Rorate Caeli
INSTRUCTION
UNIVERSAE ECCLESIAE
OF THE PONTIFICAL COMMISSION ECCLESIA DEI
On the application of the Apostolic Letter Summorum Pontificum
of HIS HOLINESS POPE BENEDICT XVI, given motu proprio
(Latin typical text)
(DeutschEspañol,Français, ItalianoPortuguês)
(Note: Italiano; Holy See Press Office note: English, Español, Français, Italiano)
__________________

I.
Introduction


1. The Apostolic Letter Summorum Pontificum of the Sovereign Pontiff Benedict XVI givenMotu Proprio on 7 July 2007, which came into effect on 14 September 2007, has made the richness of the Roman Liturgy more accessible to the Universal Church.

2. With this Motu Proprio, the Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI promulgated a universal law for the Church, intended to establish new regulations for the use of the Roman Liturgy in effect in 1962.

3. The Holy Father, having recalled the concern of the Sovereign Pontiffs in caring for the Sacred Liturgy and in their recognition of liturgical books, reaffirms the traditional principle, recognised from time immemorial and necessary to be maintained into the future, that "each particular Church must be in accord with the universal Church not only regarding the doctrine of the faith and sacramental signs, but also as to the usages universally handed down by apostolic and unbroken tradition. These are to be maintained not only so that errors may be avoided, but also so that the faith may be passed on in its integrity, since the Church's rule of prayer (lex orandi) corresponds to her rule of belief (lex credendi)."1


4. The Holy Father recalls also those Roman Pontiffs who, in a particular way, were notable in this task, specifically Saint Gregory the Great and Saint Pius V. The Holy Father stresses moreover that, among the sacred liturgical books, the Missale Romanum has enjoyed a particular prominence in history, and was kept up to date throughout the centuries until the time of Blessed Pope John XXIII. Subsequently in 1970, following the liturgical reform after the Second Vatican Council, Pope Paul VI approved for the Church of the Latin rite a new Missal, which was then translated into various languages. In the year 2000, Pope John Paul II promulgated the third edition of this Missal.

5. Many of the faithful, formed in the spirit of the liturgical forms prior to the Second Vatican Council, expressed a lively desire to maintain the ancient tradition. For this reason, Pope John Paul II with a special Indult Quattuor abhinc annos issued in 1984 by the Congregation for Divine Worship, granted the faculty under certain conditions to restore the use of the Missal promulgated by Blessed Pope John XXIII. Subsequently, Pope John Paul II, with the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei of 1988, exhorted the Bishops to be generous in granting such a faculty for all the faithful who requested it. Pope Benedict continues this policy with the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificumregarding certain essential criteria for the Usus Antiquior of the Roman Rite, which are recalled here.

6. The Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI and the last edition prepared under Pope John XXIII, are two forms of the Roman Liturgy, defined respectively as ordinaria and extraordinaria: they are two usages of the one Roman Rite, one alongside the other. Both are the expression of the same lex orandi of the Church. On account of its venerable and ancient use, the forma extraordinaria is to be maintained with appropriate honor.

7. The Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum was accompanied by a letter from the Holy Father to Bishops, with the same date as the Motu Proprio (7 July 2007). This letter gave further explanations regarding the appropriateness and the need for the Motu Proprio; it was a matter of overcoming a lacuna by providing new norms for the use of the Roman Liturgy of 1962. Such norms were needed particularly on account of the fact that, when the new Missal had been introduced under Pope Paul VI, it had not seemed necessary to issue guidelines regulating the use of the 1962 Liturgy. By reason of the increase in the number of those asking to be able to use theforma extraordinaria, it has become necessary to provide certain norms in this area.
Among the statements of the Holy Father was the following: "There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the Liturgy growth and progress are found, but not a rupture. What was sacred for prior generations, remains sacred and great for us as well, and cannot be suddenly prohibited altogether or even judged harmful."2

8. The Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum constitutes an important expression of the Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff and of his munus of regulating and ordering the Church’s Sacred Liturgy.3 The Motu Proprio manifests his solicitude as Vicar of Christ and Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church,4 and has the aim of:
a.) offering to all the faithful the Roman Liturgy in the Usus Antiquior, considered as a precious treasure to be preserved;
b.) effectively guaranteeing and ensuring the use of the forma extraordinaria for all who ask for it, given that the use of the 1962 Roman Liturgy is a faculty generously granted for the good of the faithful and therefore is to be interpreted in a sense favourable to the faithful who are its principal addressees;
c.) promoting reconciliation at the heart of the Church.


II.
The Responsibilities
of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei


9. The Sovereign Pontiff has conferred upon the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei ordinary vicarious power for the matters within its competence, in a particular way for monitoring the observance and application of the provisions of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum (cf. art. 12).

10. § 1. The Pontifical Commission exercises this power, beyond the faculties previously granted by Pope John Paul II and confirmed by Pope Benedict XVI (cf. Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, artt. 11-12), also by means of the power to decide upon recourses legitimately sent to it, as hierarchical Superior, against any possible singular administrative provision of an Ordinary which appears to be contrary to the Motu Proprio.

§ 2. The decrees by which the Pontifical Commission decides recourses may be challenged ad normam iuris before the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura.

11. After having received the approval from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei will have the task of looking after future editions of liturgical texts pertaining to the forma extraordinaria of the Roman Rite.


III.
Specific Norms

12. Following upon the inquiry made among the Bishops of the world, and with the desire to guarantee the proper interpretation and the correct application of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, this Pontifical Commission, by virtue of the authority granted to it and the faculties which it enjoys, issues this Instruction according to can. 34 of the Code of Canon Law.


The Competence of Diocesan Bishops

13. Diocesan Bishops, according to Canon Law, are to monitor liturgical matters in order to guarantee the common good and to ensure that everything is proceeding in peace and serenity in their Dioceses5, always in agreement with the mens of the Holy Father clearly expressed by the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum.6 In cases of controversy or well-founded doubt about the celebration in the forma extraordinaria, the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei will adjudicate.

14. It is the task of the Diocesan Bishop to undertake all necessary measures to ensure respect for the forma extraordinaria of the Roman Rite, according to the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum.


The coetus fidelium (cf. Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, art. 5 § 1)

15. A coetus fidelium ("group of the faithful") can be said to be stabiliter existens ("existing in a stable manner"), according to the sense of art. 5 § 1 of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, when it is constituted by some people of an individual parish who, even after the publication of the Motu Proprio, come together by reason of their veneration for the Liturgy in the Usus Antiquior,and who ask that it might be celebrated in the parish church or in an oratory or chapel; such acoetus ("group") can also be composed of persons coming from different parishes or dioceses, who gather together in a specific parish church or in an oratory or chapel for this purpose.

16. In the case of a priest who presents himself occasionally in a parish church or an oratory with some faithful, and wishes to celebrate in the forma extraordinaria, as foreseen by articles 2 and 4 of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, the pastor or rector of the church, or the priest responsible, is to permit such a celebration, while respecting the schedule of liturgical celebrations in that same church.

17. § 1. In deciding individual cases, the pastor or the rector, or the priest responsible for a church, is to be guided by his own prudence, motivated by pastoral zeal and a spirit of generous welcome.

§ 2. In cases of groups which are quite small, they may approach the Ordinary of the place to identify a church in which these faithful may be able to come together for such celebrations, in order to ensure easier participation and a more worthy celebration of the Holy Mass.

18. Even in sanctuaries and places of pilgrimage the possibility to celebrate in the forma extraordinaria is to be offered to groups of pilgrims who request it (cf. Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, art. 5 § 3), if there is a qualified priest.

19. The faithful who ask for the celebration of the forma extraordinaria must not in any way support or belong to groups which show themselves to be against the validity or legitimacy of the Holy Mass or the Sacraments celebrated in the forma ordinaria or against the Roman Pontiff as Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church.


Sacerdos idoneus ("Qualified Priest") (cf. Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, art 5 § 4)

20. With respect to the question of the necessary requirements for a priest to be held idoneus("qualified") to celebrate in the forma extraordinaria, the following is hereby stated:
a.) Every Catholic priest who is not impeded by Canon Law7 is to be considered idoneus("qualified") for the celebration of the Holy Mass in the forma extraordinaria.
b.) Regarding the use of the Latin language, a basic knowledge is necessary, allowing the priest to pronounce the words correctly and understand their meaning.
c.) Regarding knowledge of the execution of the Rite, priests are presumed to be qualified who present themselves spontaneously to celebrate the forma extraordinaria, and have celebrated it previously.

21. Ordinaries are asked to offer their clergy the possibility of acquiring adequate preparation for celebrations in the forma extraordinaria. This applies also to Seminaries, where future priests should be given proper formation, including study of Latin8 and, where pastoral needs suggest it, the opportunity to learn the forma extraordinaria of the Roman Rite.

22. In Dioceses without qualified priests, Diocesan Bishops can request assistance from priests of the Institutes erected by the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, either to the celebrate the forma extraordinaria or to teach others how to celebrate it.

23. The faculty to celebrate sine populo (or with the participation of only one minister) in the forma extraordinaria of the Roman Rite is given by the Motu Proprio to all priests, whether secular or religious (cf. Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, art. 2). For such celebrations therefore, priests, by provision of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, do not require any special permission from their Ordinaries or superiors.


Liturgical and Ecclesiastical Discipline

24. The liturgical books of the forma extraordinaria are to be used as they are. All those who wish to celebrate according to the forma extraordinaria of the Roman Rite must know the pertinent rubrics and are obliged to follow them correctly.

25. New saints and certain of the new prefaces can and ought to be inserted into the 1962 Missal9, according to provisions which will be indicated subsequently.

26. As foreseen by article 6 of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, the readings of the Holy Mass of the Missal of 1962 can be proclaimed either solely in the Latin language, or in Latin followed by the vernacular or, in Low Masses, solely in the vernacular.

27. With regard to the disciplinary norms connected to celebration, the ecclesiastical discipline contained in the Code of Canon Law of 1983 applies.

28. Furthermore, by virtue of its character of special law, within its own area, the Motu ProprioSummorum Pontificum derogates from those provisions of law, connected with the sacred Rites, promulgated from 1962 onwards and incompatible with the rubrics of the liturgical books in effect in 1962.


Confirmation and Holy Orders

29. Permission to use the older formula for the rite of Confirmation was confirmed by the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum (cf. art. 9 § 2). Therefore, in the forma extraordinaria, it is not necessary to use the newer formula of Pope Paul VI as found in the Ordo Confirmationis.

30. As regards tonsure, minor orders and the subdiaconate, the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum does not introduce any change in the discipline of the Code of Canon Law of 1983; consequently, in Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life which are under the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, one who has made solemn profession or who has been definitively incorporated into a clerical institute of apostolic life, becomes incardinated as a cleric in the institute or society upon ordination to the diaconate, in accordance with canon 266 § 2 of theCode of Canon Law.

31. Only in Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life which are under the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, and in those which use the liturgical books of the forma extraordinaria, is the use of the Pontificale Romanum of 1962 for the conferral of minor and major orders permitted.


Breviarium Romanum

32. Art. 9 § 3 of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum gives clerics the faculty to use theBreviarium Romanum in effect in 1962, which is to be prayed entirely and in the Latin language.

The Sacred Triduum

33. If there is a qualified priest, a coetus fidelium ("group of faithful"), which follows the older liturgical tradition, can also celebrate the Sacred Triduum in the forma extraordinaria. When there is no church or oratory designated exclusively for such celebrations, the parish priest or Ordinary, in agreement with the qualified priest, should find some arrangement favourable to the good of souls, not excluding the possibility of a repetition of the celebration of the Sacred Triduum in the same church.


