvm to make available the vsvs antiqvior not for a minority (if we are the minority) who asks for it - but for all Catholics.

Anonymous said...

"There will be two exceptions. One, dedicated to the those institutes (the 'Ecclesia Dei' institutes) and particular Churches dedicated exclusively to the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite. The other exception is that the Bishop that desires to ordain a certain seminarian in the ancient Rite will have to ask prior permission to Rome (to the Pontifical Commission 'Ecclesia Dei'), which will then evaluate if said permission should be granted or not."

For now.

They will eventually do away with the exceptions as well.

Delphina

Luke Skywalker said...

Just imagine how this Instruction will impact the current talks with the SSPX...

benedictambrose said...

To be fair, Delphina, we simply don't know this, and I very much doubt it.

Let's all just calm down a bit and not assume the worst of the whole document - the evidence to date scarcely can be said to warrant that. Our opponents love to pick up on the shrill, bitter, cynical bits of our discourse to attempt to discredit us. Let's not give them that chance.

Instead: let's pray, do penance, and SIGN THE PETITION!

--Benedict Ambrose

Anonymous said...

PKTP and Alsaticus!

PKTP, yes you are right about the prelature thing, I wasn't thinking thoroughly enough when I just listed different sorts of "solutions". I naturally mean something that would incorporate also the laity.

Alsaticus, I do not really get your point in "disagreeing" with me "100%". I am not saying SP is not threatened now, or that it wouldn't matter. I'm rather stating as a matter of fact that this really seems to be the case; and, living in a protestant/secular country, I am very disappointed about how slow progress SP is making here. All progress seems to be stopping.

That is why I have lost some of my optimism and patience. I hardly believe anymore that the "conciliar" church could be saved without some rather drastic changes. Are traditionalists strong or acceptable enough to change the modern church being integrated in the NO parishes and dioceses?

Or would it after all be better to form small communities of a specific ecclesial reality that would exist parallel to the normal dioceses? These realities would give traditional Catholics the possibility not to be afraid of loosing again what they have slowly achieved.

Would that be disunity? I don't think so any more. I think it would let the two groups of faithful of the Roman rite grow side by side, not competing but complementing (the NO people and VO people). And maybe find new grounds to enrich each other.

M

Anonymous said...

Benedictambrose,

The Vatican can do whatever it wants. I have been through too much since 1965.

Delphina

Crouchback said...

Just a thought....

Couldn't be the Pope himself who has "leaked" this roll back. The talks with the SSPX are ongoing,

Maybe the Pope is trying to put the frighteners on...????

Maybe some need a kick in the right direction.....

Or maybe somebody doesn't want to climb down from an embarrassing position that has been widely held for over 40 years, feels threatened having got stuck in a corner with nowhere left to run....and so lashes out...???

A three pipe problem Watson, and no mistake...???

Sam Schmitt said...

I wouldn't call this an "attack" given that the SP never gave permission to use the traditional rite of Holy Orders in the first place.

Although all the other sacraments (with the exception of the Holy Eucharist) are explicitly allowed in article 9, Holy Orders is left out. This was no oversight or typographical error. Likewise, there is never any permission to use the entire Pontifical.

So this instruction will make clear what was already in SP in the first place.

Sam Schmitt said...

I wouldn't call this an "attack" given that the SP never gave permission to use the traditional rite of Holy Orders in the first place.

Although all the other sacraments (with the exception of the Holy Eucharist) are explicitly allowed in article 9, Holy Orders is left out. This was no oversight or typographical error. Likewise, there is never any permission to use the entire Pontifical.

So this instruction will make clear what was already in SP in the first place.

Kathleen said...

QUOTE FROM M: would it after all be better to form small communities of a specific ecclesial reality that would exist parallel to the normal dioceses?

Respectfully, that's absolutely the opposite of what is desirable.

We are meant to be the salt of the earth.

The heresy of Modernism is not the first extraordinarily bad idea that has been born within the members of the Church.

And there is a distinct pattern that it takes about 90 years from its peak for a frightfully bad idea to largely die out.

