Rorate Caeli

Relevant
The Instruction - III
Some good news

We can report the following with Messa in Latino.

First, we can confirm that the manoeuvers to make the negative points of the Instruction on the application of the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum known have had the effect of blocking any further deterioration of the text. Was it because of the International Appeal? Or because of those working behind the scenes, in the third floor of the Palazzo Apostolico? Or both? Or they had no effect whatsoever? We will most likely never know, but the final draft would include the following measures:

(1) On the non-Roman Latin Rites, there will be, as reported here earlier, an explicit explanation that Summorum does not apply to them (however, see 3, below).

(2) The Instruction would maintain the prohibition, mentioned in its earlier draft, of the ordination, according to the Pontificale Romanum, of seminarians who are not part of societies dedicated to the Extraordinary Form - though the local ordinary can refer the matter to the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, as reported by us.

(3) The Traditional rites and uses of the religious orders could be celebrated freely by their respective priests, in the cases of Art. 2 and Art. 4 of Summorum Pontificum; the authorization of a superior would be necessary only in "public" (i.e. announced, Art.5) Masses.

(4) The celebration of the Triduum Sacrum according to the extraordinary form would be possible, which an erroneous reading of Art. 2 of Summorum Pontificum had made some reticent to admit.

(5) No specific definition of "stable group" would be given: a minimum number is not established; it is only detailed that it is not necessary that the group had existed before the advent of the motu proprio. Rorate can confirm this from different sources.

(6) The powers of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei in cases of episcopal denial of the application of Summorum are to be enhanced - though the exact text of the Instruction on the matter is still unknown to us. In a less detailed account of the Instruction also published today, Andrea Tornielli mentions that the Instruction would make it clear that "bishops cannot and must not publish [parallel] rules which limit the faculties granted by the motu proprio, or change its conditions", but "are rather called to apply it". That is, the Instruction would make clear that all such diocesan 'instructions and regulations' regarding Summorum are null and void.

(7) As reported since the first rumors of the Instruction appeared in 2007 (we mentioned it in Nov. 2007...), it is expressly foreseen that the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite be taught in seminaries of the Latin Church - as well as the Latin language. The exact wording of the Instruction on this matter is also still unclear.

All signs seem to point to the publication of the Instruction, which seems to have been already signed, before Easter.

67 comments:

Gratias said...

This is wonderful news. The 12,000 signatures from all over the Catholic world must have been a factor. Happy to learn that the Triduum in Latin is allowed, because we have enjoyed it for two years already. It is a bit like being in Heaven. Thank you Rorate Caeli and Pope Benedict!

Anonymous said...

First of all, I would like to thank New Catholic for holding firm on the petition. While I thought that his view was a bit alarmist, it made sense to me to sign the petition in any case, so I did.

He is right that we shall probably never know what effect the petition had but that does not change the fact that he was right to urge its circulation.

As for the moderator who posted the Bach excerpt, you've made my week.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

I expected everything being reported here except, specifically, the enhancement of the powers of the P.C.E.D. in the case of episcopal obstruction. This likley refers to Art. 12 and is the most important bit of rumour here so far. I expect that it will be stated directly that the P.C.E.D. can send priests 'di imperio' to dioceses where there are no T.L.M.s but a demand for one. There have been claims to this effect before.

So far, at least, none of this news signifies our juridical freedom, which is not to say that it won't be somewhere else in the Instruction. What we see so far is merely a strengthening of our position.

To attain real freedom, we need (a) one or more particular church(es) or ordinariate(s) of our own; or (b) a public recognition at law (published in the A.A.S.) that S.S.P.X Masses fulfil the Sunday obligation.

I wish to note that freedom does not mean liturgical paradise. It means that the local bishops lose their power to prevent us from having our Mass. But we could still be without our Mass in some places for decades. Freedom is not wealth but the right to acquire it.

What I hope to see is a clarification of Article 1 to insist that the T.L.M. MUST be offered, as a norm at law, on some specified basis, in each and every diocese. That basis, at the minimum, would be the every-Sunday basis even when nobody asks for it, plus more often in accordance with Art. 5.

P.K.T.P.

benedictambrose said...

...the Instruction would make it clear that "bishops cannot and must not publish [parallel] rules which limit the faculties granted by the motu proprio, or change its conditions", but "are rather called to apply it". That is, the Instruction would make clear that all such diocesan 'instructions and regulations' regarding Summorum are null and void.


This glorious leak, if true, seems to me to be the most important point the Instruction could possibly make. And it goes beyond what many people thought would be the best we could hope for from it.

May it be so.

--Benedict Ambrose

Anonymous said...

Yes, this is after all, good news if it will also be the true content of the instruction.

Whether the rule about the seminaries would also apply to the Redemtoris Mater seminaries?

M

Lautensack said...

The most important point would probably encouraging seminary rectors to offer training in the Extraordinary Form - although it remains to be seen what that would mean.