The Rites of Religious Orders

34. The use of the liturgical books proper to the Religious Orders which were in effect in 1962 is permitted.


Pontificale Romanum and the Rituale Romanum


35. The use of the Pontificale Romanum, the Rituale Romanum, as well as the Caeremoniale Episcoporum in effect in 1962, is permitted, in keeping with n. 28 of this Instruction, and always respecting n. 31 of the same Instruction.

The Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI, in an audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei on 8 April 2011, approved this present Instruction and ordered its publication.


Given at Rome, at the Offices of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, 30 April, 2011, on the memorial of Pope Saint Pius V.
William Cardinal LEVADA
President

Mons. Guido Pozzo
Secretary



1 BENEDICTUS XVI, Litterae Apostolicae Summorum Pontificum motu proprio datae, I, AAS 99 (2007) 777; cf.Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani, tertia editio 2002, n. 397.

2 BENEDICTUS XVI, Epistola ad Episcopos ad producendas Litteras Apostolicas motu proprio datas, de Usu Liturgiae Romanae Instaurationi anni 1970 praecedentisAAS 99 (2007) 798.

3 Cf. Code of Canon Law, Canon 838 §1 and §2.

4 Cf. Code of Canon Law, Canon 331.

5 Cf. Code of Canon Law, Canons 223 § 2 or 838 §1 and §4.

6 BENEDICTUS XVI, Epistola ad Episcopos ad producendas Litteras Apostolicas motu proprio datas, de Usu Liturgiae Romanae Instaurationi anni 1970 praecedentisAAS 99 (2007) 799.

7 Cf. Code of Canon Law, Canon 900 § 2.

8 Cf. Code of Canon Law, Canon 249; Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium, 36; Declaration Optatum totius, 13.9 BENEDICTUS XVI, Epistola ad Episcopos ad producendas Litteras Apostolicas motu proprio datas, de Usu Liturgiae Romanae Instaurationi anni 1970 praecedentis,AAS 99 (2007) 797.

309 comments:

1 – 200 of 309   Newer›   Newest»
Luka said...

Deo gratias!!

I don't think the modernists will be very pleased. It really is Friday 13th to them :)

Cruise the Groove. said...

I personally do not see how this “clarification” will have any effect in increasing, to any significant number offerings of the Traditional Latin Mass in most dioceses.
There is nothing mandated of priests. And "should" is used in stead of "must", weak.

I am thinking of dioceses, of which there are many of, where the Ordinary does not put obstacles in the way of priests that desire to offer the TLM but there are very few priests who desire to learn or offer the Mass.
Also on a personal level, I was hoping for this clarification to establish an administration of some sort for the FSSPX which operate in many diocese’s in which the TLM is not offered by the diocese or Ecclesia Dei group.
Many who are attached to the TLM have no recourse but to assist at FSSPX masses and their confessions need to be validated since many go to FSSPX confessions.
Maybe this clarification will go a long way to making this happen

Anonymous said...

I am not going to complain at all. Pope Benedict XVI has done more for us in six years than his predecessor did in almost twenty-seven.

Thank you, Holy Father!

Delphina

Cruise the Groove. said...

I wonder what #19 is all about?
We need a clarification for it:

"faithful who ask for the celebration of the forma extraordinaria must not in any way support or belong to groups which show themselves to be against the validity or legitimacy of the Holy Mass or the Sacraments celebrated in the forma ordinaria or against the Roman Pontiff as Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church."

Does this imply sedevacantists?

I would think, if it does, that it is a good sign that they petition for diocesan TLM's.
It shows that they are coming around in their faith.

Anonymous said...

I honestly don't see much except here and there some patch-ups and more make up.
But I'll wait and see what others see.
It does not surprise me even an inch. I wasn't expecting much either. To me and my SSPX chapel, is business as usual...
M.M.

Adam said...

"35. The use of the Pontificale Romanum, the Rituale Romanum, as well as the Caeremoniale Episcoporum in effect in 1962, is permitted, in keeping with n. 28 of this Instruction, and always respecting n. 31 of the same Instruction."

There we have it. ALL of the traditional liturgical books and rites are freed (except the Ordination rites in the Pontifical). After SP, I remember there was some doubt about the allowance to use the blessings in the Ritual or episcopal dress from the older Ceremonial. That is resolved in favor of Tradition now.

I'm sure many bishops are truly excited to get to use the older ritual in their ceremonies now!

Anonymous said...

It's fairly obvious that this is a patchwork compromise and is largely exactly what was feared 3 months ago. The restriction on traditional rite ordinations is not explained (what was once considered sacred...?), the comment about clerics and tonsure seems to not even be familiar with the words of the Pontificale (tonsure = "making clerics") and Para 19 is simply nonsensical. How does one know if one's affiliation is with such a group, and how does one obtain pastoral care if he cannot ask for the Mass? The section on seminaries is less than helpful - nothing will change. Para 27 and 28 seem to directly contradict each other - perhaps a canon lawyer can make some sense of these provisions. Bottom line - it is a fact that there are now more clearly defined restrictions on the use of the 1962 liturgy than existed yesterday. No new liberty, but a couple of new restrictions. J Brown

authoressaurus said...

Indeed, Deo Gratias, there are MANY game changers in this document!

Anonymous said...

"8. The Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum constitutes an important expression of the Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff and of his munus of regulating and ordering the Church’s Sacred Liturgy.3 The Motu Proprio manifests his solicitude as Vicar of Christ and Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church...."

I think he is trying to say in a nice way that he means business.

Delphina

Anonymous said...

Good news over all, but the lib Bishops are going to have a field day with #19...

19. The faithful who ask for the celebration of the forma extraordinaria must not in any way support or belong to groups which show themselves to be against the validity or legitimacy of the Holy Mass or the Sacraments celebrated in the forma ordinaria or against the Roman Pontiff as Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church.

Does this apply to faithful Catholics who more or less frequently assist at SSPX Masses or lend them financial or volunteer support?

What does "legitimacy" mean? What does it mean to "be against the Roman Pontiff as Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church"?

What "groups" are referred to?

Get ready for a can of worms. Most Lib bishops consider any Catholic who wants the TLM to most likely fit all of the above.

Anonymous said...

Now look at the reactions of all the bishop's conferences. They virtually have more power than the Pope in the modern Church. Nothing ever gets done without their approval. I doubt they will even read it.

Anonymous said...

Fantastic News!!!
Thank you Lord!!!
Our Lady of Fatima pray for us!!!

Anonymous said...

Finally! I've been loading and reloading rorate all day:)
What an interesting day for the church.
Lets hope and pray that our priests and bishops are given the grace to see it's significance!

Mountain View said...

Great document, thought the section on the "lacuna" was the largest understatement of all time. Very Roman!

Anonymous said...

I think it is kind of telling that NCR hasn't posted a single thing on this momentous development.

But Reuters has already put a spin on how "Most Catholics" don't like the "Usus Antiquor" and taints the ones who do with anti-semitism, while noting that applying the instruction is a genuine "headache" to bishops because of the difficulties in training priests in Latin.

Sour grapes!

The RemnantNewspaper.com site has a great summary. I don't share their concern with paragraph 19, however, which I think is quite reasonable since no one can call themselves Catholic who question the *validity* of the Mass of Paul VI, or who question that Pope Benedict XVI is the legitimate Pope of the Church. Can it be used to persecute faithful who want to use the Usus Antiquor? I doubt it considering the force in the rest of the document.

And I just love the part about priests being qualified to say Mass if they are validly ordained and in good standing, and can simply read the Latin, while understanding what they are reading - this can be accomplished by any priest who reads off a Missal with a translation of the Latin side by side with the original, and opens the playing field to ANY serious and faithful priest to say this Mass for his parishioners who has a WILL to even if he is not a Latinist.

Frankly, it is sad that the state of the Catholic episcopate is such that the Pope had to chain them to the table and force them in this way. But they have been the revolutionaries who have promoted in largest measure the destruction of the bastions of Catholicism and so these are their just dues.

In fact, the key ramification of this for the counter-revolution, besides the obvious freeing of the Ancient Mass, may well be that it spells the death knell of collegiality. If the Pope can force begrudging bishops like this, he can do it for other important things too.

DEo Gratias et Maria!
Thanks be to St. Pius V.

Sincerely, Neophyte

Cruise the Groove. said...

13 May, 2011 16:42

Cruise the Groove. said...
As I said on another blog:

I personally do not see how this “clarification” will have any effect in increasing, to any significant number offerings of the Traditional Latin Mass in most dioceses.
There is nothing mandated of priests.
I hope I am proved wrong.
I am thinking of dioceses, of which there are many of, where the Ordinary does not put obstacles in the way of priests that desire to offer the TLM but there are very few priests who desire to learn or offer the Mass.
Also on a personal level, I was hoping for this clarification to establish an administration of some sort for the FSSPX which operate in many diocese’s in which the TLM is not offered by the diocese or Ecclesia Dei group.
Many who are attached to the TLM have no recourse but to assist at FSSPX masses and their confessions need to be validated since many go to FSSPX confessions.
Maybe this clarification will go a long way to making this happen

Matt said...

"19. The faithful who ask for the celebration of the forma extraordinaria must not in any way support or belong to groups which show themselves to be against the validity or legitimacy of the Holy Mass or the Sacraments celebrated in the forma ordinaria or against the Roman Pontiff as Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church."

Questions:
1. How do they mean the word "legitimacy"?
2. How does this apply to SSPX and like groups?

Anonymous said...

I don't think the modernists will particularly care. Most priests and Catholics are barely aware that the Traditional Mass is even an issue. Besides the instruction says little more than the orignial Motu Proprio, except that now bishops can't ordain using the old rite.

Edward said...

It says nothing we already didn't know. It also has no teeth in it to teach Latin and the ExtraOrdinary rite in seminaries.Any priest diocesan or religious may say a PRIVATE mass of their choosing but a PUBLIC mass still must get the Bishop or Religious Superior's permission. That it took so long to put this out makes me believe it was watered down. Cardinal Levada is no friend of the Latin Mass as we out here in Northern California know.

Edward said...

Already Archbishop Nichols of Westminister has said there is no need for it

Robert said...

Most modernists and liberals will probably not even read the document. They care less. They will continue doing what they do. And the clergy who support them will do the same. Funny how the document addresses traditional Catholics who oppose the forma ordinaria. But not vice versa, those happy clappy Catholics, who oppose the forma extrordinaria.

Anonymous said...

"6.On account of its venerable and ancient use, the forma extraordinaria is to be maintained with appropriate honor.

8. a)offering to all the faithful the Roman Liturgy in the Usus Antiquior, considered as a precious treasure to be preserved;"

Just reading these 2 excerpts makes me feel happy already and I haven't seen the whole thing yet.

Thank you Holy Father!

Barbara

Enoch said...

19. The faithful who ask for the celebration of the forma extraordinaria must not in any way support or belong to groups which show themselves to be against the validity or legitimacy of the Holy Mass or the Sacraments celebrated in the forma ordinaria or against the Roman Pontiff as Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church.

Anonymous said...

MM said - It does not surprise me even an inch. I wasn't expecting much either. To me and my SSPX chapel, is business as usual...

To anyone fighting the battle from the outside why would it change anything? (Of course one could argue whether they are actually fighting the fight or merely observing.) This document is for catholics who have chosen to fight within the official boundaries of The Church.