It is entirely too tempting during this trial to retreat but that isn't doing our duty. Our ancestors stuck it out for our sake through their trials, we need to stick it out for the sake of those that follow.

And even those inclined most strongly to retreat because of issues like child rearing (which is a legitimate concern) should engage in efforts like this petition if for no other reason but to try to safeguard their retreat.

Anonymous said...

Alsaticus makes some good points but, naturally, the war continues in the Church. Nobody denies that.

Alsaticus writes this:

"The leaks are indeed incomplete but they are enough to draw a general orientation : restrictive'".

No, Alsaticus, we can not draw that conclusion because we lack the evidence to make such an assumption. I have suggested another possibility: the leaks are unrepresentative and designed to placate liberals and keep trads from celebrating too triumphantly, thereby causing a rebellion on the left.

We simply DO NOT KNOW yet. Until we see the text, we have no idea whether these leaks are representative or not. But my point was that it is normal and typical for Rome to include minor restrictions on us every time she grants us concessions. This has been done in every case: 1984, 1988, 2002, 2002 again, 2007.


I agree very strongly with the commentator who said that these leaks, at least, have Cardinal Levada written all over them. He is now past retirement age. How I wish the Pope would send him packing. He was ineffective as Apb. of Portland and harmful as Apb. of San Francisco. The man, however intelligent, is a liberal. He put the good TAC in England under the compromising FiF people (Fr. Keith Newton). That was bad and it was sad.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Johannes writes:

"It is clear that likely little good can lie in the remaining content of the document."


No, that is not clear; it is only a possibility. I am sure that N.C. and Johannes will crow 'we told you so' if they are proved right. But I am not saying that they are wrong. I am only saying that there is a valid alternate explanation to all of this. Now is the time to pray on it.

Two bad things have been revealed but not even one good thing. I wonder why? Is there nothing good in the clarification?

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

M. writes this:

"Would that be disunity? I don't think so any more. I think it would let the two groups of faithful of the Roman rite grow side by side, not competing but complementing (the NO people and VO people). And maybe find new grounds to enrich each other."

I agree entirely with M. here and I note that separate structures for incoming Anglicans does not 'ghettoise' them; rather, it protects their charism from the vile influence of NewMass.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Kathleen, I would want to agree, but am too tired to do so wholeheartedly. Of course you are right, but my question remains: are we strong enough to just take on all the hits? After all, Summorum Pontificum gave us great hope, courage and a feeling of Catholic citizenship. Restrictions now are a great discouragement.

I can say two things: First, I would not marginalize myself anyway, since one can find good teaching, worthy liturgy and holy priests even in the NO church. Second, however, the fact remains that traditionalists are constantly required to make compromises in their basic orientation of living their faith (even in the church, not only in the world).

This IS a major problem, since we should be able to pursue our given vocation and charism as closely as possible. And now one cannot coherently do that as a traditional Catholic. (Whereas it seems very possible to coherently lead a liberal "catholic" life like the theologians and teachers in Germany signing the "manifesto").

M

Anonymous said...

Crouchback makes an interesting point. Let us suppose that this clarification will be a disappointment. Add to that the following:

This Pope's announcement that he will attend yet another World Youth Circus with rock noise and overnight sex in tents; Assisi III; recent statements favouring more œcumenism and one favouring religious liberty; and the assault on all things good in the reprehensible papal arms with its Anglican bishop's mitre replacing the tiara. There are other examples of recent bad things.

Could this be a way to end the talks with the S.S.P.X --OR--

Could it be a way to grant concessions to liberals in order to prepare the way for a major concession to tradition. Tit for tat. Just some speculation. The tactic is old and well-known: if you want to grant a big gift to Party A, you grant some consolation prizes to the enemy of A first. That way, nobody rebels.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Kathleen is totally wrong, of course. Completely. The greatest enemy of NewMass is ... NewMass. But having a war every day with liberals who control the local parishes is not the way to move forward. We need oases of our own where we can thrive. The monks who saved Europe retreated into the wilderness and preserved the faith. We need our own juridical structures. We need to foster a sense of peace anmong ourselves first in order to prepare us to restore the Church.