However, I see hardly any reason to rejoice about the 'success' of the petition. The ban of using the old pontifical for 'normal' seminarians remains (a measure that has no real justification and merely seems to be mean-spirited), and it seems that the celebration of the ancient Ambrosian Rite is still dependent of the whims of the Archbishop of Milan (it is rather absurd that those priests and faithful in Milan who prefer celebrations in the authentic 'Old Rite' will have to recur to the Roman Rite).

So it still seems to be a victory of bureaucrats.

Pachomius the Sophist said...

Can someone explain the logic behind specifically disqualifying the older forms of the Mozarabic and Ambrosian Rites from the allowances made by MPSP?

(Aside: Have I missed any surviving local rites out? These don't appear to be covered by the allowance for the rites of specific orders.)

Anonymous said...

P.K.T.P. wrote: "..the P.C.E.D. can send priests 'di imperio' to dioceses where there are no T.L.M.s but a demand for one.."

____

How? Does the PCED has its own priests? Just curious.

M.M.

LeonG said...

"Happy to learn that the Triduum in Latin is allowed, because we have enjoyed it for two years already."

No, it has been used for centuries - we do not need the SP to guarantee this right or any other right to the traditional Latin Mass. If such a right depended on the SP it would have died with the SP.

Johnny Domer said...

Whatever negative things might be in the Instruction would be rendered totally insignificant if the Instruction actually made it mandatory that all priests learn in seminary how to offer the Extraordinary Form.

Donato said...

Lautensack: I can tell you what this means at the North American College. 2nd through 4th year seminarians are offered training in serving as an acolyte, subdeacon, deacon, and celebrant. An priest from outside the seminary comes to provide training. This has been happening for almost 3 years now, with much interest from the seminarians.

Flambeaux said...

Whatever your reaction, positive or negative, the these and earlier rumors, let us continue to pray and do penance.

Surely that, in addition to whatever socio-political means we employ to move matters in this temporal realm, will continue to have lasting beneficial impact.

Ben said...

LeonG,

Thank you for your most insightful post. The Triduum and our whole liturgy require nothing more than our God-given right as Roman rite Catholics. SP and other documents from these Romans are not necessary. Furthermore, they are to be avoided given their insistence on 1962 and its departures from the classical Roman rite. Immemorial custom should be our rallying cry and the traditional liturgy in all her splendor should be our standard.

Ben

Traditional Catholic said...

Will someone explain to me why any of this is "good news"?

In the days of the great Pius XI nothing like this would ever have happened.

I wish the present Pope had any of the backbone of Pius XI.

Anonymous said...

I shudder to think what would happen if the TLM were to be mandated in every Latin Rite "church, chapel, oratory" at this time. Take my local parish, for example, with its altar-on-wheels, aversion to beauty, and love of everything protestant and secular. What would prevent them from playing the music of the Gather hymnal over a rushed Low Mass, served by altar girls, and rounded out with a touchy-feely sermon? We might even end up with everyone crowded around the altar at the consecration, and holding hands at the Pater Noster. This is not an unrealistic scenario in many Latin Rite parishes, unfortunately.

We need an antidote for Bishops who get in the way of the TLM, to be sure. But every parish? It's far too early for that.

I wonder sometimes whether the suppression of the TLM during the critical decades of the 20th century wasn't a good thing. It can now grow again, unsullied by the spiritual garbage of that has infested the Novus Ordo.

Denis

Michael said...

I wonder how (3) is supposed to work in monasteries and friaries. When members are expected to conform to the will of their superior in everything, is it really conceivable that a priest would be free use the order's traditional rite against his superior's wishes? I dont' see how this would work in a Carthusian monastery, for example, where the demands of obedience are so strict that monks don't even have control over their own bodies.

Jacob said...

New Catholic:
"We will most likely never know, but the final draft would include the following measures..."

I am confused by the use of the word 'would' in this sentence and then throughout the rest of the post. Are you saying that the following measures are going to be changed or are you suggesting that they are elements of the final draft? 'Will' seems to be a less confusing word.

Thanks for clarifying.

New Catholic said...

When the actual text is available to us, we will most certainly use more assertive verbal forms.

NC

Gratias said...

That "it is expressly foreseen that the EF be taught in Latin seminaries" is great, great news. At present they do not even teach Latin language at all. The 12,000 faithful who signed the petition came from all over the Catholic world. We have very extensive roots and time is on our side. Here in the USA TLM is slowly but surely making progress. Benedictus gratias.

larry schmidt said...

Indeed, any movement foward concerning our beloved Latin Mass, is Wonderful new's. Thank you New Catholic, Rorate Caeli and Pope Benedict! Oh yes, Thank you Bp. Fellay and the Cross of Arch Bishop Lefebvre!

Anonymous said...