PJL

Br. Anthony, T.O.S.F. said...

19. The faithful who ask for the celebration of the forma extraordinaria must not in any way support or belong to groups which show themselves to be against the validity or legitimacy of the Holy Mass or the Sacraments celebrated in the forma ordinaria or against the Roman Pontiff as Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church.

A portion of this applies to me as I refuse the legitimacy of the Novus Ordo Missae.

Robert said...

BBC Article on UNIVERSAE ECCLESIAE
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13394105

Jordanes551 said...

Also on a personal level, I was hoping for this clarification to establish an administration of some sort for the FSSPX which operate in many diocese’s in which the TLM is not offered by the diocese or Ecclesia Dei group.

I think that was an unreasonable hope, Cruise. We knew all along that this was to be an Instruction for the correct implementation of Summorum Pontificum, clarifying various questions and reinforcing the overall intentions and purposes of the motu proprio. If SP said nothing directly about the path to regularisation for the SSPX, it would be extremely unusual for a clarifying Instruction on SP to address that question.

Maybe this clarification will go a long way to making this happen

Maybe not a long way, but in some degree it will, I think, nudge things along in that direction.

Robert said...

From Yahoo News. Typical liberal response!.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110513/wl_nm/us_pope_latin

Anonymous said...

THe modernists are EXTREMELY pleased Luka !

This Instruction is nearly a triumph for anti-trads. Msgr Scicluna made a "good" job in doing nothing in a clever way.

A big step back : the prohibition of the ordination for diocesan seminarians.

And one millimeter forward : the vague possibility of teaching TLM in the seminary cursus but so cunningly phrased that any trad-hating bishop has an opting out.
All the rest represents tiny minute progress.

FrenChurch official paper La Croix is raving ... it's celebration time for them.
The trend continues : the wolves are winning ...

Alsaticus

Robert said...

Why isn't the news on UNIVERSAE ECCLESIAE posted on the USCCB website. Isn't this important enough for them?. http://usccb.org/

Anonymous said...

My opinion is that the "Instruction" says little more than we already had in the MP and #19 gives the bishops the leeway they need to deny the TLM to groups that have criticized the excesses after Vatican II and directed their ire at the Holy See and the bishops.

There is nothing about jurisdiction for the SSPX and independent groups so I expect little will change in the dioceses. What it is saying IMO is that you can have the Mass but you had better not criticize us in any way or we'll have your head.

The part about being able to refer turn-downs to the Ecclesia Dei Commission is, again IMO, laughable on its face. Does anyone really think the Commission will override a local Ordinary's wishes? I hope I am wrong but I fear that I am not.

Much ado about nothing? I dunno but it certainly could be characterized that way by some. Seems like the Holy Father is still consumed with the prospect of trying to make the two "forms" enrich one another. That's not going to happen where I attend Mass, I can assure you!

LtCol Paul E. Haley, USAF(Ret)

Gerard said...

I have no problem after reading the document in attending an SSPX chapel. They do not doubt the validity of the Novus Ordo when offered properly according to form, matter and intention. They do not question the legitimacy of the promulgation of a new missal since any Pope has the right to do that. (the quality of that missal is another matter entirely) And they do not question in any way the authority of the Pope. This is manifest by their desire for the Pope to address the problems in the Church as related to the doctrinal discussions and other issues. It does however require me to suspend support for any priest or bishop that tinkers with the Novus Ordo in any way, which would constitute liturgical abuse. Since they show themselves to be resistant to the missal as promulgated by Paul VI as legitimate or valid That would also hold for the current bad translation of the Novus Ordo. Also any bishop who "shows himself" to obstruct the implementation of the TLM, would be demonstrating his opposition to the Pope as Supreme Pastor of the Church.

Anonymous said...

I've sent a detailed analysis to N.C.

I'm too tired and busy right now except to sum it up as follows:

It will result in more Latin Masses and generally advances our cause. However, it is mostly a disappointment.

1. No universal particular church or ordinariate for us;

2. No regional or national particular churches or ordinariates for us;

3. No recognition at law that S.S.P.X Masses fulfil the obligation (the
P.C.E.D. decisions having no standing at law on this);

4. No norm that, in order to honour the T.L.M. for its "ancient and
venerable usage", there must be a minimum number of such Masses every Sunday
per see. In fact, as if to counter my argument on this, the Instruction
made it clear that this honour was only meant in a negative sense: bishops
must do nothing to disrespect our Mass.

On the whole, the Instruction does advance our cause, though. Main
advances:

1. It now clearly puts the local bishops under the P.C.E.D. in adjudicating
our appeals for Masses;

2. It saves our ethos by asserting all written and customary laws in force
in 1962;

3. It extends the stipulations to the pre-conciliar religious Uses.

FUTURE?

The talks with the S.S.P.X are scheduled to end this season, and apparently
have already ended. The Pope might 'do something' for the S.S.P.X in, say,
July. But at the rate the Vatican moves, that could be another year away.
Who knows?

Frankly, I'm disappointed. At this rate, we shan't attain real freedom in
this pontificate. This Pope will likely run out of time, and the next
pontificate might be quite different. The S.S.P.X should realise this and
make a bloody deal now.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

PART I of my more detailed analysis, P.K.T.P.

1. It was overall a disappointment because it does not grant us the needed
freedom to have our Mass if we can find a priest who is willing and able to
offer it. Only a particular church (e.g. personal and international
diocese) or ordinariate could deliver that, or it could be done by publicly
recognising at law the ability of S.S.P.X Masses to fulfil the Sunday
obligation. None of these steps—not one of them—has been taken.

1b. There is also no minimum number of Masses set per diocese to expand Art. 1 of S.P. This is not good and puts the onus for delivery on groups and their processes of application, although priests remain free under Art. 5 of S.P. to begin our Masses unilaterally, having received zero requests. However, while this last point can be deduced from S.P., this Instruction does not point it out.

2. Overall, it is good news.

3. It effectively replaces the local bishops’ power of decision with that
of the P.C.E.D. It clearly subordinates the bishops to the Commission by
giving the latter the full papal power to act. On the negative side,
however, it cannot make it mandatory for this higher or ‘Superior’ power to
act.

4. It extends the m.p. to all the pre-conciliar Uses of the religious
orders but not to the Ambrosian & Mozarabic Rites. So we mostly win on
this, and the first version is mostly overturned.

5. It wonderfully proves me right over Fr. Zuhlsdorf when I claimed that
retired and other priests have a right to demand access to parish churches
to offer private T.L.M.s—with invted guests and the doors left unlocked for
others to attend. Similarly, it proves me right that a group need only
*intend* in future to worship according to the 1962 Mass, and its members
need not be parishioners where they lodge their request.

P.K.T.P. To be continued in Part II.

Jack B. said...

It seems a major problem to me that those men who have received minor orders are no longer considered clerics. This would seem to have major implications for the Ecclesia Dei institutes who have up until now treated and addressed ("Abbe") the men who received minor orders as clerics.

It is clear from the document that minor orders can be conferred, but one does not become a cleric by having them conferred.

Anonymous said...

P.K.T.P. Analysis, Part II:


6. Art. 28 is a great victory which means NO to Altar girls, Communion in
manu, Communion standing or sitting (except where people cannot kneel).
Essentially, all law of 1962 pertaining to our Mass is re-applied.

7. We get the Triduum Sacram, not even needing a bishop’s permission.

8. We get Confirmation 1962 but not the Ordinal then in force, except by
way of exception and for the approved traditionalist societies and orders.

9. One worrying passage says that the Celebrant must understand the words
of the Missal. However, he can memorise a translation. It does not mean
that he must have any facility at all in translating Latin texts. Still, it
could be a lot of Latin to memorise. But the provision does not apply to
private Masses with or without guests but only to public scheduled Masses. This could be inferred from S.P. itself and can be deduced separately from this text, since a priest can offer a 'private' Mass without even informing the Bishop, and can therefore not be tested on his Latin by the Bishop in any particular case (althuogh he could be barred generally).

10. One worrying passage recommends the intrusion of N.O. prefaces into our
Mass. But it does not say that they need be made mandatory (as the Gallican
prefaces are optional, for instance).

11. The lections can be said in Latin alone or in Latin followed by the
vernacular at the pulpit. They may be said in the vernacular alone ONLY at
Low Masses (musical and æsthetic reasosn, obviously). Still, this third option is bad, but the Instruction restricts
what the m.p. had said.

Continued in Part III. P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Part III, P.K.T.P.

On the whole, the important positive bits are as follows:

1. In disputes between applicants and bishops over provision for our Mass,
the P.C.E.D. makes the final decision, not the local Bishop.

2. All 1962 liturgical law applies to us, including the Rituale and
Pontificale and Cæremoniale Episcoporum. This will include customary law.
It means no Altar girls, no Communion in manu or whilst sitting or standing,
no unvested persons in the sanctuary during Mass, &c.

3. It means virtually unlimited and unimpeded access to churches for
retired priests and all active priests who present themselves to offer our
Mass privately, with invited guests. Restrictions on needing to understand
the Latin and pronounce it well do not apply for these Masses, making the
private Mass a way of learning our Mass for potential celebrants.

Negative:

1. At least for public Masses, the Bishop can swoop in and force the
celebrant to show that he understands the meaning of the Latin words.

2. While we are ultimately free of the local bishops, there is no guarantee
that the P.C.E.D. will provide us with priests in every case. By not having
a universal diocese, we still do not have our freedom.

3. The N.O. prefaces are apparently coming, and they *might* be forced down
our throats (or they might be only optional, in which case the celebrant
could force them down our throats).

P.K.T.P.

B. said...

The spokesman for the German bishop's conference has already said that everything in this letter has already been implemented in Germany, therefore there is no need to change or adapt anything; that there is no interest in the TLM in Germany and that the implementation norms of the German bishop's conference for Summorum Pontificum will stay in place.

New Catholic said...

Well, well, hello everyone. We will offer more comments in the next few days - this is all still too warm for sober analyses by us.

Thanks for all who came by, despite Blogger's failure... Beware of some over-optimistic "experts"...

NC

Anonymous said...

My learned friend Alsaticus may be as distracted during this season of finals as his students. Diocesan ordinations in the old rite are as realistic and significant a question as the details of a papal coronation. If the seminarians are that insistent, they should be studying for an Ecclesia Dei community.

Anonymous said...

Anon. 19.58 writes this:

"Diocesan ordinations in the old rite are as realistic and significant a question as the details of a papal coronation. If the seminarians are that insistent, they should be studying for an Ecclesia Dei community."

I agree very strongly with this statement. Furthermore, a careful search of this text shows that there can be exceptions made if the applicant or his bishop appeal to Rome.

The wildly zealous cleric on this restriction could, I suppose, get his orders from the S.S.P.X and then defect to the Pope. Just a thought--but hardly important to us.

P.K.T.P.

New Catholic said...

Last Anonymous:

What Alsaticus CORRECTLY grasps is that this prohibitive PRINCIPLE is atrocious. It violates the whole spirit of the motu proprio (remember... "what once was holy"?). This text is actually WORST than the rumors, since it does not even provide a juridical procedure in those instances in which the Bishop wishes thus to proceed.

NC

Anonymous said...

B.:

I generallhy agree with you. The German bishops (like those of New Zealand) have implemented S.P. very generously. We still do need an every-Sunday T.L.M. in Essen (and in Hamilton, N.Z.) but the Bishop of Essen is not the reason for the deficit and, in fact, there is an F.S.S.P. apostolate there. The apostolate has Sunday Masses just across the line in the next see but should eventualy add one for the D. of Essen.

