Rorate Caeli

Third-rate Catholics

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
March 9, 2011 

WASHINGTON, DC--The Paulus Institute for the Propagation of the Sacred Liturgy regrets to announce that the Pontifical High Mass in the Extraordinary Form scheduled to be offered at the high altar of the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception on April 9th is cancelled.

The Paulus Institute had organized the Lenten Mass in honor of the Holy Father on the sixth anniversary of his election to the papacy. It was to have been the second such Mass, the first having been offered at the National Shrine last year before a capacity congregation of over 4,000. Unfortunately, this year's scheduled celebrant, Archbishop Augustine DiNoia of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments in Rome, withdrew his acceptance of our invitation as a result of changed circumstances.

Although the Paulus Institute has worked for the past several weeks to proceed with the Mass in the end we were unable to obtain the necessary permission.

"We deeply regret this turn of events,” said Paul King, president of The Paulus Institute. “We are very disappointed, well aware that thousands of Catholics throughout the United States have made plans to attend. Countless others around the world would have watched and prayed with the EWTN broadcast and wanted the DVD.

95 comments:

Cruise the Groove. said...

"Unfortunately, this year's scheduled celebrant, Archbishop Augustine DiNoia of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments in Rome, withdrew his acceptance of our invitation as a result of changed circumstances"

I wonder what these circumstances are?
Did His Excellency write a controversial letter to someone else, that caused scandal and foced him to pull out, ala Cardinal Hoyos?
Is it really that hard to schedule one two hour Mass in the Basilica, months in advance?
Perchance Archbishop Wuerl should be contacted about this.

Andrew Hill said...

I don't want to throw stones before we know the whole truth, but it's entirely possible that Cardinal Wuerl had a hand in this...

Crisis Persists said...

Archb. Wuerl? Don't waste your breath.

Athelstane said...

It seems of a piece with the Shrine's cancellation of the weekly Wednesday TLM at the Lourdes Chapel last fall.

Which is to say, I don't think it was any special attachment to Archbishop DiNoia, but rather an opportunity by the Shrine staff to get rid of the mass altogether.

John McFarland said...

Dear New Catholic,

I stand second to no man in my skepticism about official support for the MP; but even I am taken aback by this.

For two years running, the authorities have hawked and spit in the faces of the Christus Institute -- and this time, it would seem, they've simply refused to let the Mass go forward.

The people behind Paulus look to be the most unexceptionable and respectable sort of traditionalists and traditionalist sympathizers. A number of the priests are old ICEL hands or members of the liturgical commissions of the D.C. Archdiocese. The only Ecclesia Dei priest associated with Paulus looks to be Msgr. Schmitz of the Institute of Christ Sovereign Priest.

If the authorities treat the most docile of traditionalist faithful like this, what can anyone expect?

Athelstane said...

..but I hasten to add that there has been credible suggestion that the impulse for this cancellation may not have come from the Shrine, but from the archdiocese.

It will be interesting to see what information comes to light about this decision. In the meantime, we can pray.

Letting The Smoke Out said...

Wouldn't it be interesting to see the complaining if the Novus Ordo were suddenly abrogated or the CITH indult withdrawn?

Cruise the Groove. said...

I have contacted Archbishop Wuerl's office about this.
If any wish to contact him the email address is:
archbishop@adw.org

Anonymous said...

"I don't want to throw stones before we know the whole truth, but it's entirely possible that Cardinal Wuerl had a hand in this..."

This same thought came immediately to my mind when I read the title to this blog post.

This could actually be a blessing in disguise. All those people who made plans (i.e. plane tickets, hotels and etc.) are going to be FURIOUS. If they weren't militant before this incident they will be now! Whoever is responsible for this cancelation just gave the traditional movement a shot in the arm

Anonymous said...

The same thing happened last year, don't you remember?

Whoever it was that was supposed to come from the Vatican pulled some excuse and Bishop Slattery (God bless him!) stepped in at the very last minute. It was an overwhelming success last year, and we wouldn't want a repeat act now, would we?


Delphina

Patrick said...

If even the Secretary of the Sacred Congregation of Divine Worship can effectively be barred from celebrating in the usus antiquior, then anyone can. This is a warning - and an ominous sign of what expects us with the "interpretation norms" of Summorum Pontificum. We are facing hard times:
www.golias.fr/article4813.html

Long-Skirts said...

Christ has not left us orphans! Follow the True Roman Catholic Priests and see the heathens RAGE!!

SACERDOS

“They have abandoned the Fort, those
who should have defended it.” (St. John Fisher)

Who held the Fort
Till the Calvary came
Fighting for all
In His Holy Name?

Who fed the sheep
As the pastures burned dry
A few Good Shepherds
Heeding their cry?

Who led the charge
‘Gainst heresy’s Huns
Defending the degreed
To His lowliest ones?

Who battened down
The hatch of the barque
To warm cold souls
From shivering-seas dark?

“Who?” mocks Satan
Delighting in doubt
Fills you with questions,
Never lets you find out.

“Hoc est enum
Corpus meum…
…and for many…” who kept
The dead words – Te Deum!

Jordanes551 said...

If even the Secretary of the Sacred Congregation of Divine Worship can effectively be barred from celebrating in the usus antiquior, then anyone can.

There's no basis for saying he was barred, even effectively barred. All we know is that, "Unfortunately, this year's scheduled celebrant, Archbishop Augustine DiNoia of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments in Rome, withdrew his acceptance of our invitation as a result of changed circumstances."