Victories small or large, we will take what we can get. What you have put here gives one hope. I think that the most important thing mentioned here is the business of seminarians learning to celebrate the Extraordinary Form. You know, the hierarchical nature of the Church means that significantly more is accomplished, positive or negative, by priests than by laymen. There can be no "grassroots" revival of traditional Christianity in our parishes; it must come from above, and seminarians are key in this battle, because they are by and large full of good intentions and willing to learn all kinds of things. Give them the experience of TLM at the seminary stage of their lives and I would bet anything the overwhelming majority will either include it or not place obstacles to its celebration when they are priests. This is a masterful stroke if it can be accomplished. And this mustbe one of the priorities of the Holy Father, more so than facilitating this or that individual group dedicated to the TLM. The generality of the universal Church must be served more urgently.

Anonymous said...

Lautensack:

If you look at the particulars, there is no evidence that any change at all has occurred after the petition. It is only that we know more now (presumably) than we did before. On the other hand, the petition might have changed things unknown before and *might* have inserted the bit about sine populo Masses in the Ambrosian and Dominican (&c.) Rites (Articles 2 and 4).

By the way, if only public Masses need permission in the Ambrosian and other Rites and Uses, the victory for the enemy here is small.

At a Mass 'sine populo', there may be

1. regular celebration;

2. Guests present;

3. Doors left unlocked for anyone to join;

4. Even mention in the parish bulletin provided that the announcment is not according to a 'regular schdule'. For example, every week, year in and year out, the parish bulletin could say 'Traditional Ambrosian Rite next Sunday at 9.00 a.m.' The only restriction is that the announement could not point to regularity. It could not say this: 'Traditional Ambrosian Rite every Sunday at 9.00 a.m.'

The P.C.E.D. has clarified these distinctions between Mass sine populo and public parish Masses before. In theory, the distinction can be tiny. But this has never been reflected in practice. It is amazing how magical is the effect of the canonical distinction between 'sine poupulo' (usually rendered as 'private') and 'public'. I have noticed that very few priests offering the T.L.M. even bother wtih sine populo Masses with invited guests. They just jump from 'dry Masses' to public parish Masses.

Under S.P., it is also the case that a retired priest has a right of access to any sacred place to offer his one daily Mass, using whichever of the two Missals he pleases. Of course, he must make regular arrangements to use the church when it is normally not in use: he cannot just barge in. But he does have this right, and his Mass can include invited guests. Should he be barred from this either lawfully or otherwise, he can say his daily Mass outside a sacred place at a fitting place, using a corporal and so forth, and those who attend such Masses can fulfil the Sunday obligation at them (cf. Canon 932, &c). This idea that the retired priest must get permission from the parish priest is false. We hashed that one out over on Fr. Zed's blog for a while. Fr. Z. resisted the idea but, really, he was only insisting that the retired priest could not just barge in. Of course, there would need to be arrangements made and these would need to be reasonable.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Dear M.M.:

I welcome your question. It is a good one. Keep in mind that the authority of the local bishop in no way limits the authority of the Supreme Pontiff, which is not only supreme, plenary and universal but also immediate. Under the principle of subsidiarity, the Supreme authority normally defers to the local in the local sphere of action, but it may always act and should do so when the local authority is less able or unable to fulfil a norm or see to a pastoral duty.

In other words, the Holy See could fly in a priest from a neighbouring diocese or a religious order, with notification given to the bishop or superior of that priest.

It would seem to me, however, that Rome could not do this easily and surely unless the excuse for flying in the priest was to fulfil a norm at law. The first possibility is that that norm is contained in Article 5 of S.P. In other words, given the complete process, Article 5 implies a norm that groups of faithful have a general right to our Mass when they request it.

Rome could also go further and assert that, from Article 1, it can be inferred that, as a norm at law, every diocese should have at least one Sunday T.L.M. every Sunday, even if no one asks for this. That is the addition I am hoping for here. But it would seen that Article 5 alone might justify a papal action. This should not be seen as 'intrusive' as if popes can only act locally in bizarre emergencies. The papal prerogative and power is always immediate.

This will be sold as an act of assistance: the Pope comes to the rescue of Bishop Gueneley or Archbishop Rodi because those poor dears have made heruclean efforts to offer Traditional Latin Masses but simply did not have the means to do it.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

LeonG:

I suspected that the perceived restiction on the Triduum Sacram (which the usual ignoramuses in the N.O. are now calling the 'Easter Triduum', a different one altogether from the Sacred Triduum) was false.

Normally, only one Mass or Office may be said in each church on each of those days (Maundy Thursday to Easter Saturday). The Bishop's permission is normally needed to allow more than one and IN PRACTICE this has only been given in the past when the size of the church could not accommodate the number of faithful. But that is not to say that there cannot be other reasons to appprove two liturgical services in one place and on one day.

I suspect that the Instruction will allow our services for those days provided that the local Bishop approves it in the case of a territorial parish. Naturally, in personal parishes and non-parochial churches for our communities, no permission will be needed. They might even lift the need for episcopal permission altogether but I cannot see how.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Denis:

There is little evidence that the spiritual garbage could have prevailed had our Mass not been suppressed in the 1960s. Our Mass, by its very nature, is hostile to pop culture trash, moron charismaticism and idiotic Neo-Catatonics.