Two German dioceses in the north0-east, where Catholics are few and widely scattered, do not yet have our Mass. No surpise there. That is pure Lutheran land.

P.K.T.P.

rodrigo said...

People should not get too hung up on the "legitimacy" clause. One can think that the Novus Ordo has proven pastorally catastrophic, theologically inferior and aesthetically offensive without holding that it is either illegitimate or invalid.

To claim that it is illegitimate (unlawful) would be demonstrably wrong, since it was lawfully promulgated by a true successor of St Peter. Though there are some in the SSPX who take this position (like fr Peter Scott), it does not withstand scrutiny - unless one is operating with a Gallican notion of papal power. To claim that the Novus Ordo is invalid - as promulgated, not as sometimes celebrated - would be to deny the infallibility of universal disciplinary laws, which contradicts the teaching of Catholic theologians.

LeonG said...

Collegiality will rule the day - rest assured.

Anonymous said...

The immediate reaction of the German, English and other bishops' conferences, wherein they say that "this doesn't apply to us" shows that this is DOA.

Except where it adds additional, unexplained restrictions on the use of the Pontificale, or where is makes a totally condescending statement about Catholics "impugning the validity or legitimacy of the" ordinary/Novus/vernacular form of Sacraments. This last statement is the most damaging of all, since it not only opens the door to a litmus test, but it implicitly questions the goodwill of Catholics who have been asking their bishops and priests for these Sacraments. If I go to the traditional Latin Mass (which is not extraordinary for me, but is ordinary) because I don't like going to the Novus Ordo, am I included in this noxious group?

If the traditional rite of ordination is still considered sacred and valuable, why the unexplained restriction? If the Roman Pontiff is trying to make a statement with this restriction, what is the abuse or danger he is correcting? Am I now to presume that those who receive the traditional rite of ordination are "segregated" from other ordinandi, as if their ordinations are also "extraordinary"?

Further, why is the only rebuke in this document aimed at Catholic faithful seeking the Mass, and not the bishops and priests who have defied Summorum Pontificum? Where is the warning, the rebuke, the condemnation or even the generic statement? Here is all that I can find: "It is the task of the Diocesan Bishop to undertake all necessary measures to ensure respect" for the 1962 liturgy.

J Brown

Anonymous said...

I voice P.K.T.P's opinion:

" At this rate, we shan't attain real freedom in
this pontificate. This Pope will likely run out of time, and the next
pontificate might be quite different. The S.S.P.X should realise this and
make a bloody deal now."

Waiting for Pope Pius XIII said...

PKTP,

I love and respect your observations and analysis, but I feel compelled to differ with you on one point here.

You say that SSPX should make a deal since the next pontificate could be very different. If, as problematic as the pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI [yes, I included the number!] is, you suggest that the next one could be considerably worse, then, in my book, that is strong argument for SSPX to not budge one iota.

Luka said...

Does anyone really think the Commission will override a local Ordinary's wishes? I hope I am wrong but I fear that I am not.

Believe it or not, that is exactly what happend in Croatia. After the bishop in charge dissmised our requests (and in a rather rude manner), we wrote to Ecclesia Dei. They contacted the modernist bishop... after three iterations and 2 and 1/2 years, we now have TLM every Sunday.

Anonymous said...

To answer Cruise the Groove's first comment:

I generally agree. My prediction, from the knowledge I have acquired of the history and statistics of the situation, is that this Instrucion will have a modest positive effect in countries already having our Mass every Sunday in most sees. Most of the remaining dioceses in France will now likely capitulate, along with most in the U.S.A. Ditto for Austria, Belgium, England, perhaps the Netherlands, Switzerland.

It will help a great deal in other countries which have some Latin Masses or border those having some or many: Canada, Australia, most coutries in South America but few places in Central America and the Caribbean, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Central Europe, the Philippines, South Africa.

It may have a small effect in India and a few other places, some elsewhere in Africa, others in Indonesia, Korea, Japan: just to get us started there.

Most of Africa and most of Asia will not be touched by this Instruction. Therefore, this is not the last step in the process.

To be continued, P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Continuation, P.K.T.P.:

The centre of our entire movement is clearly France and only France. Of the 16 remaining hold-outs, I predict that this Instruction will bring us victory in at least 12 of them, probably in 14, all but underpopulated Mende and Viviers and perhaps Langres. But this will take a couple of years to achieve. Still, we should see some action soon.

The U.S.A. is Number Two worldwide in importance. Of the 30 hold-outs (of 176 Latin sees), I think that this Instruction will deliver about 20 to 25 of them over the next, say, three years. We should see fast action in the case of Mobile, Alabama, for starters. Amarillo and Lubbock, in West Texas, will be among the last hold-outs.

This Instruction could benefit my own country, Canada, more than France or the U.S.A. Canada is WAY behind both of them and way behind Germany, England, New Zealand, even Australia. I hope for victories at Winnipeg, Regina, the interior of B.C., Kingston, Peterborough, Halifax, Moncton, and especially in Quebec. In Quebec, there may be strong resistance from the bishops but perhaps Cardinal Ouellet can help break it. I'd watch Gatineau, the suffran dioceses around Montréal (such as St-Jérôme--but forget it at Joliette, where a mad bishop rules), Trois Rivières, Rimouski, Chicoutimi, even Gaspé.

Australia should see some improvement: Hobart, Wollongong, Ballarat, Rockhampton, Toowoomba, &c.

We shall see victory in Flanders: Bruges and Ghent; and some in the Netherlands: Rotterdam, Roermond, Den Bosch.

This could be important for Italy and Spain and will be crucial for Portugal. Malta may come on board. I see large improvements coming in Poland, Lithuania, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovenia but not Slovakia or Croatia.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone else smell a new (ordinary) mass brewing? Something that merges the latin and solemnity of the TLM and the English readings of the NO?

Anonymous said...

Waiting for Pius XIII:

The S.S.P.X can get a good deal from this Pope and perhaps not for a long time after this. Benedict XVI will not take away the Soceity's real property, which is held by separate corporations, as allowed in Canon Law. Should a future pope turn out to be a problem, they could always go disobedient again.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

PJL says:

"This document is for catholics who have chosen to fight within the official boundaries of The Church."

This is good. I am with this. The document has clarified the rights of priests (esp)and the faithful to offer and and attend the TLM.

The grumpy comments on here I choose to ignore. It's great news. We are TALKING about the Old Rite quite naturally after years of it being TABOO. During my wandering in liturgical wastelands many years prior to SP I heard the Old Rite mentioned only in scornful terms. What a disgrace!

I didn't think no. 19 applied to the SSPX. Maybe that refers to sedevacantists and their like.

And no. 28 is reassuring for people afraid (and rightly so) of a hybrid Mass

I agree with Delphina. POPE BENEDICT XVI has done a lot for the TLM and tradtionalists. I don't know what some expect. The Church is in such a precarious state to move too drastically. I like the document and I hope to get a chance to work along with others in establishing new TLMS following these guidelines.

Barbara

Anonymous said...

Coloneel Haley writes:

T"he part about being able to refer turn-downs to the Ecclesia Dei Commission is, again IMO, laughable on its face. Does anyone really think the Commission will override a local Ordinary's wishes?"


The P.C.E.D. has ALREADY slapped down Cardinal Bozanic of Zagreb, a powerful figure, and Bishop Ramirez of Las Cruces, U.S.A., the most extreme of all the American anti-trads. I could cite a number of other cases.

This Instruction STRENGTHENS the power of the P.C.E.D. over the bishops, making it DECISIVE. So I beg gto disagree with you on this point.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Sometimes I am sorry I come by here....

What would make some of you happy?

Delphina

P.S. I did have to laugh at Paul Haley's comment: "What it is saying IMO is that you can have the Mass but you had better not criticize us in any way or we'll have your head." Too true!! The Salomes of the Vatican - John the Baptist-style!

Anonymous said...

Oh goodie! What next? An instruction implementing an indult allowing me to still hold to the Council of Trent and say my rosary (but with certain restrictions)?

In reaction to this letter, we are wise to follow the example of the recently beatified JPII in how he reacted to the crisis in the Church. Completely ignore it and do what we want. Namely, continue living as if VCII never happened.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone really think the Commission will override a local Ordinary's wishes? I hope I am wrong but I fear that I am not.

Luka said...

Believe it or not, that is exactly what happend in Croatia. After the bishop in charge dissmised our requests (and in a rather rude manner), we wrote to Ecclesia Dei. They contacted the modernist bishop... after three iterations and 2 and 1/2 years, we now have TLM every Sunday.

Congratulations on achieving success through the auspices of the Commission but I fear that here in the USA the prospects would be considerably dimmer. Just can't imagine Cardinal Levada overriding, say, Cardinal O'Malley or Cardinal Mahony.

LtCol Paul E. Haley, USAF(Ret)

Anonymous said...

J. Brown:

You have some legitimate points but, overall, your assessment is mistaken. This Instruction transfers final authority on our Mass from the local bishops to the P.C.E.D. The local bisops have been our primary bane. It is positive. We also win on the crucial matter of written and customary laws pertaining to Mass in 1962. That is HUGE.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Dear P.K.T.P.,

Thank you, as always, for your incisive commentary. Now that we have more than the incipit, you will be quite pleased to know what I am satisfied nay thrilled with how the "Universae" fits in with the rest of the opening sentence and see no reason to be displeased. At least with the first sentence--as a true trad I am holding onto my right and duty to grumble at various aspects of the document as a whole!

Ben C.

Anonymous said...

Edward writes:

"Any priest diocesan or religious may say a PRIVATE mass of their choosing but a PUBLIC mass still must get the Bishop or Religious Superior's permission. That it took so long to put this."


Edward is correct that this Instruction does not clarify this matter; he is wrong in his concluson, however.

This is one of the most common errors in interpreting S.P. S.P. DOES NOT require that a group apply for a Mass, public or private. It merely says that, where a group applies, it should be given its Mass. The word 'only' is absent from the Latin text of Article 5. From Art. 1 of S.P., together with Canon 837.1 and 901, it can be proved that, in principle, any Parish priest or rector can begin a PUBLIC T.L.M. in his parish or church, even if not one single faithful asks for it.

I agree, again, that this is not obvious from the text of S.P. and shoudl have been been explained by this Instruction, which does not comment on it one way or the other.

P.K.T.P.

rodrigo said...

Anonymous @ 20:51,

As a great saint who celebrated the Extraordinary Form even after the promulgation of the Novus Ordo once wrote,

"Bitterness has sharpened your tongue. Be quiet!"

David Joyce said...

I agree with Gerard regarding Article 19 - we too attend SSPX Masses, and on further thought, I have no problem with this article, although it may be a slight warning shot against adopting a harder-line position. The SSPX - as a whole - does not deny the validity of the new sacraments, nor the legal process in which they were promulgated. They may question their "legitimacy" in terms of the influences that fed their formation (hence the Archbishop calling the new rite of Mass a "bastard rite"), but that should not overshadow our real belief when it comes to the sacraments of the Church.

This is especially so given the Ecclesia Dei Commission's response in 2003 to the following question:

Q: "Is it a sin for me to contribute to the Sunday collection a Pius X Mass" to which we responded:

A: "3. It would seem that a modest contribution to the collection at Mass could be justified."