I have had direct experience with liberals who run parishes and persecute the Traditional Latin Mass. Doing battle with these losers is not constructive in any way. They are fanatics of reform and they will never change their minds, if they even have any. Fortunately, they are dying out and the young reject their absurdities and their total failure. But it will take time for all this to happen. In the meantime, we need what the incoming Anglicans are being granted: some space to breathe in. We need the Campos structure writ large--writ huge.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Can no one who cares really not get near enough to this man (that would be the Holy Father)to ask him the questions that matter?

This frustrates the heck out of me. He's not Stalin for the love of Pete!

The only person I remember getting any real detail just prior to the release of SP was Alice von Hildebrand, and she wasn't afraid to tell exactly what her friend, Joseph Ratzinger, had told her. Well, send her back in!

Anonymous said...

Thank you PKTP for your clear thoughts about this. I still think we are making a big fuzz out of hearsay and rumors.

Anonymous said...

"The greatest enemy of NewMass is ... NewMass. But having a war every day with liberals who control the local parishes is not the way to move forward. We need oases of our own where we can thrive. The monks who saved Europe retreated into the wilderness and preserved the faith. We need our own juridical structures. We need to foster a sense of peace anmong ourselves first in order to prepare us to restore the Church."

Spot on.

+JMJ+/iHs

Joe B said...

P.K.T.P., I agree with you in the superiority of separation. But looking at it from Benedict XVI's point of view, doesn't he have to agree to make that happen, and why would he want to have split camps in the church? Pope John Paul II didn't seem to care too much about our movement and gave us what both sides seemed to want (FSSP for trads and for the bishops to pull trads away from SSPX), but Benedict XVI clearly wants to move to a hybrid mass that we all find acceptable. Therefore, I think we may well be at our high water mark now, and SSPX is still our best weapon in keeping alive the FSSP and the TLM in general.

The papal desire for a hybrid mass does not bode well for FSSP.

Pascendi said...

Who are the authors of the 'International Appeal" ?

Anonymous said...

I encourage everyone here to sign the Pettion now on Rorate Cœli. If N.C. is right, we want to do what we can to stop the liberal enemies of Jesus Christ. If he's wrong, signing the petition cannot hurt us in any way. So I've sent the plea to everyone on my distribution list for the local Latin Mass in Victoria.

(By the way, I forgot to identify my Diocese. Can that be added after the fact?)

P.K.T.P.

M. A. said...

We need oases of our own where we can thrive. The monks who saved Europe retreated into the wilderness and preserved the faith. We need our own juridical structures...
_____________________

That sounds great, but I really do not believe this is realistic. To be left alone, in peace with priests of our own....No. This is a dream. Rather, I truly believe we must prepare for the good fight! The greatest saints will be those who will have kept the faith while in the thick of battle, within the the visible structures of the church.

First the fight, then, yes, the promised peace - the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of our Lady. But it will not be handed to us in a document signed by this pontificate, and on a silver platter.

I hope I am wrong.

Anonymous said...

No, M.A., I cannot agree with you. THe Campos structure set a precedent and the Anglican ordinariates built on that precedent. Oh, don't worry, there will be a fight all right, but we need a fortress from which to launch our armies. Fighting with nitwits in the N.O. territorial parishes is not the right battlefield. It can only be a source of constant frustration. We need jurisdictions and this Pope certainly does see that as a possibility.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

"Let's all just calm down a bit and not assume the worst..." Unfortunately, to assume the worst about churchmen (note I did not say the Church) generally has been the right bet for the last 40 years. To paraphrase my father-in-law, I've become more and more cynical over the years, but I can't keep up! Louis

Peter said...

What’s the point of seeking divine intervention all the time the Church hierarchy, despite the teaching of the Lateran IV firmiter to the contrary, is supporting Darwinism. After all, the Magisterium does teach that the world and the proto-types of every living thing in it were created ex nihilo, i.e. without evolutionary ancestors. Having pushed God out of his role of Creator, is He really likely to be listening to the prayers of those responsible?

Peter

Johannes said...

P.K.T.P. - ". . .I have suggested another possibility: the leaks are unrepresentative and designed to placate liberals and keep trads from celebrating too triumphantly, thereby causing a rebellion on the left."