Ben:

It is not a matter of immemorial custom in this case. Long before NewMass there was a rule that there could only be one service per day during the Sacred Triduum (not to be confused with the Easter Triduum that ends on Easter Tuesday). For exemptions, the P.P. had to approach his Bishop and exceptions were *normally* made only if the church could not accommodate all the worshippers.

I have wondered from the beginning, however, if there could be other reasons for making exceptions, such as the existence of two liturgical practices at one church. Since S.P. was silent on the matter, we were right to sit and wait for a clarification on this.


P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Michael:

You make a good point. From the text we already have (viz. S.P.), I think that, in the case of cloistered monks and nuns, the entire community will either go traditional or not. We have the case of the Trappists in the Diocese of Aachen who went traditional after S.P.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

I shudder to think what would happen if the TLM were to be mandated in every Latin Rite "church, chapel, oratory" at this time.

So do I. This is the worst thing that could happen. We don't want the aging hippy priests--and their altar girls and EHMC's--messing with the TLM. Pretty soon, you'd see so-called EF Masses almost indistinguishable in look and feel from the typical OF Mass.

Better than this would be no "instruction" at all. Just leave it to the expanding ranks of faithful young priests and seminarians, for nature to take its course.

In some areas like mine, even without a helpful bishop, we already have too many TLM priests--in the sense that what we need more is enough TLM laymen to "populate" their Masses with "stable groups" of lay and critical masses of altar servers and choirs.

Pascendi said...

Who composed the "International Appeal" etc.?

Anonymous said...

Anon. 18.40:

"We have too many T.L.M. priests"? What planet are you from?

I've noticed how the unrealistic posters here come in two wild flavours, wild strawberry and wilder blueberry or something. First, there are those who say that we don't want more Masses: that would bring in the banjos. Then there are those who say that they will not stop bawling until there is one T.L.M. per parish in the entire world. To both camps I ask this: What have you been smoking?

First of all, there is no risk of our Mass being infected with Altarettes and banjos. Even where our presence is unusually large(e.g. A. Versailles in France, D. of Lausanne in Switzerland, D. of Arlington in the U.S.A., A. of Chicago in U.S.A.) we are so small you need a microscope to see us--unless you have been taking mind-altering drugs and you find the inside of the keyhole in your bedroom to be full of all sorts of surprises.

In a typical diocese in developed countries, there will be one T.L.M. and between 200 and 500 N.O.M.s every Sunday. Increasing our one T.L.M. to four would not even be noticed and would not bring in Fr. Feely and his band of nitwits with pink felt banners. It is quite clear that we have far too few T.L.M.s right now to meet our *potential* need, which means all those who would attend if they even knew we existed.


Then there are the wild blueberry wackos on this list who can't understand why there is not one T.L.M. per parish from Camden, U.S.A. to N'Djamena, Niger. Get real. Have a strong cup of coffee. We don't have the priests or supporters to manage that and nothing less than a juridical suppression of the N.O.M. could enable it. Sure, I'd like that. I'd also like about $10 million to be deposited in my bank account tomorrow morning, preferably before I have my mid-morning tea.

A reasonable standard is as follows:

(1) A norm at law (to be gradually implemented over the next 50 to 70 years) of a minimum of one every-Sunday T.L.M. per diocese on the planet earth. Not one per parish but one, as a minimum, per diocese. Short term, it would mean at least one in nearly every diocese in the U.S.A. and most countries in Western Europe and Australia; then spreading to Italy, the Philippines, Iberian Peninsula, Central and Eastern Europe, Latin America; finally to Africa and the rest of Asia.

(2) More T.L.M.s per diocese where groups of faithful ask for them in parishes under Article 5 of S.P. In the average metropolitan archdiocese in the U.S.A., I would expect about four or five every-Sunday T.L.M.s and at least two on the daily basis. In most dioceses in the U.S.A., I would expect one to three T.L.M.S every Sunday.

(3) Even more public T.L.M.s where parish priests start saying them at their own initiative, which is also presently permitted under S.P. These numbers, however, would be included in those under my previous point.

(4) A recognition that S.S.P.X Masses fulfil the Sunday obligation--a recognition published in the Acta. This would not mean much at all. They currently have 500 priests worldwide but mostly offer Masses where regularised Masses are also celebrated. So it would not much affect most of Latin America. I

In the end, it is Latin America that counts. If you are Catholic, English and French don't matter and German and Italian are irrelevant. Spanish is what matters.

That's about it. Can it be done? Yeeeeees. Will it cause a wild counter-revolution that divides the Church? Nooooo. Can God do more? Yes but that's His business. Everyone should mind his own business.

P.K.T.P.

Patrick said...

Thank you for this item but I am afraid it is an incomplete report. Summorum Pontificum Observatus has given some extra info from a highly reliable source (which I know but which I obviously cannot name in writing): http://www.summorum-pontificum.fr/enquete-et-analyse/la-voix-des-usagers-du-motu-proprio-partiellement-entendue
It is by no means certain that the instruction has been signed and even so it may always be amended as long as it has not been published.