Giving a modest contribution to the collection is supporting the SSPX, is it not, so taking this and the Instruction from today together, makes it clear that this is not aimed at the SSPX.

In fact, I find it most telling that they do not simply warn against associating with groups that are not in "full communion with the Holy See", which in their point of view, would exclude the SSPX. But no, they exclude those groups "which show themselves to be against the validity or legitimacy of the Holy Mass or the Sacraments celebrated in the forma ordinaria or against the Roman Pontiff as Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church", which is a different proposition entirely. It is almost a way of including the SSPX with the "approved" traditional orders under the banner of the PCED.

Apart from this one article, I find it rather disappointing - clears up a few points (e.g. "coetus fidelium"), puts down others (traditional ordination outside the PCED groups), and - as always - lacks teeth in terms of its implementation, apart from appealing to the PCED for a happy conclusion. Rome won't be rebuilt in a day, but one brick at a time.

Anonymous said...

PKTP,

While the news media may be describing this in the terms you present, the bishops do not have such illusions. The fact is that this document DOES carry new restrictions that did not exist before today. There is no explanation as to why that which was held to be holy is now restricted, or why Catholics requesting the Mass may be subject to some kind of inquisition as to their bona fide status.

This is a 'balanced' document, if by balanced is meant being equally favorable and unfavorable at the same time. J Brown

Anonymous said...

To all who insist that this Instruction will have no effect because it does not mandate anything (as if those of ill-will obey mandates): I think there are many Bishops and superiors of good will who do make some attempt to implement the Holy Father's letters. That's why the TLM has spread. It might have spread farther without opposition, but mostly its progress is slow because, frankly, people are not clamoring for it. It's true, once introduced to it many fall in love with it. But the Bishops just do not see the long lines to get into the TLM where they do have it.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Brown:

You are mistaken. As I explained quite often before, the original S.P. WAS restricted DESPITE being declared holy, owing to the operation of other laws and the status of the N.O. as normative.

No. 19 is there to frighten children. It is not a problem. If a group of aspirants includes a few emphatic people, they need not be among the petitioners and yet can benefit once the Mass is granted. We only need three petitioners. Don’t help these people to create obstacles.

This Instruction does not add new restrictions. Name one. It only explains restrictions that were there all along.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Alsaticus.

I don't understand what you wrote and New Catholic appears to be with you. Could you explain further why you wrote that the modernists are extremely happy about this document? Call me thick I don't get it.

Babara

Anonymous said...

Lest anyone think me to be a spoil-sport, allow me to say I'm glad overall that certain things have been clarified in the instruction and I truly hope the P.C.E.D. will exercise its authority to rein in the recalcitrant bishops. Those who have fought long and hard for years in the Una Voce framework to see the return of the TLM to a place of honor in the Church have much to be proud of and I congratulate them whole heartedly. But, I had hoped that the jurisdiction question (for groups not specifically associated with Una Voce or the P.C.E.D.) would be resolved too and that, apparently has been shelved for another day.

Please continue to pray that jurisdiction will be provided to all those who recognize the Holy Father but who have reservations about the NO. For example, how can the "two forms" have different expressions for the consecration of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ? How can one "form" mandate communion on the tongue while kneeling and the other not? How can one form be so strict in terms of rubrics and the other so loose? It seems like two different religions rather than two different "forms". Enough already! I shall bite my tongue.

LtCol Paul E. Haley, USAF(Ret)

Anonymous said...

There have been ordinations to minor and major orders outside of the Ecclesia Dei institutes. There was no restriction until today, precisely because the Pontificale was NEVER abrogated and remains in effect, as everyone acknowledges now. As of today, the Holy See has forbidden bishops from using this Pontificale except for Ecclesia Dei institutes, and perhaps those institutes which habitually use the Pontificale such as the Franciscans of the Immaculate. This is a NEW restriction.

The notion that we must now conduct internal inquisitions before approaching a pastor about the TLM is repugnant. No Catholic should be subject to such inquiry when simply asking for a licit Mass to be offered for his sanctification. Is Ecclesia Dei indicating that such persons are to be denied the Sacraments?

There are other ambiguities which will be read as restrictions, but which I omit so as not to give enemies any ideas. The two listed above are obvious, and indeed I suspect have always been in this document. J Brown

Chris said...

I am quite glad to see No. 28 included:

"28. Furthermore, by virtue of its character of special law, within its own area, the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum derogates from those provisions of law, connected with the sacred Rites, promulgated from 1962 onwards and incompatible with the rubrics of the liturgical books in effect in 1962."

My strategic take on this provision may seem counter-intuitive to some ... but I think this provision prohibits parishes from holding Sunday obligation TLMs on Saturday night or Sunday afternoon. At the time of the 1962 Missal, attending Mass at these times would not meet one’s Sunday obligation. This practice is incompatible with traditional rubrics not to mention the fasting rules in effect in 1962. These time slots are prohibited in the same way that altar girls and communion in the hand are prohibited.

All traditionalists in parishes like this need to write their pastors (and then their Bishop and then Rome as needed) and request compliance with this provision. The only way for a Priest to implement a Sunday TLM in obedience with Summorum Pontificum is to hold in on Sunday MORNING.

Some may say that these second class time slots are the best we can get and we shouldn't complain... and they fear that pastors may just cancel them entirely as a punishment. This may happen in some places... and it may be a temporary setback (my parish included)... but I think it will ultimately force a conflict which will yield much more fruit in the long run.

N.O. Catholics do not have any special right to all of the Sunday morning time slots, nor do they have a right to worship only in the N.O. Mass. The TLM is a gift even to those who despise it ... and it will enrich their spiritual life even if they don't realize it.

Chris Lauer
Charlotte, NC

Anonymous said...

LtCol Paul E. Haley, writes:

"...how can the "two forms" have different expressions for the consecration of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ? How can one "form" mandate communion on the tongue while kneeling and the other not? How can one form be so strict in terms of rubrics and the other so loose? It seems like two different religions rather than two different "forms". Enough already! I shall bite my tongue."


I have the same troubling thoughts.

Prayers,

Barbara

Anonymous said...

It's enough to make me become a home-aloner.

Thanks one and all for squashing my marshmallow cloud. I will now go back to being a bitter, angry and nit-picking traditional.

Delphina

P.S. Skirts, get your hands out of the dishwater and pen us a poem!!

Timothy Mulligan said...

Hey peeps, the Instruction is fine.

Many of the complaints in the combox mask a deep passivity. You guys want everything handed to you.

No, the Instruction is quite good and firmly establishes Summorum Pontificum in the life of the Church. The rest is up to us: attend; contribute; participate; invite; teach; request; appeal, if necessary -- firmly, swiftly, charitably and indefatigibly. And show the fruits of the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Father has decided that the offering of the traditional Mass be largely demand-driven.

So get to work.

Anonymous said...

Timothy Mulligan, thank you.

I will hold off reverting to my traditional persona.

Delphina

Anonymous said...

Chris:

You are not right because present law only affects when the obligation applies, not the text of the Mass one must attend. Also, Sunday afternoone and evening Masses were permitted from 1955. Saturday anticipated Masses only came to this status in 1965.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Another momentous occasion spoiled by the negative attitude of a few people. Although, the option to use the '62 pontifical for the conferral of Holy Orders would be ideal, we must remember that a priest is no less of a priest just because he was ordained according to the newer books. The finest priest I know was ordained according to the new rite and is highly respected amongst the traditional community, both in my diocese and elsewhere.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Mulligan writes:

"The Holy Father has decided that the offering of the traditional Mass be largely demand-driven."

Yes, this is an excellent analysis. However, it is not sufficient given his finding that the ancient Mass is a treasure for all the faithful. Faithful in most parts of the world are not even aware of it.

More can and will be conceded--just not today.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Some people expect far too much. Anyone who thought that this would lead to a regularization of the SSPX or a mandatory traditional Mass in every diocese had ridiculous expectations for a clarification of an existing document. Much good was achieved in this document. What we need more than documents from the Vatican are GOOD, TRADITIONAL PRIESTS. Prayers and financial contributions for traditional seminaries will do more good than nitpicking the good efforts of the Holy Father.

On 19.,
I don't think this refers to the SSPX but, rather, to sedevacantist heretics.

Jbrown,

Your worries are unfounded, since Canon Law supersedes the liturgical books on matters such as fasting.

Anonymous said...

@ Rodrigo,

what about the children of this great saint, will they soften up to the usus antiquior and imitate their founder?

rodrigo said...

Anonymous @ 22:33,

First, let me beg you to PLEASE use a name when posting. It doesn't have to be real, but it is a real nuisance having to scroll back to your post to check the time it was written, and then type out "Anonymous @ XX:XX" every time. I know clicking on the "Anonymous" option saves you the effort of typing in a name, but it creates hassle for others.

(I hope the time spent writing that paragraph will be saved as a consequence of your gracious cooperation in future.)

As to your question: I have no idea. I don't think there's been an official statement, and everything else - largely based on what I've read here - would be anecdotal. Why don't you try calling one of their centres and asking? Would be interesting to know the response!

New Catholic said...

Agreed, last Anon. The Work's priests's almost uniform "resistance" to Summorum Pontificum is just ridiculous.

pclaudel said...

I fail to see how a reading of the material provided by New Catholic supports any interpretations other than those implicit in the comments of Cruise the Groove and Brother Anthony.

CtG's initial comment rightly, I think, focuses on the absence throughout the material of the hortative future tense: everything is weakly put as "I ask my brother bishops to do such and such" rather than "Bishops will see that such and such is done." No hope for improvement in Rome's treatment of the True Mass, far less local bishops' treatment, is rationally supportable absent the language of papal authority, language (as many have rightly said heretofore) that the conciliar popes eschew reflexively.

Brother Anthony seems to see what I see in article 19: a torpedo aimed both at the good ship SSPX and at any and all Trads who (like me) flat-out will not have anything to do with the Novus Ordo mass. The operative word, of course, is "legitimacy," not "validity." I think it is fair to describe the SSPX position, a position shared by a great many Trads (even, I suspect, by some softs SVs) as being that while the new mass is valid--at least not ipso facto invalid--the dubiety of priestly intention and the sheer Protestantism of its rituals and theology make it illicit. Certainly, the SSPX strongly urges Catholics not to attend (i.e., assist at) a new mass. Thus, I fail to see how this article 19 can be interpreted in any other way than as a lightly veiled threat to Bishop Fellay, his episcopal colleagues, and the rest of the SSPX: play ball, or else. Had the meaning been otherwise, "legitimacy" could simply have been omitted.

May I add here, too, that Rodrigo's suggestion that, in effect, there is daylight between the official or formal SSPX position and that of Father Peter Scott is mistaken. Their positions are one and the same.

As for Mr. Perkins's interpretation of article 28, I see no grounds whatsoever for adopting it, unless I too were to embrace the triumph of hope over experience. "NO to Altar girls, Communion in manu, Communion standing or sitting (except where people cannot kneel)"? Hardly. Article 28 refers explicitly to law, and the matters Mr. Perkins mentions are custom, not law. In fact, so far as I am aware, Communion in the hand and altar girls are (to use a word no good conciliar catholic would ever use) indulted matters. As such, their more-than-here-and-there infiltration of celebrations of the "extraordinary form" may be presumed to be here given tacit approval at the least.