Christopher J. Paulitz said...

Folks, I will say that, just so everyone is clear and blame doesn't fall where it shouldn't, that this was Cardinal Wuerl's call on the Mass -- not the Vatican's.

There should be more coming soon. But do not blame the Vatican on this one.

Anonymous said...

A second person to contact is Monsignor Rossi, rector of the shrine.

wrr@bnsic.org

Denis

Anonymous said...

Jordanes,

New Catholic's text reads as follows: "we were unable to obtain the necessary permission."

Permission.

Anonymous said...

Why does it always come down to this "permission" routine? What "permission?" Lack of permission to use the Basilica? Lack of permission to say the Mass? Wasn't the time already set for the Mass? Isn't a priest by permiso of the Holy Father, able to say the Tridentine Rite of his own volition? No one else in this country of any stature able to fill in for the guy? Somebody put the screws to DiNoia, and sadly, to the to rest of the Faithful also.

Matt

Jordanes551 said...

New Catholic's text reads as follows: "we were unable to obtain the necessary permission." Permission.

That refers to permission to celebrate this particular Mass at the Shrine, not to permission for Archbishop DiNoia to be the celebrant. It is the Mass itself that has been barred -- there is no basis at this time to say that Archbishop DiNoia personally was barred. His withdrawal may have been for any reason. We don't know what the changed circumstances are that led him to back out.

Jordanes551 said...

Somebody put the screws to DiNoia

Maybe, although there is no reason at this time to think that's what happened.

Cruise the Groove. said...

"...that this was Cardinal Wuerl's call on the Mass -- not the Vatican's."

I think this is pretty evident.

David L Alexander said...

"The people behind Paulus look to be the most unexceptionable and respectable sort of traditionalists and traditionalist sympathizers."

This is not a fair characterization of the principals involved, which include Msgr Charles Pope, who has celebrated the monthly Missa Solemnis most of the time at St Mary's in DC. As to His Eminence withholding permission, if this is what happened, there needs to be some verification of this, so that it can be brought to Rome's attention. For their failure to dissuade the Archbishop from an unlawful posture, I WOULD be inclined to "blame" them.

@Long-Skirts: "True Roman Catholic Priests" follow Peter. "Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia!"

The Spirit of the Council said...

Considering that 5000 people is not a sufficient number to form a stable group in the sense of Summorum Pontificum and furthermore taking into consideration that this group did not exist before Summorum Pontificum was issued, it seems a reasonable and pastoral decision to deny this request for an old-fashioned and preconciliar event, initiated by nostalgic people who have not yet accepted the fruits of the second pentecost that has lead our church into a dynamic era of ecumenical gatherings.

Anonymous said...

@Long-Skirts: "True Roman Catholic Priests" follow Peter. "Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia!"


Oh no! This means we'll be subjected to another poem by her!

Skirts, only teasing, although I don't know how you find the time to tend to your family with all of your poetry writing.

Delphina

Tom the Milkman said...

If the Holy Father stepped in publicly and rectified by correction this capricious episcopal act, it would do more for our Mass and the cause of Tradition than were he to celebrate the Old Mass publicly.

Bet that won't happen..

Henry Edwards said...

"The people behind Paulus look to be the most unexceptionable and respectable sort of traditionalists and traditionalist sympathizers."

David Alexander: This is not a fair characterization of the principals involved, which include Msgr Charles Pope, who has celebrated the monthly Missa Solemnis most of the time at St Mary's in DC.

I wonder whether this says what you intended. Surely, Msgr. Pope is as respectable as it gets.

Anonymous said...

Hopefully they will also cancel the LA Liturgical Conference this year."Eye for an Eye".

Patrick said...

Jordanes, come on. Are we really supposed to believe that there is no link between the fact that Bishop Di Noia had to cancel and the fact that the organisers failed to gain permission? Of course, formally speaking these are two different things but there is a strong presumption that both are linked. Who can believe that "there is no basis" for such an assumption? It is an assumption, not a certainty, granted, but there is definitely a basis for such an assumption.

Joe B said...

"True Roman Catholic Priests" follow Peter. "Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia!"

SSPX agrees.

RobertK said...

Re David L Alexander
@Long-Skirts: "True Roman Catholic Priests" follow Peter. "Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia!"

Unfortunately some popes in the history of the Church have not followed Peter. That is the problem. Don't follow them in to any errors. And they can err when not not invoking their infallibility. We must pray for the present pope. He has given us hope as well as heartache.
R Kenne

John McFarland said...

A not implausible hypothesis is that the plug was pulled in Rome.

It certainly seems very strange that going forward with a replacement celebrant, as happened last year, would not be permitted, unless the "changed circumstances" were that someone pretty high up gave Archbishop DiNoia to understand that he'd better not go, and also communicated the non placet to the Archdiocesan authorities.

Archbishop Di Noia is about as notable an American tradition-friendly Vatican notability as there is.

If he was indeed made not to go, I would read this as serving notice of what many have suspected: that sympathy for the traditional Mass doesn't extend very far beyond the threshold of the papal apartments.

Jordanes551 said...

Are we really supposed to believe that there is no link between the fact that Bishop Di Noia had to cancel and the fact that the organisers failed to gain permission?

Not at all. We're just not supposed to conclude that there is a link when there is no evidence available at this time that there is a link.

Who can believe that "there is no basis" for such an assumption? It is an assumption, not a certainty, granted, but there is definitely a basis for such an assumption.