Nicholas said...

"In the end, it is Latin America that counts. If you are Catholic, English and French don't matter and German and Italian are irrelevant. Spanish is what matters."

What does "counts" mean here? What renders English, French, German, and Italian, or, rather, the speakers of those languages, irrelevant? Irrelevant to what? And to whom?

Roger Buck said...

Re:

Gratias said:

"This is wonderful news. The 12,000 signatures from all over the Catholic world must have been a factor."

I am very grateful for the petition too.

Yet something which interests me in all of this is what these 12,000 signatures tell us about traditionalists worldwide.

I confess I wish the number had been more.

I wonder how this number stacks up against people's expectations?

Did people think there would be more? Less?

I saw the petition in numerous places on the blogosphere and put up notice at my own site.

What does a "turnout" of only 12,000 mean in terms of people who read blogs and want the Traditional Mass?

Are there really so few of us?

Mona said...

The SSPX DOES fulfill Sunday obligation; and yes, they DO have the faith! They DO matter; that is why Rome fears them and showed it when JPII (and the Cardinal's name escapes me at the moment) falsely "excommunicating their Bishops. BXVI wants them to cave, but they would rather Rome regained The Faith.
So, what does this mean to the review results of SP? Nothing. SSPX goes on and Rome has to change; otherwise, there will be no "EF Police" to inforce integrity, whether it be 4 Masses on Sunday, one, or every day low Masses -- no matter; Rome must change or it will always be held hostage and indirectly blocked and/or abused without a (faithful) Bishop's Watch. It must be brought into the churches, but only when Rome returns to the True Faith.
Otherwise; "Heigh-ho, heigh-ho, it's off to SPPX I go..." and pray.

Joe B said...

Whatever damage has been done to the Catholic sense of liturgy as measured by how hard it will be to return to it on a large scale, it pales in comparison to the damage done to our language. Latin is hard to learn and harder to use regularly. The energy and emphasis required to restore Latin as a functional language among the clergy is off the charts. Yes, you can learn to offer the TLM in relatively short order, but at some point in the not too distant future, for example, Roman documents and declarations may not even be disseminated in Latin. I think we've irreparably lost our defense against the curse of the tower of Babel, and the ramifications of that cannot be quantified.

David said...

It does seem that insisting that ordinations, including to the episcopacy, must be in the NO does, in the final analysis imply that the NO is the normative use in the Western Church. This seems a shame!

But we still rejoice with what we are getting.

Anonymous said...

So, whatever the new Instruction contains, good or bad (or a combination of both), Rorate Caeli, NLM, and others who promoted the recent petition will comes out smelling like roses in the eyes of traditionalists.

For example, if the Instruction is positive in regards to a further liberation of the Latin Mass, then Rorate and the others will, and already have, said that this may be due to the petition. However, if the Instruction does contain further restrictions to the Latin Mass, then said groups will be able to say: See! See! We told you so! So, either way, Rorate Caeli and the others win. It's called propoganda.

Perhaps Rorate Caeli will then tell us WHO it was EXACTLY who was in-the-know about what the Instruction would likely contain, and what it was EXACTLY that the problem was. Only if this is done will there be any credibility in the eyes of some of us traditional Catholics.

Oh, and maybe I should claim, too, that if the new Instruction is a positive one, then it is due to me writing to Ecclesia Dei to ask them to please not judge all traditional Catholics by the knee-jerk reactionary trad caths who like to foment anxiety and fear among traditional Catholics. It isn't realistic for me to think this, but hey, I'm a tradtional Catholic. I always know what the right thing to do is, regardless of what the pope or anyone else says or thinks, right? Or wrong?

Anonymous said...

Roger Buck:

A turn-out of 12,000 signatures from just a few blogs and sites and in only a few days is superb. Most traditionalist don't follow these blogs; many don't even have computers. You can multiply the number by at least twenty to get an idea of the real result.

Rome knows that we are a small but committed per centage of people who put money on the plate. The liberals are far more numerous but most of them don't care a whit if the Pope removes restrictions from our Mass or not.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Mona:

We've been through this all before. The P.C.E.D. has now admitted at least fifteen times since 2002 that Society Masses fulfil the obligation. I have one of these letters myself. However, these letters do not make law. There needs to be a public admission of this which is published in the Acta. Until this comes, bishops can continue to deny it the claim of a secretary in a commission--and they will.

However, I think that the public admission will come shortly after the talks with the Society end. There is no way that the Pope will just leave this. He and John Paul II did not make the private admissions for no reason at all. Consider that no one in Rome made such an admission from 1975 to 2002, a period of twenty-seven years.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Nicholas:

I was OBVIOUSLY using a bit of hyperbole to make a point on a cut-and-thrust blog. It should alarm us that 46% of all Catholics live in Latin America or Spain or Portugal (or Angola, &c.) and speak Spanish or Portugese. This is HALF THE CHURCH. But if you go to Latin America, you can get from Mass to Mass only by supersonic jet, they're so far apart. And, yes, that is yet more hyperbole.