Finally, I fail to see on this comment thread anything like the appropriate dispiritedness that article 31 ought to prompt and certainly prompts in me. In the closest thing to apodictic language that the instruction employs, the use of the Traditional rite of Holy Orders is absolutely forbidden to everyone, everywhere, with the sole exceptions of the FSSP, the ICRSS, and any other "Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life which are under the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei." This is far, far more than a shot across the SSPX's bow. It is a stern warning.

All in all, I cannot but regard the instruction as proof positive that the SSPX's proper work, the conversion of Rome, is no forwarder than it was three years ago or indeed at any time during the reign of the present pope's predecessor.

rodrigo said...

May I add here, too, that Rodrigo's suggestion that, in effect, there is daylight between the official or formal SSPX position and that of Father Peter Scott is mistaken. Their positions are one and the same.

There are certainly many others - though not all - in the SSPX who would claim that the New Mass is illegitimate. Archbishop Lefebvre said as much in 1976. I can't help wondering what they mean by that, though. If, as Fr Laisney has done, they're treating it as a canonical claim, then I think they're demonstrably wrong. Ask yourself: is it really credible that the Roman Pontiff and Curia were unable to lawfully promulgate a rite of the Church? Who is the supreme interpreter of the law of the Church?

If, on the other hand, they're simply trying to say that the New Mass is of questionable parentage (which is what Lefebvre seems to have been getting at in 1976) then I don't see why they can't drop the erroneous language of illegitimacy and resort to a more accurate critique, e.g.

"We left the living process of growth and development to enter the realm of fabrication. There was no longer a desire to continue developing and maturing, as the centuries passed and so this was replaced - as if it were a technical production - with a construction, a banal on-the-spot product."

Anonymous said...

To Anonymous-

My worries are in no way unfounded due to the 1983 Code and its impact on liturgical law. There is simply a contradiction, or at least ambiguity, between 27 and 28. One says 1983 applies, the other says 1962 rules apply. I find it very strange that you do not see this, since it is obvious. The fact that Fr. Lombardi immediately said that altar girls were "not addressed" shows that it is a deliberate ambiguity. J Brown

benjoyce said...

Appears that B16 is trying to turn the tide. You can't make an Air Craft carrier turn on a dime.

And this turn championed by B16 paves the way for a ground swell of the faithful to push for the Latin Mass and this is what will happen. "in the end my Immaculate Heart will triumph" (Fatima). You can't force the faithful to take it -TLM, but you can clearly open the door for it. This is what B16 has done.

Given the good scholarship of bloggers at this site you would think they would not miss a huge point. That point is manifest in the abundant apparitions/private revelation that Our Lady is providing to the faithful open to the Holy Spirit. Consequently, as Dr. Weber who was present in Garabandal stated that Concita revealed that Our Lady stated that "there will be four more Popes after John XXIII, and then we would be in the "end of times".

So B16 is the last before all Hell breaks loose. This is supported by many other private revelations. The devil sees his end is coming. The Latin Mass is coming back. So the devil will now pull out all stops. As Sister Lucia said. "It's in the Book of Revelations, read it!"

Why the trads don't get it means that they are missing something and that is they are shunning the movement of the Holy Spirit to some degree. But they'll catch on as events, as prophesied unfold.

Oliver said...

If folk are falling over themselves in saying the conciliar rite is legitimate in order to receive the old rite more, why not acknowledge this legitimacy and respect the authority of their pope by abandoning the old problematic attachment? Is it because they have not summoned up enough courage to openly cast off the bastard rite and reject its instigators? The SSPX may have only gone so far down this road but time and further conciliar evolution will ensure this end. Performances of old rites without traditional theology are just that.

Anonymous said...

Here is one other point to ponder:

In the long run, who will really benefit from the restriction on traditional ordinations? If the Holy Father's No. 1 goal is to preserve the traditional liturgy for all faithful (this is the first goal listed in the Instruction), how is that met by restricting the use of one of the 7 Sacraments? In reality, only those orders and societies currently using the traditional rite for ordination are preserving this liturgy. If they should ever be suppressed, or fail on their own, one of the 7 Sacraments will be lost in its traditional liturgical form.

So, who exactly benefits from that?
J Brown

rodrigo said...

Consequently, as Dr. Weber who was present in Garabandal stated that Concita revealed that Our Lady stated that "there will be four more Popes after John XXIII, and then we would be in the "end of times".

Is this the "condemned six times by the local ordinary" Garabandal? The Garabandal where a miracle was supposed to happen that would be witnessed by St Pio and Pope Paul VI? The Garabandal whose "seer" told us John Paul II would be the last pope? Hm...

benjoyce said...

rodrigo.....

St. Padre Pio thought is was true. You don't. whom am I to believe?

Presently it is not condemned

"you kick against the goad"

Inquisitor said...

The main difficulty is the possible contradiction between paragraphs 27 and 28. We need a really good canonical commentary, please!

Anonymous said...

Am I the only one that sees perhaps the reason for the restriction on former Ordination Rites is preventative? Preventing a postion in the future where the 62 Missal usage grows and groups are tempted to state that THEIRS are the only valid orders in the Catholic Church. There are for now 2 Forms of Mass but not 2 Catholic Churches or sets of Priests. Could this be a way of unifying the Priesthood and Church overall and then working toward a 1 Missal solution in the future? Although I do not like what happened to the NO Missal and the way it was implemented (or even the results, I do see it as valid and see no reason why even if I prefer the Tridentine Mass that everyone can not or should not be ordained using the same ritual even if in the future a Priest were to occasionally offer the Novus Ordo Mass. I could see how as the Tridentine Mass grows that at some point a huge group decides to break away precisely on the grounds ordination validity and takes a huge chunk of Faithful with them.
MP

Anonymous said...

MP - You mean like the Society of St. Pius X? I think this already happened some decades ago and this Instruction presumably is part of the solution. So, to claim that this NEW restriction is to prevent an occurrence of what has already happened, albeit in a document aimed precisely at alleviating that occurrence, is strange reasoning. The REASON why the traditional rite of ordination was used by the SSPX and remains in use by the FSSP is theological clarity, the continuity with the traditional liturgical rites of the Church and the perception (which John Paul II ultimately agreed with and made changes to correct) that the new rite simply is not as clear in what is actually being done in the Sacrament.

To want to use the traditional rite in no way implies a view that the new rite is invalid. This is a calumnious falsehood that seems to have been spread to the authors of this Instruction and perhaps to the Holy Father, leading them to think they needed to make such a restriction. The restriction itself, however, now raises questions about why exactly it is that the rite of ordination for Padre Pio, St. Josemaria, John Paul II, Benedict XVI and St Maximilian Kolbe is now considered "divisive". J Brown

rodrigo said...

benjoyce,

I am tempted to ask whether the death of Joey Lomangino - without having received new eyes - would serve as evidence of Garabandal's falsehood for you, but I suspect I can guess the answer. "Well, perhaps he'll see it from Heaven! Perhaps he'll be resuscitated and given new eyes in front of everyone! Perhaps it's simply a reference to the eyes he'll have at the Resurrection of the Dead!"

In any case, it is not a choice between me and St Pio. It is a choice between the local ordinary's published judgement, and claims made by Garabandal fans as to what St Pio - who was not the local ordinary - said. It wouldn't be the first time someone lied about St Pio's utterances in order to further their "holy" cause.

Hope Spring Eternal said...

I didn't have time to read everyone's comment, but here is my knee-jerk reaction to the faux 'clarification.'

16. "In the case of a priest who presents himself occasionally in a parish church . . . " Presents himself occasionally???? Do they mean now & then, here & there, or sometimes? Could they be any clearer?

17. § 1. "In deciding individual cases, the pastor or the rector, or the priest responsible for a church, is to be guided by his own prudence, motivated by pastoral zeal and a spirit of generous welcome." Guided by his own prudence???? It will be a big mistake if those unsympathetic priests act on their own prudence. That's like saying let your conscience be your guide. Pride can hide itself in one's idea of sound judgment.

This verbiage came right out of V2 speak. It is obvious that bad habits are hard to break.

We will have to wait for Divine Intervention to make a compelling difference in the modern Church.

Robert said...

Not a single mention of this document on the USCCB website. I guess they feel it's not that important. Not even on the Philadelphia Archdiocese website news. So who is to blame here for not having the faithful who desire it. When they don't even know about it in the first place. I thought this was addressed to ALL Roman Catholics. Could have fooled me on that one!.

Jitpring said...

The document may bear some good fruit, but not nearly as much as it might have, as it perpetuates at least three errors: 1) following the Vatican II cult of novelty and confusion, the continuing use of the schizophrenic terminological and conceptual innovations, “ordinary form” and “extraordinary form.” 2) the continued treatment of the traditional Mass (the so-called “extraordinary form”) as a museum piece attractive only for its antiquity rather than its objective superiority over the Novus Ordo. 3) the continued renunciation of the strong language of a commanding magisterium.

Jordanes551 said...

Fr. Zuhlsdorf has uncovered some shenanigans in the English translation of the Instruction:

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2011/05/wdtirs-universae-ecclesiae-21-drilling-into-the-latin-and-english-training-of-priests-and-seminaries/

LITERAL TRANSLATION:
21 – Ordinaries are strenuously (enixe) asked that they offer to clerics (clericis) to be trained up (instituendis) opportunity for acquiring adequate ars celebrandi… art of celebrating… in the Extraordinary Form, which point has force above all (potissimum) for Seminaries, in which provision will be made that the students of holy things are to be suitably (convenienter) trained, by learning the Latin language, and, as additional circumstances demand it (adiunctis id postulantibus), the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite itself.

RELEASED TRANSLATION:
21. Ordinaries are asked to offer their clergy the possibility of acquiring adequate preparation for celebrations in the forma extraordinaria. This applies also to Seminaries, where future priests should be given proper formation, including study of Latin and, where pastoral needs suggest it, the opportunity to learn the forma extraordinaria of the Roman Rite.

*****

What a shock -- the Latin obviously was deliberately mistranslated to soften and misrepresent what the bishops have been instructed to do.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes,
The trouble is that the English translation was provided by the Holy See's own press office. Therefore, one must conclude that the translator for the Holy See and its press office have willflly obfuscated their own document. That is quite impressively sad.
J Brown

Anonymous said...

19. The faithful who ask for the celebration of the forma extraordinaria must not in any way support or belong to groups which show themselves to be against the validity or legitimacy of the Holy Mass or the Sacraments celebrated in the forma ordinaria or against the Roman Pontiff as Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church.

WILL THEY SOON CALL THESE HATE CRIMES? THIS IS DISCONCERNING! WHAT NEXT?

Jordanes551 said...

Therefore, one must conclude that the translator for the Holy See and its press office have wilfully obfuscated their own document. That is quite impressively sad.

Yes, very lamentable.

Why they did it we may not be able to know for sure, but we can guess. Was it to give hostile bishops the illusion that the Instruction is weaker than it really is, to make its reception less controversial than it otherwise would be?

John McFarland said...

I quite agree with Mr. Perkins' praise of Mr. Mulligan's observation that the Holy Father's offering of the TLM is "demand-driven."

But neither he nor Mr. Mulligan himself understand the implications of this.

It means that the Holy Father does not propose to do much to actively further the cause of the TLM.

Let me put his position more bluntly: if they want the TLM, they can have it, and bishops are ASKED (the operative word in both the official and literal translations offered above) to supply training to those priests and seminarians interested in offering the TLM.

That, I submit, is the sole, full and entire sum and substance of the Holy Father's support of the TLM. Anyone who expects more has no good reason to do so, and is bound to be disappointed.