It's better to wait to find out what the "changed circumstances" were that led Archbishop DiNoia to pull out.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps it was in conflict with liberal pro-abortion day where wuerl can give communion to to all the pro-choice politicians. By the way, wuerl just co-wrote book on the mass--read it--it's junk!

Anonymous said...

I hate to think this way- but if a bunch of hertics wanted to use the basilica to play church to ordain a bishop or a female there would be no problem.

Anonymous said...

Eminence and Reverend Father,



I just received news that the Pontifical High Mass in the Extraordinary Form scheduled to be offered at the high altar of the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception on April 9th is cancelled.



This greatly upsets me as many had made special plans to attend to attend this Mass. Hundreds were planning on coming from great distances and have already spent thousands of dollars on plane tickets and accommodations that is now wasted.



Last year the Pontifical high Mass in the Extraordinary form drew 4000 people from all over the country and local DC area. That attendance showed the greatly increasing devotion to the Extraordinary form of the Mass.



This could have been an amazing opportunity for you to show the Holy Father that the Archdiocese of Washington DC is a leader in promoting the Extraordinary form of the Mass in accordance with The Holy Fathers' Summorum Pontificum.



Please reconsider this cancelation and allow the Pontifical High Mass on April 9, 2011 to be celebrated at the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception.



Sincerely,

David L Alexander said...

Henry Edwards: "I wonder whether this says what you intended. Surely, Msgr. Pope is as respectable as it gets."

Indeed he is. I have been honored to serve Mass for him on numerous occasions over the years. But the word "respectable" was paired with "unexceptional," which would suggest a rather mediocre lot, who attribute their influence to the ability to overly ingratiate themselves to people in positions of authority, and thus avoid making waves. It is such characterization which I would find baseless. These men and women have staked their reputations on a matter which (apparently) is not popular in all Catholic circles.

RobertK: "Unfortunately some popes in the history of the Church have not followed Peter."

Popes do not follow Peter, they ARE Peter. And if you want to rate popes, the first one knew our Lord personally, and denied him publicly. Does that make him a "good" pope or a "bad" pope?

Anonymous said...

Wuerl is not very inclusive.

shevyn said...

Why dont the Institute try to get another celebrant? Just like the previous Pontifical Mass they celebrated?

Long-Skirts said...

David Alexander said:

"@Long-Skirts: "True Roman Catholic Priests" follow Peter. "Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia!"

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm, I seem to remember another True Roman Catholic Priest, St. John standing at the foot of the Cross with the Blessed Mother while St. Peter and all the Church's first Bishops ran away and he didn't follow - what a goofy guy!

Delphinia said:

"...although I don't know how you find the time to tend to your family with all of your poetry writing."

Well, not that housework will kill ya, but why take a chance?! ;-)

THE
GOSPEL
NARRATIVES

For neurotic-psychotic
“Attached” to the old,
We give you a hireling
To take care your fold.

No need for the shepherds,
Who seem so much keener,
They’ll tempt you with dreams
Of pastures much greener

And say not to mimic
Past tolerant-barters,
So heads were cut off
Who could dialogue with martyrs?

The shepherds tell fables
‘Bout a man, hated, hailed,
Like you just “attached”
Don’t believe He was nailed!

Jordanes551 said...

But the word "respectable" was paired with "unexceptional," which would suggest a rather mediocre lot, who attribute their influence to the ability to overly ingratiate themselves to people in positions of authority, and thus avoid making waves. It is such characterization which I would find baseless.

No, he said "unexceptionable," not "unexceptional." Persons with whom no one could reasonably take exception.

Anonymous said...

Folks,

The whole dynamics of the affair seems clear enough from what the press release describes:

"Permission" was denied.

What "permission"?

- Either permission from the Rector of the shrine to have a public TLM celebrated in his shrine OR

- permission from the Archbishop of Washington for Archbishop DiNoia, a visiting Bishop, to come to Washington to celebrate Mass in public in the Shrine (a visiting Bishop will inform the local Bishop that he is coming to his diocese, especially if he intends to celebrate Mass in public, and he needs permission from the local ordinary to pontificate).

So, either the public TLM permission from the rector of the church was not granted (the rector of the church having here powers equivalent to a parish priest for the purposes of decisions under Summorum Pontificum), or the permission to pontificate in his diocese from the Archbishop of Washington was not granted.

It seems likely that the local ordinary, knowing that the intended Mass with the use of pontificalia would be an extraordinary form pontifical mass, decided to deny his permission for the visiting bishop to publicly celebrate Mass and pontificate in his diocese.

Brian said...

David Alexander said:

"True Roman Catholic Priests" follow Peter. "Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia!"

and said:

"if you want to rate popes, the first one knew our Lord personally, and denied him publicly."

So then, if True Roman Catholic Priests follow Peter, then True Roman Catholic Priests must deny Christ publicly?

There seems to be a flaw in this line of reasoning.

benjoyce said...

You know what should happen.

What should be organized is thousands arrive anyway. A lot more than 4 thousand and arrive on April 9 at the previously scheduled time and then march to a nearby park and have an outdoor Mass in support of SP. Not the best of circumstances but Mass was prayed on the hoods of Jeeps in WWII. Is this not a war too?

benjoyce said...