Latin America is ultimately where the battle for the Latin Mass will be won or lost. We cannot claim victory when there is only one T.L.M. in all of Peru, a very populous country having in it one of the most populous Catholic cities on the planet.

If Latin America gains reasonable provision for our Mass, it will spread from there to everywhere. In the eyes of God, each soul counts, not each dollar. So our spiritual capital is concentrated in Brazil and definitely not in the U.S.A., France or even Italy.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Anon. writes:

"So, whatever the new Instruction contains, good or bad (or a combination of both), Rorate Caeli, NLM, and others who promoted the recent petition will comes out smelling like roses in the eyes of traditionalists."

Yes, you are right, but so what? Who cares who gets what credit? What matters is the outcome of the Clarification.

P.K.T.P.

Mark of the Vineyard said...

Perhaps it would interest some here in knowing that the Patriarch of Lisbon's letter limiting the application of the SP has been taken off of the Patriarchate's website.

Anonymous said...

Veterum Sapientia is an Apostolic Constitution that explains very well the reasons for Latin retention and expansion worldwide. It should be widely accepted, and implemented thoughout every Seminary in the world as Pope John XXIII instructed. Ignoring it seems a serious breach with the Magesterium.

Louis E. said...

N'Djamena is in Chad,Niamey is in Niger.

Brian said...

Anonymous 08 March, 2011 22:19,

You seem to be unravelling. Please, get a grip.

Anonymous said...

Louis E. wrote:

"N'Djamena is in Chad,Niamey is in Niger."

Yes, I realised the error after pressing 'send'. Anyone, it's good to know people are reading my posts.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Mark of the Vineyard:

You have made me smile. Off to the pancakes!

P.K.T.P.

John L said...

Since the motu proprio admitted that the Roman rite had never been suppressed and hence was always permitted, does not the same thing apply to the Ambrosian and other non-Roman Latin rites? Would not the non-application of the motu proprio to them simply legally mean that there are no restrictions at all on their use in the places in which they are the traditional rite?

Pachomius said...

Mona, JPII did not excommunicate the SSPX. He didn't have to. They did that themselves by their actions. Rather, he informed the bishops involved in a letter that they had excommunicated themselves latae sententiae (see canon 1382).

Furthermore, the SSPX would, in extremis, fulfil the Sunday obligation. But only in the same way that an Orthodox Divine Liturgy would, since under canon 751 the SSPX is clearly in schism.

And as for having the Faith, the personalist, I-not-Peter attitude that underlies the SSPX's whole being is positively Protestant, and possibly blasphemous in its denial of Our Lord's own words.

David, it doesn't seem that way, it IS that way - note that the 1970 MR is the Ordinary - as opposed to Extra-ordinary - Form of the Mass!

And as for all of you gadding about talking about "our Mass" - who do you think you are? The Mass is God's, and belongs solely to Him!

Gratias said...

Among the 12,000 signatures there were many from Latin America, so there is hope for the subcontinent. Many were from Buenos Aires. Although their Cardinal was a candidate for Pope, he has not allowed a single TLM in his Archdiocese. Yet many Argentinian Faithful stood up to be counted. Mexico has an Una Voce with a good website with an excellent Latin-Spanish missal ready for printing. This missal is better than the Una Voce America one, because it clearly indicates which sections of the Holy Mass should be read silently or audibly (e.g., the Gloria and final Gospel should be audible in Low masses, something that is not done in my wonderful Parish). There were also many signatures from the Philippines and Indonesia in the petition. The Faith burns bright throughout the World. However, the USA has the good burden of leading the way. And we are doing so.

Anonymous said...

John L.:

The document is only saying, presumably, that certain parts of it apply entirely to the 1962 Roman Mass. Whether or not parallel provisions might apply in the case of other Rites and Uses is an open question. Arguably, the various religious orders may suppress or update their Uses but I understand that the case is different for each. In some cases, they were abandoned but, in others, only discontinued in practice (or not at all).

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

P.K.T.P.,

I agree that we shouldn't really care who gets credit. And ultimately, it is Our Lord who should get the credit, if indeed He has seen fit to allow a more generous use of our beloved TLM (even if we trads don't really deserve it).

However, two of the most important hallmarks of our Catholic faith are honesty and sincerity. It is a sin to stir up others to anxiety, and to promote a distrust of the magisterium, all so that a few groups of Catholics can proclaim that they were instrumental in obtaining a positive Instruction that, hopefully, will be released soon.

May God grant humility of spirit to those who are guilty of doing this - they know who they are.

Anonymous said...

Why is there a problem in Brazil? I thought there was a "personal ordinariate" of sorts covering Brazil established as the successor of a diocese whose bishop refused to implement the Mass of Pope Paul VI?—or does "Latin America" include only Spanish-speaking territories?

Anonymous said...