Mr. Perkins says: "More can and will be conceded--just not today."

Unfortunately, he has no evidence for that contention.

The closest thing to evidence is the Instruction's praise of the TLM.

But given the MP and the Instruction as a whole, this praise looks suspiciously like eyewash, and Mr. Perkins view like wishful thinking.

Anonymous said...

"19. The faithful who ask for the celebration of the forma extraordinaria must not in any way support or belong to groups which show themselves to be against the validity or legitimacy of the Holy Mass or the Sacraments celebrated in the forma ordinaria or against the Roman Pontiff as Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church."

What, pray tell, is the litmus test for this? A signed and sworn affidavit stating so before a Tridentine Mass is said? Well, how about those who show such allegiance to such ilk as Has-ran Mohony, the McBriens and the Currans, the Democratic Party and all such who are as such also against "the Roman Pontiff as Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church?" Hmmm?

A careful reading of UE, while sounding mostly satisfactory is missing one great element: mandatum. There is a lot of "encouraging," "urging," on and on but no teeth to it as with most of our documents. It says the PCED or CDF have legal right to remedy but you know what that means, more of the same inaction, foot-dragging and thus perpetuating disobedience, more of the same regarding the Faithful being denied the Mass, etc. We all know the routine of this Church of ours. All talky, no walky.

Is there an intelligent reader here who actually thinks this is going to change anything? Seriously.

Ever hopeful anyway,

Matt

Anonymous said...

Is the Vicar of Christ ever going to offer the ancient Mass, as he once did. That will go further than any pontification, vague or otherwise.

Anonymous said...

The modern Jesuits disagree with the Supreme Pontiff all the time! What will the "Think Police" do to them?

Maybe torture them with a tickling feather? (I couldn't resist)

Anonymous said...

No, Mr. Claudel, you are wrong on Art. 28, and you really ought to review what Cardinal Burke said on these very matters a few months ago. You write as if custom is opposed to law; on the contrary, it is part of law. Art. 28 ensures that all laws, whether customary or written which were attached to the Mass in 1962, stand.

The 1983 Code foresees only the N.O. as the Mass in passages referring to whom nay serve at the Altar. Art. 28 will most certainly forbid Altar girls, and Communion in manu and whilst kneeling. It even preserves pre-conciliar minutiæ that have since been changed. For example, the crucifer does not bow to reverence the Altar. Art. 28, in fact, preserves the entire ethos of 1962 where it departs from later legislation.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

On the hortative nature of some of the formulations in the Instruction, keep in mind that this document is not exhaustive in the interpretation of S.P. It clarifies certain causes of confusion in S.P. and adds law mostly in Section II on the matter of bhe bishops' authority.

P.K.T.P.

John McFarland said...

Dear M. Claudel,

I think that the Vatican's banning of non-FSSP traditional ordinations is not a warning to the SSPX, but rather evidence of its root and branch rejection of what the SSPX stands for.

Archbishop Lefebvre established the SSPX to form priests to preserve traditional doctrine, and the traditional liturgy that finds its significance within traditional doctrine.

He wished to form priests who said the Mass as defined by the Council of Trent, in the spirit of that definition.

It is unlikely that anyone would want to be ordained in the traditional rite unless he had to some degree imbibed the spirit of the Mass as defined by the Council of Trent, and unlikelier still that he could prepare for the traditional rite of orders without imbibing still more of that spirit.

In this week's edition of the Baltimore archdiocesan weekly, Archbishop Edwin O'Brien, generally and correctly considered a conservative among American bishops, gave an account of the Mass.

In that account there is no sign of the Mass as defined by the Council of Trent.

Nor is there much if any sign of the Mass of the Council of Trent in anything the Holy Father has ever written or said.

So naturally, the Holy Father and Archbishop O'Brien are the very opposite of interested in providing anything that might encourage non-Ecclesia Dei priests to become priests dedicated to saying the Mass as defined by the Council of Trent.

Anonymous said...

Mr. McFarland writes:

"It means that the Holy Father does not propose to do much to actively [sic] further the cause of the TLM."

No, this does not follow and it reflects, perhaps, the 'wishful thinking' of Mr. McFarland. The main juridical change here is the bit in Section II on the role of the bishops and the P.C.E.D. So it all depends on how determined the P.C.E.D. is to assist petitioners. Under Levada, we can expect a little (given some examples) but not a lot. He turns 75 next month and his quinquennium ends in September. So it remains to be seen how militarnt his successor might be. I do fully admit, however, that too much depends on this Pope and those whom he appoints this day. This is one reason I find this instrument to be wholly inadequate. But I find the problems I see without adding those from mere suspicion.

But Mr. McFarland goes on a lack of eveidence just as often as I do, all to support his pre-conclusion that nothing good can come out of the Pope of the New Rome. It's a point of view but it lacks moderation and nuance. Better to attend to the facts, Mr. McFarland. This Pope has done more for tradition in six years than John Paul II did in 27. S.P., this Instruction, the lifting of the declarations of excommunication--all come to mind, as well as the founding of the Institue of the Good Shepherd. The Pope gives us a fish and Mr. McFarland hopes by sheer intellection to turn it into a serpent.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Hopeo Spring Eternal:

On No. 16, "occasionally" is meant in the OLDER sense. It means on occasions; it does not mean 'uncommonly'. It could refer to regular occasions of a special nature (e.g. Sundays).

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

I am appalled by the total lack of balance on this blog today. We have this band of nay-sayers who attack every clause of the Instruction and fail to see that it obviously advances our cause considerably on the whole.

Then we have Mr. J. Brown's stupid remark on the other side, saying that the Instruction could not have opened up Art. 1 of S.P. to mandate a minimum number of every-Sunday Masses in each see as a norm at law. Of course it could have, as I have demonstrated very clearly in the past.

What is needed is more balance here.

This document does not grant us the hoped-for freedom, which it might have done in reference to Art. 1 of S.P. or by commenting on the status of S.S.P.X Masses. Overall, it is a disappointment. There are indeed other problems with it but they are mostly small.

On the other side, the Instruction represents a net improvement for our situation. P. Claudel is wrong on Art. 28. This Instruction protects that customary and written law (they are two ‘forms’ of law) in force in 1962. The mention of the Rituale also deals with reception of Holy Communion, for example. More importantly, this document reduces the power of the bishops and makes the P.C.E.D. the final arbiter in decisions to arrange for Masses. This is absolutely crucial for us because, in nearly every case, the problem has been the bishops. Duh!

So I judge, again, that this is a substantial improvement, and it will likely result in a modest improvement worldwide. But it would be foolhardy and asisine to suggest that it grants us the freedom to have our Mass whenever we can find a priest willing and able to offer it. No, that’s not the case, since, ultimately, the P.C.E.D. might prefer to sit on its hands and not help us in any given case.

I wonder if the pack of mad ranters could give us a break tonight. While I agree that only liberals see grey for black and white, it is also erroneous to assert that grey does not exist.

P.K.T.P.

John McFarland said...

Dear Brother Anthony,

It's all just another manifestation of the generic conservative illusion.

The conservative sizes up the conventional ideological choices and puts his chips on what appears the more traditional, or at least the less whacky or perverse. All evidence that the choice is not really "on our side" is ignored, waved off, or driven away.

Republican presidents are pro-life.

Iraq and Afghanistan are just wars.

The hermeneutic of reform and continuity makes perfect sense.

The Mass of Pius V and the Mass of Paul VI are really the same thing.

Well, maybe conservative traditionalists don't exactly BELIEVE the last two; but woe betide you if you knock the Holy Father too hard, because he's on our side.

Anonymous said...

M. Claudel may wish to read Articles 28 and 31 together and then compare both with what Cardinal Burke said recently regarding the laws which are "compatible with" the 1962 rubrics. Enough said for now.

P.K.T.P.

Ben Vallejo said...

The Instruction makes it policy something that will give traddies apoplexy. The Holy Father has made it clear, the way by which the Novus Ordo can enrich the Old Mass!

(We know how the Old Mass can enrich the New Mass)

That is one big idea behind Summorum Pontificum which traditionalists choose to ignore! The Pope MADE THIS EXTREMELY CLEAR in his letter to the bishops.

I am interested on how the Novus Ordo affects the recovery of the Tridentine forms of expression.

Perhaps we will see a convergence in the near future. After all the New and Old Masses are valid forms of the SAME MASS!

Benedict XVI is true to form here in his quest for continuity which does not mean a break from the historic patrimony.

This is like his willingness to take in liturgical expressions WHICH HAVE EVOLVED outside the Roman Church to communion with Rome, even if this were a product of the Protestant Reformation.

Louis E. said...

Comments appear to be disappearing.I will state again,it appears that the Vatican is tactily going to allow the apostolic succession of pre-vernacular ordinands to become extinct,which will close the door to reconciling the rad-trad fringe (SSPV,CTM,etc) who do not accept the current ordinals as valid (and therefore all sacraments by ministers ordained in the vernacular ordinals are likewise invalid to them).If no effort is made to make sure there are always surviving bishops they would recognize as bishops.what could be done?

LeonG said...

The principle of one rite two forms is the greatest philosophical conundrum of the post-conciliar church. Coupled with the hermeneutic of continuity hypothesis, this reflects the extent to which the cancerous phenomenological perspective has disseminated itself in the last 50 years from within the church establishment.
Not only this but also the viewpoint has been beatified in a pope who inculturated the NO liturgy to an abusive extent - both photographically & cinematographically undeniable.
This Instruction has a typical liberal modernist shape to it. The Latin Mass, so called and the NO are inextricably and mutually linked. The 1962 books are the new norm and they contain the revolutionary seeds for further manipulation - new prefaces and new saints to be inserted and whatever the NO establishment will deem imperative thereafter since Pope St Pius V's instructions have been gainsaid in principle.
The antipathetic bishops will do everything they can to stymie this instruction, as all previous others, by doing nothing, as most of them have done with the lame measures of the post-conciliar papacies so far. The procedures put in place to adjudicate disputes and complaints will be frozen into inaction by years of dither and delay. This is predictable and will worsen if the next pontiff is even more liberal modernist than we have at present.
Finally, the clauses dealing with Latin standards among the clergy and the convenient episcopal "opt out" on the anti-NO lobby will be generously imputed to most traditionalists because when all is said and done, genuine traditional Roman Catholics could never accept the NO liturgy in principle. This is because it has essentially un-Catholic origins and bases; it has already objectively demonstrated its ecclesiastical destructiveness; church surveys illustrate that it does not propagate customary Roman Catholic norms, values and mores that conform to the axiomatic lex supplicandi...lex credendi and, according to even the current pope, it is fabricated. The more it is tinkered with, the more fabricated it becomes which of itself does not accord with orthodox liturgical organic principles. This modernist penchant for liturgical "tinkering" is being applied to The Latin Mass.
Thus, we have two Rites and two Forms. This is the social reality. They look different; they produce a different set of beliefs and they yield two very contrasting outcomes. Their by-product in the last 50 years is disunity in the liturgy. Music, architecture, philosophy and other relevant areas of life in the faith parallel two such starkly contrasting liturgical expressions.

Anonymous said...

I must say that I found LeonG's remarks to be quite compelling. But we are where we are adn we must soldier on and try to get beyond this nightmare from the Brave New Church. We need to work with the tools we have and rely heavily on prayer. I think that Archbishop Lefebvre would agree. He never wanted separation for the S.S.P.X and tried hard to avoid it.

P.K.T.P.

New Catholic said...

A call to prayer.