I'm serious about this "Latin Mass March" Remember how the SSPX was praised for the reverent manner they conducted themselves when they arrived in Rome? This would NOT be in disobedience to Wuerl but it would be in OBEDIENCE to Summum P. and Pope Benedict XVI ! Don't let these modernist prelates stop us. We must fight the good fight. They march to end abortion. I've done this a few times. Why not March for the Latin Mass and have 100,000 show up? More impact than 4,000. This move by the forces of evil will BACK FIRE on them. "God does not cause evil but he can cause that good can come from it", as St. Augustine would say.

Hey Jordanes! you know people who could get this thing going. I'm only a house painter on Cape Cod. I don't have the connections

Anonymous said...

THE PAULUS INSTITUTE FOR THE PROPAGATION OF THE SACRED LITURGY FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT: Paul Kin (pking@KingPLLC.com)

MARCH 11, 2011

April 9th Pontifical High Mass – addendum

WASHINGTON, DC— The Paulus Institute would like to clarify that Msgr. Walter Rossi and the Shrine are not at all responsible for the cancellation of the Apr. 9 Mass, and indeed have been very helpful.

John McFarland said...

Jordanes is quite correct in his construction of my "unexceptionable" remark.

But while I'm here, let me beat my point briskly over the head.

I think it very likely that all the clerics involved with the Paulus Institute -- and Archbishop DiNoia for that matter -- are to the "left" of Jordanes and the rest of the principals of this site, none of whom can be considered anything resembling "rad trads."

Of the laymen, Donna Fitzpatrick is a trustee of Christendom College, and the rest look if anything more establishmentarian.

I wouldn't be surprised if some or all of the laymen are conservative rather than traditionalist, except for an attachment to the TLM. As for the clerics, I wouldn't be surprised if some of them are sympathetic to those attached to the TLM, but not particularly attached themselves.

If these folks can't get a Pontifical Mass at the Shrine, who (other than the Pope) can?

And if the Holy Father will not do so, I would add that fact to his own failure to say the TLM (in public, at any rate) as evidence that the intent is to keep the Extraordinary Form extraordinary.

Maybe those who only want the TLM don't think that it is a "flag" (to recall Cardinal Seper's famous remark to John Paul the Great when he met with Archbishop Lefebvre in 1978); but its enemies know better, and so does the Holy Father.

Michael said...

I would strongly caution people not to send irate and accusatory letters to Cardinal Wuerl telling him it was a bad idea to cancel the Mass and demanding that he change his mind.

Rather, I would recommend sending a letter that expresses in a few words your devotion to the Exraordinary Form, your gratitude for last year's Mass, and your disappointment in hearing that the April 9th Mass had been cancelled. This should be followed by a polite REQUEST that the bishop consider removing whatever obstacles stand in the way.

W.C. Hoag said...

David Alexander: "And if you want to rate popes, the first one knew our Lord personally, and denied him publicly. Does that make him a "good" pope or a "bad" pope?"

I always giggle at the plain meaning of what is said here by Mr. Alexander!

How does one define Pope? Usually as the Bishop of Rome and SUCCESSOR to Peter. Was Peter Bishop of Rome and Successor to HIMSELF?! ;-)

Jordanes551 said...

Having been informed further on the reported "changed circumstances" and Archbishop DiNoia's decision to withdraw his acceptance of the invitation, I am inclined to think that Mr. McFarland's appraisal, and that of Anonymous 12 March, 2011 12:43, are likely to be correct.

This could have wider implications that aren't good at all.

Jordanes551 said...

How does one define Pope?

Literally it means "Father."

Usually as the Bishop of Rome and SUCCESSOR to Peter. Was Peter Bishop of Rome and Successor to HIMSELF?!

True -- almost every single Bishop of Rome was/is Successor of St. Peter.

Jordanes551 said...

Hey Jordanes! you know people who could get this thing going. I'm only a house painter on Cape Cod. I don't have the connections.

I'm afraid I have about as many connections as you, but others here probably know some people. I like your idea very much.

Dan said...

I'm curious that no one has yet spotted the elephant in the living room over this matter: that the terms of the Pope's Motu Proprio make it quite clear that it is not necessary to obtain the "permission" of the local Ordinary to celebrate Mass in the ancient rite. ANY priest, ANY church, ANY occasion is essentially how Summorum Pontificum spells it out.

Now, of course, I am not so naive that I don't see clearly that many Bishops are (illegally) still suppressing this Mass, but that brings us squarely to another point, that point being the inability of the Pope to enforce his own motu proprio. So, to answer the concerns of some who have responded, asking who is to blame for this, the answer would be Rome - unless and until they start using the power of the Keys they were given. A simple phone call from the Pope to Mr Wuerl would end this matter in jig time. If the Holy Father acts then the situation will be rectified; if he does not act then he, alas, is responsible, ultimately responsible, for this mess.

It is quite clear that the Bishops (often, alas, with the cooperation of ineffectual religious orders like the ICK, who often behave like frightened rabbits when confronted with episcopal arrogance) have decided amongst themselves that they are going to contain and "ghettoize" this Mass wherever possible. And if they hear no rebukes from Rome they will get bolder still and resort to the time-honored chicanery of outright suppression, which seems to be the case here.

The organizers of this Mass should respectfully remind Wuerl that while they appreciate his leadership in the diocese the Pope's motu proprio takes this Mass situation out of his hands. If Rome doesn't want to grow a backbone over this then we have to.

Anonymous said...

I'd heard even prior to the Paulus Institute press release that Abp. DiNoia canceled his visit to the United States scheduled for that weekend for other reasons, having something to do with his duties in Rome.