I have a feeling that even if New Catholic and I are right - about what the text states - you are sufficiently proficient in imaginatively reading between the lines to contradict our crowing.

Anonymous said...

And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me; That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

Is it any wonder that so few in the world have any faith anymore, when even those in the Church can't be one?

Personally, I wish the Holy Father would develop a liturgy that took the best from all currently valid ones and make it the single official Liturgy and require all use it. Yes, I know it will never happen and I know there would be widespread rebellion on all fronts, but are we one or are we not? I want to be able to go to Mass anywhere in the world and feel at one with the others at worship, so I know it is the ONE Holy Catholic Church. That will never happen so long as everyone clings to their personal favorite rites. I know someone who is Byzantine and insists that it is the more beautiful rite. And another who says the Roman Rite is messed up, that even the Tridentine isn't as 'old'. Or that genuflecting to the Blessed Sacrament is wrong, or kneeling to receive...because that was instituted at Trent based on something about martrys having to kneel before they lost their heads, and in the Byzantine they stand, but take on the tongue...

So it isn't just disunity between NO and EF.

What a mess... John 17

Lord, have mercy on Your Church.

Joe B said...

Anon, even the Apostles had different liturgies. Not all communities and missions have the same needs.

Now if you want the best of the N.O. and the TLM, it's easy. Just get rid of the N.O.

Anonymous said...

Some Anon. writes this nonsense:

"Personally, I wish the Holy Father would develop a liturgy that took the best from all currently valid ones and make it the single official Liturgy and require all use it. Yes, I know it will never happen and I know there would be widespread rebellion on all fronts, but are we one or are we not?"

Answer, first of all: no, we are not one. The NewChurchers are not Catholic. They are Protestants with a thing for Mary, just as Presbyterians are Protestants with a thing for absolute predesination and Lutherans are Protestants with a thing for consubstantiation.

Secondly, what you want is not Catholic in tradition. There has never been liturgical unity. There are 22 Eastern Catholic ritual churches, the mediæval uses and Gallican Rites, the religious liturgical uses, the Anglican ordinariate Masses. Where have you been for the last 2,000 years? Get with the programme. It's called Catholicism: unity in diversity.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Johannes:

Save our crowing for publication day. Look, we have an allegation here that two small restrictions are representative of the whole text. Whether they are or not, this is a diversion from the real issue. A clarification which merely fends off the liberals and keeps the status quo is no damn good, Johannes, because it has been a dead letter, almost, since the summer of 2008. The m.p. has run out of steam. Saving a failure is not much of a help; and restricting a failure is not much of a restriction. What we need is an m.p. that moves us forward and extends our reach, not one that merely preserves the little we now have.

But let's look on the bright side. If this m.p. does nothing good or is even worse, the Holy Father will likely be induced to do what he should have done from the outset. He shoudl be creating particular churches or ordinariates for Latin Tradition. What we need and need desperately is what the fools on this blog call 'ghetoisation'. I call it perserveration and peace.

One thing's for sure: a successful defence of S.P. is a successful defence of a zero, or something rather close to a zero.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Dear Joe B.:

Well put. Your comment was delicious.

P.K.T.P.

LeonG said...

"Mutual enrichment" reminds one of the plethora of modernist euphemisms such as "living tradition" & "hermeneutic of continuity". As a liturgical non-norm vernacular liturgy can never enrich the Latin Mass since it is the very disembodiment of Roman Catholic liturgy & The faith of The Church. If this were not so we would not be in the midst of the worst liturgical and pastoral crises in the history of the Catholic Church.

My petition prayerful and unambiguous is abolish the Novus Ordo and restore The Latin Mass as we knew it prior to the hijacking of the so-called "liturgical renewal". All this has brought is disunity and liturgical chaos.

Anonymous said...

LeonG:

Another nonsense term is 'partial communion'. Before the Council, there was no such thing as communion, full communion, partial communion, impaired communion, defective communion. You either had the Catholic Faith or you did not. On the few occasions, when the term 'communion' was used in Catholic discourse, it meant that and just that.