The Instruction would maintain the prohibition, mentioned in its earlier draft, of the ordination, according to the Pontificale Romanum, of seminarians who are not part of societies dedicated to the Extraordinary Form - though the local ordinary can refer the matter to the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, as reported by us.

Unfortunately, I fear this will cut diocesan traditional vocations in half.

Who can call this a victory?

Mauro Cappelari said...

Pachomius, if the Mass belongs only to God, why they - Bugnini and others - changed it in 1969 the way they changed?...

Anonymous said...

Today, Ash Wednesday, is the official beginning of Lent and I wish to begin now by apologizing to anyone that I have offended by my posts. My previous posts have been sent to the dustbin; so be it. I shall refrain from posting at all in this penitential season but i will continue to read the news posted on this blog. Have a productive and worthwhile Lent everyone.

Paul Haley

Cruise the Groove. said...

Pachomius,
According to the 1983 code of canon law (promulgated by John Paul II), illicitly consecrating a bishop is not a schismatic act. That is most likely why the Holy See gave Bishop Lefebvre a canonical warning only about excommunication, not schism, before he consecrated the bishops. Thus,Bishop Lefebvre’s action seems to be one of disobedience, but not schism. Disobedience of a papal command does not give rise to schism; the person must actually deny the pope’s authority to be guilty of the crime of schism. The “refusal of submission” (subjectionis) under canon751 must be interpreted in the strictest sense, in favor of the perpetrator. Even the liberal Fr. Yves Congar, a staunch critic of Archbishop Lefebvre, correctly explains that schism involves the refusal to accept the existence of the legitimate authority of the pope (e.g., Luther’s rejection of the papal office), and not the refusal to accept a decision of that legitimate authority. A Catholic who refuses, say, to obey the pope’s directive to pray for peace for a given occasion is disobedient but not schismatic.
The FSSPX is not in schism.

Cruise the Groove. said...

Pachomius, and furthermore:


The P.C.E.D commission declared that Catholics can fulfill their Sunday obligation by attending Masses offered by SSPX priests. Moreover, if the priests of the SSPX were in schism, the Ecclesia Dei commission would not allow Catholics to frequent their Masses, since they would be allowing Catholics to worship outside the Church. This indicates that SSPX priests are not in fact in schism (for example, Catholics could not fulfill their Sunday obligation by attending liturgies offered by the schismatic priests of the Eastern Orthodox churches). The same commission has said that, so long as Catholics attend SSPX chapels out of their devotion to the Traditional Latin Mass (and not because they want to separate themselves from the Roman Pontiff), such conduct is not sinful.

dcs said...

Pachomius,

The Orthodox Divine Liturgy does not fulfill the Sunday obligation at all. One might attend the Liturgy rather than assist at Mass if a Catholic Mass is not available; but one is not bound to do so.

Anonymous said...

Anon. 11.11:

The personal Apostolic Administration of St. John-Mary Vianney covers the territory of only one of the 264 Latin diocees in Brazil, plus three or four external chapels allowed to be kept in 2002. It was originally supposed to cover all of Brazil but, when the Brazilian bishops were informed of that plan, they hit the roof. The rest is history.

The A.A. does have some external parishes in Brazil where local bishops have invited this.

P.K.T.P.

Roger Buck said...

P.T.K.P.

Warm thanks for your appraisal that 12,000 is "superb" in these circumstances - and that the real minimum must be 240,000.

I really appreciate this - coming as it does from someone whose close worldwide analysis is very evident through many comments, which I have read here and indeed often studied.

I think you may well be French Canadian and I remain very interested in your remark here once to the effect that Cardinal Ouellet is "papabile" ...

(Not to demand too much of your time, but should wish to expand on that at some point, I for one, should be very interested indeed.)

Anonymous said...

Thanks, Mr. Buck. I am *part* French Canadian, my first ancestor, Robert Drouin, arrived in Quebec in the spring of 1634. That makes me a many-generation Canadian but I've forgotten how many generations--fourteen or so. My father's people are all twentieth century immigrants, however. One of my Scots Catholic ancestors fought against the Amecian Revolution (we lost that one) and his son fought for the Crown against the Americans again in the War of 1812. We won the War of 1812, of course--something Americans are loathe to admit! Unfortunately, Canadians are also mostly determined to call it a tie. We are such weasals up here--the mouse is afraid to offend the elephant. Check out the Treaty of Ghent, 1814: we won because the Americans got neither of their original two objecives.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

It all sounds so wonderful, dear people, but let's wait to see what it really says in its entirety... whichever the case may be. For the most part, however, it seems the Holy Father is asserting the rights of the Faithful and reeling in the leashes (so to speak) of his bishops. ...?

Trevor

Jordanes551 said...