Given that Abp. DiNoia wrote the Foreword to Cardinal Wuerl's recent book on the Mass and that signs point to a cordial relationship between the two prelates, my guess is that Cardinal Wuerl's initial approval was conditioned on it being Abp. DiNoia in particular who would offer the Mass. It's even possible that the Lenten date of the Mass was a consequence of Abp. DiNoia's schedule. Once Abp. DiNoia had to withdraw, the Cardinal refused to give permission for another prelate.

Why might this be? The Cardinal is surrounded with controversy in consequence of his policies on giving Holy Communion to pro-abortion politicians, and he is certainly not known as a friend of traditional liturgy. But virtually all of the bishops who would be willing to offer a Solemn Pontifical High Mass at the National Shrine would strongly disagree with the Cardinal on both of these matters. My guess is that Abp. DiNoia could be trusted to "play nice," while the Cardinal considers giving any other prelate friendly to traditional liturgy an opportunity to do something so public in his own archdiocese too great of a risk.

Anonymous said...

"..changed circumstances"? Hmm. Perhaps those changed circumstances might be post-consistory muscle-flexing on the part of a particular ordinary now with no need further to please anyone but himself?

Anonymous said...

Folks,

When Peter denied Christ, Peter was not Pope yet. Sure, the Papacy had already been promised to him (I WILL GIVE YOU the keyes...), but that had not taken place yet.

Christ hadn't died on the Cross yet, he hadn't consummated the sacrifice that serves as the foundations of the Church yet.

Also, Christ's Ressurrection hadn't taken place yet, and it was only AFTER His Ressurection that Jesus CONFIRMED Peter's role (this time with words in the present, and not in the future tense), by saying three times (the same number of times as the PREVIOUS denials uttered by Peter): "Feed my Sheep".

Only after this final commission from the Risen Lord (If you love me, feed my sheep), and Peter's reply and ACCEPTANCE of the commission (Lord, you know that I love you), with Christ then reppeating the commission to a total of three times, can Peter be considered Pope. Not before.

Finally, Peter's leadership starts only AFTER Christ's ascenscion into the Heavens; for when Christ was still present on this Earth he needed no Vicar. He was presiding his disciples in Person. The Vicar's role begins once the Lord departs.

Lastly, Peter's graces of state, the fullness of his role as Vicar of Christ, and the very existance of the Catholic Church, begin only with the event of PENTECOST, when the Holy Spirit descend upon the Apostles.

What the Apostles did before the descent of the Holy Spirit, their lack of faith before, has no bearing on their faith AFTER this transforming event, that gives birth to the Church. And of course Peter can only preside the Church after She is born.

So, this whole "Peter denied Christ and so we should not follow the Pope" thing is pure BS. If it were correct, the whole edifice of the Catholic Faith, that rests in submission to the leadership of the Successor of Peter, would be wrong.

Anonymous said...

To anon 12 March, 2011 17:23:

That's why popes should rediscover the precious art of deposing people from the Cardinalate.

An exercise of power that is much needed. Cardinals must continuously earn their position, and not use the Cardinalate to oppose the Pope of Rome from an exalted state.

Anonymous said...

I find this all very disturbing. Why would the Mass have been publicisized unless permission was already given? Was it granted and then taken back? I agree with those who believe a greater good will come of this.

I was in the process of making plans to attend and at the last minute, prior to booking my flights and chosen hotel, I checked the shrine's web site. There was no mention of the Mass there. So I hestitated thinking something was not right.

What a shame this is.

Cape Breton girl

David L Alexander said...

W C Hoag: "I always giggle at the plain meaning of what is said here by Mr. Alexander!"

That's my mission in life, sir, to spread joy.

Anonymous 12 March, 2011 12:43: "... permission from the Archbishop of Washington for Archbishop DiNoia ... if he intends to celebrate Mass in public, and he needs permission from the local ordinary to pontificate)."

Last year, Bishop Slattery bore his crosier (the shepherd's staff) when he celebrated Mass. As a bishop GENERALLY only does this within his own jurisdiction, it would suggest some form of dominion. This begs a question; would such permission even be necessary (other than a fraternal courtesy) for him to celebrate the Traditional Mass at the National Shrine?

Long-Skirts: "Hmmmmmmmm."

Your point (you do have one, right?) certainly wouldn't change anything I have said, and I stand by it.

Anonymous said...

Do you know what I think? (Now, now, no uncharitable thoughts. It's Lent!!) I think that the reason this was canceled has something to do with this SP clarification and what is in it.

Remember, you heard it first from...

Delphina

Jordanes551 said...

I'd heard even prior to the Paulus Institute press release that Abp. DiNoia canceled his visit to the United States scheduled for that weekend for other reasons, having something to do with his duties in Rome.

There may be more to it than that.

Jordanes551 said...

the terms of the Pope's Motu Proprio make it quite clear that it is not necessary to obtain the "permission" of the local Ordinary to celebrate Mass in the ancient rite. ANY priest, ANY church, ANY occasion is essentially how Summorum Pontificum spells it out.

No, not "ANY priest, ANY church, ANY occasion." A bishop may not celebrate the Eucharist (regardless of liturgical rite, use, or form) in another bishop's diocese or in one of the churches under another bishop's care without that local ordinary's permission. That especially goes for Pontifical Masses.

David L Alexander said...