Then, after the Council, the liberals adopted Anglican terminology on communion taken from their erroneous branch theorgy. Suddenly, being Catholic was not black or white but grey, just as the Canterburians had imagined themselves as a grey edifice parked between Augsburg and Rome. Lots came from Anglicanism in the sixties: suppertables with one linen cloth for Altars with three, spiritual drinks for the Precious Blood of Jesus, you name it.

Some of the moderators here don't much like my rants about terminology. What they fail to realise is that expressions are not irrelevant but, on the contrary, they are as important as the categories they refer to. Get your opponents to adopt your terminology and you've won the war. There must be absolutely no quarter on terminology. Everyone who calls God 'You' instead of Thou in English is an enemy of Jesus Christ, even if not culpably so. Such a person needs to be corrected or opposed: one or the other. Those who are innocent and humble will accept the correction, if delivered charitably, with gratitude. Everyone who calls a priest by his first name, unless he's that priest's mother, is an enemy of the Faith, culpably or not. We must seek out and identify all the idiotic terminology of our enemies and not only refuse it but oppose it: justice and peace, outreach, People of God (for the correct God's people), and so forth.

P.K.T.P.

New Catholic said...

As it is well known, in earlier forms of English, "you/ye" used to be the plural, and formal, form for the second-person - and "thou" the singular, familiar, intimate form, a similar situation to that of vous-tu, in French, and v-t second-person pronouns in other Romance languages.

No further comments...

Anonymous said...

Actually, I commend N.C. for at least getting right the connexion to French. So often we see the false parallel with German du but I could write on this to great length. There is *not* a consistent parallel between the German and English uses of pronouns, and for historical reasons.

The development of sacral English as a specialised usage is extremely complicated, esp. because Biblical English forms are not identical to the liturgical forms. The best source for this subject is Kathleen Wales's essay in Studica Linguistica. I can't remember the exact reference but have it on file in my paper files. It can easily be found on-line.

I argued the matter at great length on another blog and would gladly do so here too, especially since there is considerable misunderstanding on it. To be short here, however, it suffices to say that sacral English is not 'archaic': its forms are archaic in GENERAL USE but not in specialised religious usage, and it has been used continuously as a living form to the present, as have the same forms in poetical English (although restrictedly now, after the 'Poetry of the common man took over').

The sacral forms were standard in most Catholic handmissals and devotionals at least until the late 1950s. The sacral forms have survived in very common prayers and, oddly, they were continued in most handmissals right to the early 1970s for the 'spiritual acts' (e.g. Act of Contrition, Act of Hope, &c.). I'm not sure why they were continued for those prayers but not for others in the same books. At any rate, the sacral forms are alive and well and completely current and 'literal'. I use them both for formal prayer and when composing my own prayers. Recent attempts have been made to remove the forms even in the English Ave but there is little success in removing them in the Pater, largely for œcumenical reasons (that prayer 'uniting' Christians cannot be changed easily in form by any one group, although variations of it are common [e.g. debts for trespasses]).

I am told that, before the Council, Carmelite contemplatives, by way of exception, did not use sacral English in private prayer. I have no idea if this is true but, if so, it was a departure from a norm. In M.E., you was the accusative plural of thee; ye, the nominative plural of thou.

Where people go wrong is in statements about usages because these changed in accordance with both time and condition. Most err in thinking that the T. forms are 'affective' in formal prayer. While they would have been so at one time, they are, rather, pronouns of respect in formal prayer and have been so for a very long time. The reason for the change is a very long story and is related to the Wycliffe Bible of 1382, which used forms then considered to be archaic in order to create a more formal English to replace Latin; this was then emulated in later Bibles.

It is important that the dialectal (e.g. rural Yorkshire) and sacral usage of the pronouns is different and this causes confusion. The T. forms are indeed affective in dialectal English but not in liturgical English (e.g. when addressing the Father in the Pater).

Sacral English is a traditional way to show respect to God and to the angels and saints; traditional because handed down for numerous decades, for some centuries. A departure from it was made during the 1960s in order to smash that dialect of respect. Jesus is just like the guy around the corner and He's groovy, man.

P.K.T.P.