True, the War of 1812 was a military defeat for the U.S., which really should never have gone to war at all. But regardless of what the Treaty of Ghent said, and the failure of the U.S. to achieve its stated war ends, the actual outcome of the war and how it shaped the course of events over the next 150 years, including the relationship between Britain and the U.S., is of far greater significance. Without the war, there wouldn't have been a Battle of New Orleans, and without that victory the U.S. could not have secured its hold on territories along the Gulf of Mexico -- something that would have changed the course of history, not necessarily for the better. As Paul Johnson observes in his "Birth of the Modern," it resulted in the international acceptance of the Louisiana Purchase. Thanks to the war and the treaty, the British stopped attacking our ships and kidnapping our sailors, and a basis was laid to put the hostilities between the U.S. and Britain behind them and to develop a healthier relationship. It also resulted in a practical end to U.S. designs on Britain's territories in Canada. All in all, defeat though it technically was for the U.S., both sides were happy and relieved to conclude the conflict as they did.

Johannes said...

Regarding the Milanese or Ambrosian Rite - P.K.T.P. is correct. (3) disarms the issue I took aim at in the original restriction. Provided that private Masses may be celebrated according to older non-Roman Latin rites - I have no complaint. I would not look approvingly on priests turning their parishes into Milanese Rite only churches without consent from their bishop - whose diocese it is.

(6) is very heartening. Now - what shall the Irish and Germans do? We need only a fresh generation of priests willing to act upon the motv proprio and - if Christ does not come first - within another sixty years to a century the Novvs Ordo shall be defunct. Not by any over-arching proclamation from Rome, but because no one will want or attend it; nor, hopefully by then, will anyone any longer want to offer it. This is not what Benedictvs wills or believes. But I believe it shall be.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes:

Technical! There was nothing technical about it! I also note that, at the time of the Battle of New Orleans, the Empire had reoccupied about half of the U.S.A. and Massachusetts forced your Congress into the Treaty by threatening to leave the U.S.A., and N.Y., it is said, was prepared to go too. As for the White House, we all know how it got its name.

Laura Secord, our hero, I love you! For some reason, I can't get Laura Secord chocolates out here on the West Coast. It's Rogers chocolates instead. An outrage!Lauds also for Major General Sir Isaac Brock, a good man, and I note that, when he was killed in action winning the Battle of Queenston Heights, the American troops had the decency to honour his passing for one day. I think that he would also have honoured his treaty with Tecumseh but, after he was safely dead, the Imperial Government broke the deal and cheated the poor Indians.

While it is true that the Empire stopped impressing those rebels into the R.N., this was never agreed to under the Treaty. It was done because the Empire, at this point, found that an alliance with the U.S.A. was in its interet. The Monroe Doctrine (really the brainchild of Lord Castlereigh), arguably, was the distant outcome of a new political orientation, a deal to let the U.S.A. rule the Western Hemisphere and the British Empire to hold sway in the Eastern one--not something to France's liking.

But as for the American Revolution, it was an unjust campaign of brigands and pirates against their legitimate King, who had the temerity to trade with the French while the Imperial Army protected them from the French during the French and Indian War. Moreoever, the truth is that the most intolerable of the 'Intolerable Acts' was the Quebec Act of 1774 and we all know why. To be fair, on the other hand, the Empire only let Quebec keep the Faith (and the French language and civil law) for purely selfish reasons: it would cost English taxpayers too much to do otherwise.

I'm surprised I can remember all this stuff. I haven't really revisted it since high school. By the way, one of my French ancestors was in charge of overseeing the battlements at Quebec City, although earlier than at the time of the War with England. He was an inspector of some sort, who checked the ammunition and supplied. I'd have to consult a cousin for the facts but I think it was in the 1720s or so. I know all my French (and Basque) lines back to their respective origins in various parts of France.

P.K.T.P.

Jordanes551 said...

Technical! There was nothing technical about it!

Sure there was -- if it had been a true defeat, the U.S. would have been forced to submit to humiliating terms or might even have been destroyed. Instead, both sides agreed to stop fighting and, officially at least, respect the status quo ante. It could have been a lot worse for the U.S.

I also note that, at the time of the Battle of New Orleans, the Empire had reoccupied about half of the U.S.A. and Massachusetts forced your Congress into the Treaty by threatening to leave the U.S.A., and N.Y., it is said, was prepared to go too.

Yes, hence the need to end the war -- the New Englanders were in danger of breaking away so they could attempt to continue their foolish and hopeless war with Britain alone.

While it is true that the Empire stopped impressing those rebels into the R.N., this was never agreed to under the Treaty. It was done because the Empire, at this point, found that an alliance with the U.S.A. was in its interet.

Yes, it wasn't in the Treaty, but nevertheless the criminal British Empire's cessation of that particular crime was an important outcome of the war. By 1815 the citizens of the U.S. cannot be termed "rebels," since Britain had already recognised the sovereignty and independence of the U.S. Their kidnapping and enslavement of U.S. citizens was nothing but an indefensible violation.

But as for the American Revolution, it was an unjust campaign of brigands and pirates against their legitimate King,

Though one may question if there really were adequate grounds for the 13 colonies to break away, it is far from clear that German Geordie was the legitimate king or prince of anything but Hannover. One cannot "rebel" against a usurper.

Anonymous said...

Umm, let's try to stay on topic here.