They probably couldn't get away with an outdoor Mass, but perhaps if thousands in the pews began saying all fifteen decades of the Rosary on cue (via callphone), it just might confound the powers that be. Or a special Mass at St Mary's in DC (which might be enough to hold all those who show up).

Just thinking out loud here.

Robert said...

http://gloria.tv/?media=62899

This wont be cancelled this year will it.

Anonymous said...

This is very simple. An award of a red hat in the last consistory leads to the cancellation of a high profile EF Mass that would have sent the wrong message to the Catholic faithful. What's to understand?

Anonymous said...

My understanding is that while Bishops need permission to celebrate Mass publicly in another Bishop's diocese, this is not the case for a Cardinal. I believe that a Cardinal simply is to inform the Bishop that he will be there. So...who wants to call Cardinal Burke? :-)

Joe B said...

I am told that a traveling priest may celebrate mass anywhere he goes, and especially in mission territory (which the U.S. formally is), the notice to the local bishop being more of a courtesy than a requirement. But a traveling priest cannot be denied the right to celebrate mass altogether, although the use of diocesan property may depend on at least the approval of the Rector. But the priest may offer mass, say, outside or in a facility other than diocesan property. The 'tailgate of the jeep' suggestion sounds pretty good to me. But first we need a priest willing to make such a statement without the bishop's approval. Someone to defend our traditions even under some duress from within the church, maybe even involving some defiance at the Vatican level. Why, that sounds like ... SSPX!

dcs said...

I'm curious that no one has yet spotted the elephant in the living room over this matter: that the terms of the Pope's Motu Proprio make it quite clear that it is not necessary to obtain the "permission" of the local Ordinary to celebrate Mass in the ancient rite. ANY priest, ANY church, ANY occasion is essentially how Summorum Pontificum spells it out.

Well, any priest would need the permission of the pastor to celebrate Mass publicly, or in this case permission of the rector. That does not seem to be the issue here, given what Anonymous posted from the Paulus Institute above. Since it is an issue of permission, it would seem that Card. Wuerl refused permission for Abp. DiNoia to pontificate in his diocese. I don't see how one could come to any other conclusion.

Jordanes551 said...

Remember, you heard it first from...

Well, you're not who I heard it first from . . . .

Jordanes551 said...

a high profile EF Mass that would have sent the wrong message to the Catholic faithful

What wrong message?

Reluctant Pessimist said...

After following this thread for almost a full day, I am still waiting to see whether David Alexander will ever swallow hard and apologize for his comments critical of the gentleman who correctly used the word unexceptionable. Perhaps Mr. Alexander misread the word—twice—or perhaps he didn't understand that it has not the same meaning as unexceptional. Either way, he needs to show the commonest of common courtesies by owning to his several errors and his inaccurate critical comments. After all, true Traditional Catholicism ought to affect and transform daily life in the world, and few things are more properly traditional, in the best broad sense, than apologizing for one's missteps, whether taken deliberately or inadvertently.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes: "'Remember, you heard it first from...'

Well, you're not who I heard it first from . . . ."

Sorry to hear that. I should have written it yesterday when it first entered my vacant mind, but I thought if I wrote that it would only bring forth a torrent of more poems by Skirts.

Delphina

Long-Skirts said...

David L. Alexander said:

"Long-Skirts: "Hmmmmmmmm."

Your point (you do have one, right?)"

...well not like the one on the top of your head.

"...certainly wouldn't change anything I have said, and I stand by it."

It wouldn't? I hope I would have stayed at the foot of the cross with the Blessed Mother just like St. John, one of the Chuch's first Alter Christus's like the SSPX Priests do today with daily Holy Mass, sacraments and schools for our children, the future Church.

Henry said...

Jordanes551 said... What wrong message?

For instance, that the traditional Mass of the ages is beautiful and reverent and glorious and wonderful, and particularly attracts the young. From the viewpoint of him who cancelled this Mass, this clearly was the “wrong message” to be televised to the faithful around the world. And, incidentally, as one bishop famously said long before SP, an ad orientem Mass on TV (whether EF or OF) might “confuse” the faithful---who might not understand such a thing being allowed to be shown for all the world to see.

Jordanes551 said...

Sorry to hear that. I should have written it yesterday when it first entered my vacant mind,

If it will make you feel better, I didn't hear it until this morning.

Anonymous said...

Attn. Mr. McFarland:

Since your son is currently an SSPX seminarian, can he put you in touch with Bishop Fellay? If the good bishop would be willing to offer Mass in place of Archbishop DiNoia's inability to do so, would it not focus SP's irrelevance 4 years after its pronouncement? I'd wager 100 bucks we could get at least 25,000 people for Mass in front of the baslicia if it was announced within 72 hrs from now. Heck, the SSPX has celebrated Mass at numerous locations in front of places of worship denied to them at the end of a pilgrimage. Would you consider asking? My hope is that the authorities upon hearing of it would find a replacement ASAP.

A.M. LaPietra

Long-Skirts said...

Delphina said:

"but I thought if I wrote that it would only bring forth a torrent of more poems by Skirts"

Meeeeeeee - ooooowwwwwwwwwwwww!!

Them are fightin' words, Delphina. And THIS mother wears Combat Boots.

COMBAT
BOOTS

I fight the flesh
The world's no test
When I fight the devil
I'm at my best.

But combat boots
Size 8 for me
When defending the Faith
With poetry.

Anonymous said...

The logical conclusion from Archbishop DiNoia's reason for backing out of this Mass is clear, and chilling: if it is somehow outside the remit of Summorum Pontificum to allow the celebration of annual Masses such as this one, then even the Chartres Pilgrimage is not safe.

Henry said...

"The logical conclusion from Archbishop DiNoia's reason for backing out of this Mass is clear, and chilling: if it is somehow outside the remit of Summorum Pontificum to allow the celebration of annual Masses such as this one, then even the Chartres Pilgrimage is not safe."

Nonsense. SP is quite clear. Public celebration of the EP is allowed wherever the local authority (bishop or pastor) permits it.

Why so defensive (or apprehensive)? Summorum Pontificum establishes the EF and OF as two forms of the Roman rite, of equal juridical standing. Of course they will only have equal standing in the everyday liturgical life of the Church when we have a new generation of bishops and pastors.

Anonymous said...

I forgive you, Henry, for you are clearly not up to date about what has just happened. Inexplicably, RC has failed to let you all in on the latest news, which is that Di Noia cancelled because he now understands that:
"Summorum Pontificum ne vise pas les célébrations ponctuelles a l'occasion de tel out tel événement, il ne vise que le célébration réguliere paroissiale, pour un groupe stable."
This implies the danger of exactly what I stated earlier: Chartres and any other yearly or even monthly Mass is now in mortal danger, particularly where the local bishop is unsympathetic.
Why you find this unlikely, given the current climate and the tragic weakness of Pope Benedict, is quite beyond me.

Pascal said...

"Since it is an issue of permission, it would seem that Card. Wuerl refused permission for Abp. DiNoia to pontificate in his diocese. I don't see how one could come to any other conclusion."

Cardinal Wuerl did not refuse permission to Abp Di Noia. The latter had already bailed out of the Mass before the Cardinal's decision came down. Di Noia's backing out had something to do with his new interpretation of Summorum Pontificum (a very restrictive one).

That is all that I can say for now.

Pascal said...

Anonymous 14:40:

We haven't reported on the SPO post as we are still fitting the information in it with other, very different information that we have from other sources.

Without wanting to sink into melodrama, it is clear that opposition to the generous application of Summorum Pontificum even within the Vatican itself is much more serious than most of us suspected.

There is also a glimmer of hope that the Washington DC Mass might still be rescued, and we don't want to post anything that might lessen this possibility.

Henry said...

Anonymous @ 14:40,

The quote you provide merely states a truism, nothing new. Of course it is obvious that SP does not establish any "right" for any group, stable or unstable, to have any Mass, either EF or OF, in the Basilica Shrine, without permission of its controlling authority.

Surely there can be no doubt that if the authorities in Washington were enthusiastic about this event, then it would take place. Who went first in pulling the plug attributively is irrelevant, so long as we do not know what went on behind the scene.

Neal said...

As long as there's a pilgrimage from Chartes, the pilgrimage to Chartes will continue. And thus appears the most likely way to get this Mass back on the tracks: ask Bp. Fellay to celebrate another one nearby, and I'd give odds that it would suddenly reappear on the schedule, perhaps even with Cardinal Wuerl as celebrant.

Anonymous said...

Can it be a coincidence that, when Cardinal Schonborn spoke recently, he distinguished a "new symbolism" and an "old symbolism" in the Catholic Mass? Read about it for yourselves here:

http://tinyurl.com/4bflpbl

The old symbolism, abrogated by the reforms according to His Eminence, is worship ad orientem. According to the new symbolism, Christ is our center, and that is why we must now gather around the altar, and can no longer celebrate the Mass ad orientem.

The Cardinal is saying, in other words, that the TLM is, by its very nature, obsolete and abrogated. This is a direct challenge to Summorum Pontificum, and the idea that the TLM is one of two equally valuable forms of the Latin Rite.

Cardinal Schonborn is no careless fool. His statement was not just a slip of the tongue. It ought to be read together with Cardinal DiNoia's "new" understanding of the Motu Proprio. The enemies of the TLM feel confident enough to express their rebellion publicly

Denis

Anonymous said...

Wuerl?! I have to hose down the driveway that night.

Matt

M. A. said...

"Cardinal Schonborn is no careless fool. His statement was not just a slip of the tongue."
___________________

Yes, whose books are peddled by a certain reform-of-the-reform priest of Ignatius Press.

John McFarland said...

Dear Mr. La Pietra,

Well, it looks as if events have mooted your idea.

In any event, the SSPX are good Catholic priests, and so wouldn't embarrass the hierarchy.

But now let's consider what appear to be the facts.

Abp. Di Noia pulled out because on his interpretation (or the interpretation of people more important than he), the Mass at the Shrine would not be a Mass for a stable group attached to the TLM, and hence is not authorized by the MP.

Well, that's true. The lay leaders of Paulus Institute go to Mass at different parishes, and the other attendees come from even farther afield.

Now it's a fair question why the Abp. only realized this within the past few weeks. The likely answer is that someone leaned on him, but I don't know and I'm not particularly interested, other than that his position is clearly the Vatican position.

What I'm interested in is what this means about public celebrations of the TLM.

It now seems clear that public celebrations are to be governed by standards not significantly different from those that applied under the indult. Groups attached to the TLM can have it. In theory, there is no longer any approval required. In practice, the pastor or the bishop can turn the group down; and if he does, there's no guarantee that the TLM will ever be permitted. The local bishop knows the facts much better than the group, and is likely to be able to come up with an explanation good enough to get by his fellow hierarchs and hierarchical functionaries in Rome. And even if he flatly refuses on no grounds whatsoever, is he likely to be forced to permit a TLM?

There is no longer any requirement to embrace Vatican II, but that never mattered much. Those who attend Mass under diocesan auspices are likely to accept Vatican II, or think they do.

The new interpretation also suggests an explanation of why the Holy Father has not celebrated a public TLM.

He is not part of a group that is attached to the TLM.

This is not meant as a wisecrack. I think that the whole point of the indult and then the MP is to give those attached to the TLM a little slack, but not too much.

In particular -- and this is where the Shrine Mass comes in -- I think that there is no interest in giving aid and comfort to significance expansion of the TLM.

The Shrine Mass has the potential to be the centerpiece of a movement.

The Vatican doesn't want a movement. It wants groups sufficiently attached to the TLM to push to have one, and which will or will not get their wish depending mostly on what the local bishop wants.

Anonymous said...

John McFarland,
Thank you! I actually understood much better the whole thing with your insightful explanation. It is clear more than ever that not much more should be expected from the actual bishops of the Church.

ATW said...

Mr. McFarland,

You raise some interesting points but I would argue that the Pontifical Mass met the criteria spelled out in SP Art 5 § 3.

"Art. 5 § 3 For faithful and priests who request it, the pastor should also allow celebrations in this extraordinary form for special circumstances ... or occasional celebrations, e.g. pilgrimages."

This request can come from either the faithful or a priest.

John McFarland said...

Dear ATW,

Well, the language you cite speaks only of the actions of a pastor, while the Shrine is not a parish, nor presided over by a rector.

So strictly construed, the language doesn't support your argument

It would seem that the authorities are doing strict construction.

I also would guess that the limitation of the language to pastors, and hence to parishes, was no accident.

Anonymous said...

Oooh! Skirts!!

I finally found something we have in common! We both wear size 8 combat boots!!

Don't get callused fingers! You're working OT lately on the poetry.

Delphina

P.S. I hope you know that this is all meant in jest. I understand where you are coming from even if I am an enigma to you.

dcs said...

I also would guess that the limitation of the language to pastors, and hence to parishes, was no accident.

Mr. McFarland:

You should read article 5.5:
"In churches that are not parish or conventual churches, it is the duty of the Rector of the church to grant the above permission."

And yes, the Shrine certainly does have a rector, Msgr. Rossi. It would seem from the update from Paulus Institute that there was not an issue of getting permission from the good monsignor, so again, we are left with the conclusion that it was Card. Wuerl who refused permission to Abp. DiNoia -- or perhaps a backup celebrant -- to pontificate.

Anonymous said...

Sickening this has been allowed to happen. Thousands of Catholics from all walks of life wanted and planned to come to this Mass. When will the banishment end? It does not matter who was responsible, I will never believe that this could not have gone on with another celebrant had it not been for the fact that this was Mass according to the 1962 Missal. Many good, faithful people were part of this. This continued abuse has got to be stopped by our Holy Father. There are many, many people who support him and his Moto Proprio on the Tridentine Mass. We need his help once again. Something has to be put in place to help the Ecclesia Dei Commision be able to step in and effect a celebrant when one suddenly becomes unavailable. Imagine if they can't do it for the National Shrine, how are they going to do it for parishes who write to them for their help? Ehich is encouraged in the MP, Summorum Pontificum. I do trust however, with the help of the Holy Spirit that they Holy Father will sort out all the "regulatory" in time. I am sorry for the thousands that it will not happen in time for this Mass. Pray for a long healthy Pontificate. Viva Il Papa.

benjoyce said...

very sickening that this is happening. I'm being reminded that its the network of ecclesial freemasonry that is at work here. Or am I stating the obvious? The wave of opposition is secretly originating in the pits of Hell but viewed "up here" as clerical opposition by placing the good forces in Rome in paralysis

The opposition encourages the view, "The pope doesn't have the support, he is executing a deficient strategy, he really should back down with this unrealism and leave Donald Wuerl and others like him, all over the world, alone. "After all, we're really running the show"

John McFarland said...

Dear dcs,

It is not clear what 5.5 refers back to. It could be read just to refer back to permission to offer Mass for stable groups.

To be sure, this does not seem to make a lot of sense. But one could read it that way if one were so inclined.

In any event, higher authority than the rector could clearly have been within its rights to intervene.

It continues to make no sense to me that Abp. Wuerl is the villain in the piece, or at any rate the prime villain. Would he really have told Abp. DiNoia and the Institute no, well after plans for the Mass had been set in train?

So I'm still inclined to the hypothesis that the plug got pulled in Rome.

This is not like a marriage, funeral or pilgrimage. This is a high profile exercise in playing up the TLM in the political center, and in a sense the religious center, of the U.S., and was attracting national interest.

My guess is that somebody high up decided that this wasn't consistent with the spirit of the MP, and acted accordingly.

That it involved leaving egg on the faces of Abp. DiNoia and the Paulus Institute, and (if my theory is right) of Abp. Wuerl, suggests to me not that the plug pullers were trying to be nasty, but that they take quite seriously the business of keeping the Extraordinary Form extraordinary.

dcs said...

@John McFarland,

So you find it difficult to believe that Card. Wuerl would "pull the plug," but not difficult to believe that Rome would?

If Rome were the issue, then why would the Paulus Institute not work to find a new celebrant as they did for the Pontifical Mass to be celebrated by Card. Castrillon?