I think that is wonderful, PKTP. Prayer is never enough for Catholics.

Let us pray for reconciliation and peace: may Our Lord grant, through the intercession of his Mother, peace to His Holy Church.

NC

Anonymous said...

Mr. Perkins,

Nothing will please the naysayers - nothing! They are not interested in modest changes for the better, or even a regularized SSPX. That is because, if you look at what they say, they no longer believe that the Catholic Church exists in the Sacred Magisterium. Protestantism runs as rampant through traditionalist circles as it does through Leftist circles.

Anonymous said...

Mr. MacFarland,wrote

" but woe betide you if you knock the Holy Father too hard,"

I have manipulated your comment to STRESS this! I couldn't agree more.

There are also some discrepancies between the Italian and English translations...if anyone is interested.

Barbara

Steve said...

In this I see that the Holy Father has given Traditionalists the tools they need, but the growth of the Traditional Mass has to be from the grass roots level. I would rather NOT have it mandated. Because the majority of the clergy won't offer it with the necessary decorum. It would be like casting your perals to the swine. Who would argue for that? Basically, the balls in your court traditionalists - get too it. Stop your whyning. Remember, it's the Offical Teaching Office of the Church that has the charism to rightly interpret Tradition; it's not left to the theologians or the individual Christian as in the Protestant communities. Our Holy Pontiff has spoken, the dispute is ended.

Oliver said...

This old Roman hand knows how to give with one hand and take away with the other. He appears to be laying down the law but with the knowledge that the apparatus of obedience has largely been removed and only diocesan bishops must now be obeyed. Their power will bear down more heavily on priests who dare to break ranks and Rome knows that. But if more of the old rite manages to pass through the diocesan checkpoint it will be so qualified with conciliar drivel to make it worthless and pointless.

LeonG said...

Finally, whatever the reservations about the instructions with the two Rites together and some fair competition in the market place we shall see which one will supercede the other. One form is already demonstrating signs of systematic fatigue with ever-depleting attendance numbers with mutating formats & norms. The authentic other has all the potential for developing and growing adherence. Subtracting the stigma of "disobedience" and "abrogation" from its apparent image can only serve to encourage the faithful toward attendance at the traditional liturgy. As increasing numbers of priests say The Latin Mass this can only put the NO under even more pressure.

In the meantime, however, the post-conciliar penchant for liturgical changes and "readjustments" should not be permitted to subvert The Holy Mass in Latin. This is a particular feature of the instruction that needs monitoring alongside episcopal willingness to see most traditionalists as anti-NO per se, giving them the convenient excuse to exclude and proscribe.

Anonymous said...

PKTP
I never mentioned Art 1 of SP or anything about a minimum number of Masses. You must have me mistaken for some other "stupid" commenter.

J Brown

Adam said...

PKTP - your comments are fascinating and brilliant, as usual.

I went to visit Fr Normandin at his SSPX retirement home in Levis a few weeks ago with some fellow parishioners and thought of you. It was the first time I met Fr N. and he was relating to me how he'd fly across Canada on Sundays to offer the TLM in multiple cities. How far we've come!

I always appreciate your Canadian perspective - do you have any thoughts about the possibility of using UE to add a daily TLM on the island of Montreal, for example? Or one downtown?

Anonymous said...

For what it's worth, I think the document is wonderful. It quite forcefully makes the point that Summorum Pontificum was not a mere fluke or mistake, but rather a permanent part of the Church now.

I have a question re Para 28 (about canon law).
How far does this go?
Specifically, what does it mean for the Eucharistic fast?

+DR

Steve Cavanaugh said...

Barbara and Lt Col. Haley,

""...how can the "two forms" have different expressions for the consecration of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ?"

I would remind you that there have always been several rites in the Catholic Church (Byzantine, Maronite, Armenian, Coptic, etc) and that there have been different expressions for the consecration from the one to the other, just as there is different wording in each of the Gospels. There was never any doubt that the Byzantine rite or Coptic rite words of institution was ineffectual. That there are two forms in the Latin Church now does not mean that there are two different religions.

To Others:
Regarding Item #31, "31. Only in Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life which are under the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, and in those which use the liturgical books of the forma extraordinaria, is the use of the Pontificale Romanum of 1962 for the conferral of minor and major orders permitted."

I wonder if this restriction is as complete as has been portrayed.

Since the minor orders are currently not used in most of the Latin Church, there would be no use of the 1962 Pontifical to confer these orders. I believe, however, that in 1962 the order of Subdeacon was widely considered a "major order" not a minor order. Restriction of the 1962 Pontifical may mean that the Pontifical as a whole may not be used outside the Ecclesia Dei institutes and societies because S.P. does not restore the minor orders and subdiaconate to the wider Latin Church. That would not necessarily mean that those portions of the 1962 Pontifical used for priests and bishops could not be used. Perhaps this is just another clarification that needs to be made?

As an overall comment, I would note that this instruction should be read in the context of other occurrences: the re-insititution of Friday abstinence in England and Wales, the deposition of the bishop in Australia, etc. The latter occurred only a short while before this instruction was released, dated on the feast of St. Pius V and published on the feast of OL of Fatima. I believe that these should all be considered in assessing the intent of the Holy Father to see this instruction and S.P. implemented fully.

Hope Springs Eternal said...

P,K.T.P.: Thanks for your clarification on "occasions." I didn't think that an OLD term would be used with all the new ideas that have come out of the Church.

LeonG: I appreciate your insights. I feel that the most harm coming from the 2007 MP was the expressed idea that the Mass now has two forms in the Roman rite and are of equal value; furthermore, to think that one enriches the other is beyond my comprehension, given the fruits of the NO.

Although some might suggest it, we cannot compare these two forms as we would two Rites in the Church. That would be like comparing apples with oranges.

Martin Ellingham said...

Restrictions of free exercise of rights are interpreted strictly (CIC 1983, c. 18). Text and Context of n. 19 -in my opinion- should lead us to conclude that “legitimacy” means “liceity”, as It is commonly distinguished from validity.

Anonymous said...

Steve Cavanaugh,

There are not two forms in the other rites you mentioned so don't confuse the issue. The words of consecration don't change in those rites and the only rite where this is true is the Latin rite and that speaks for itself.

LtCol Paul E. Haley, USAF(Ret)

ConfraterUK said...

So it's official.
Only those who belong to the Ecclesia Dei Institutes, FSSP, ICRSP, Good Shepherd Inst. etc.,can be ordained Priests in the Traditional Rite. And these by Bishops ordained/consecrated with the New Rite. All other Priests are to be ordained with the New Rite, by Bishops ordained/consecrated with the New Rite. Although these Priests are authorised to celebrate the Traditional Mass.
So if we would have Priests ordained with the Traditional Roman Rite by Bishops consecrated with the Traditional Roman Rite, then we must go to the SSPX or the SedeVacantists.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Alsaticus.

I don't understand what you wrote and New Catholic appears to be with you. Could you explain further why you wrote that the modernists are extremely happy about this document? Call me thick I don't get it.

Babara

It's obvious and printed in the Instruction.

1) the benefits ? If you look at them they are extremely limited and often easy to be superceded by malevolent clerics and nasty Ordinaries. A little pressure and all the progresses will be easily turned down.

2) the big progress announced was : mandatory taching of TLM in seminary. It would have been a REAL step forward BUT the Instruction is annulling it by a HUGE LOOPHOLE. In France, people read the text and immediately saw the oceanic loophole : GermChurch too and, contrary to a strange statement of P.K.T.P. - ironic maybe ? -, neo-modernist German bishops are die-hard opponents of S.P. and made their best to block TLM. With success.

3) Now there is a BIG step backward : ordination is now prohibited for plain diocesan priests.
There was only one bishop in the whole world who did it : Bp REY of Toulon-Fréjus i.e. the French Bruskewtiz or Chaput if you like. So the most Ratzingerian French bp is clearly slapped in the face by ... cardinal Levada and the pope.
Can you guess now why FrenChurch is laughing out loud ?

4) According to a couple of posts, PCED has acted in ... 2 dioceses in 4 years. Not a single French bishop has been ever disciplined, not a single German bp, not a single European bp as far as I know.

Truly when cardinal Hoyos announced this Instruction, the expectations were MUCH higher than ... status quo even with a big step backward.
The consequence of the mischievous article 31 is to be feared : seminarians will be forced to join a priestly society to be ordained in the trad. rite. Bp Rey has a local society and he may request and indult. But in other dioceses, many bishops will use this wonderful pretext to discard requests by trad-oriented seminarians for a S.P. ministry in their dioceses.

But the signal sent to ALL BISHOPS by article 31 (thanks to msgr Scicluna and FrenChurch probably, not excluding the dubious attitude of cardinal Levada) is simple : DON'T let ordinary TLM priests increase in quantity, keep them in a tiny ghetto.
That's EXACTLY what 90% of French Bps requested.

Sorry to pour ice and water on the Benedict fan club but it's crystal-clear, this pope is stepping back in the past 2 years. Bertone and the tepid clan (Ravasi, Braz, Levada, Filoni ...) are winners in Rome now.
Now I reckon that sustending a campaign in all media of the Western world during 2 years must have taken a big toll on the Holy Father's resolution. i can't blame the pope for opting for quietness, who can say he/she could be strong enough to be under such a violent fire and exposed to constant attacks ?

500 TLM requests are pending in France and I'm afraid after this "Instruction", we'll have 499 requests pending in one year and many young future priests are going to be more disappointed than me.

Alsaticus

Anonymous said...

Let's see if it has any effect in places like the Greensburg Diocese (PA) where the ordinary not only forbade the TLM in his diocese, but he also coerced the St. Vincent Benedictines from celebrating the holy Liturgy--there's a good testing ground for its potency!

Anonymous said...

I must say that I found LeonG's remarks to be quite compelling. But we are where we are adn we must soldier on and try to get beyond this nightmare from the Brave New Church. We need to work with the tools we have and rely heavily on prayer. I think that Archbishop Lefebvre would agree. He never wanted separation for the S.S.P.X and tried hard to avoid it.

P.K.T.P.


I agree with this paragraph naturally.
Benedict XVI gave us much more "tools" than his predecessor did but the struggle is as hard as it has always been and, curiously, the Roman Curia has less TLM supporters now than in 2005 if we look at the main dicasteries, considering cardinal Burke has a little say in these questions : even in his own court, see the Thiberville (Fr. Michel) sad case.

We have to stay fortes in fide in these perilous times.

Alsaticus

dcs said...

Not even on the Philadelphia Archdiocese website news.

It is not surprising that the Archdiocese of Philadelphia would not make reference to the document on its web site. Its diocesan guidelines on the traditional Mass violate the spirit of Summorum Pontificum and the letter of Universae Ecclesiae.

Gratias said...

This is excellent news. Deo Gratias. This Instruction confirms previous edicts by popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI under the signature of Cardinal Levada. The Latin Mass is here to stay. The Modernists failed. Thank you Holy Father.

Anonymous said...

Ah! Such unity here! What would the Church do without us?

On a happier note, can someone here tell me why the Vatican seems to have something against the old Rite of Ordination?

Delphina

Anonymous said...

Delphina
I think some in the Church will work tirelessly to make sure we are no longer in the Church. As for the traditional rite of ordination I assume it is NOT because it 1. clearly expresses the sacrificial office of the priesthood, 2. is the only time priests concelebrated under the 1962 Missal or 3. it is beautiful, ornate and holy. J Brown

joan said...

ALL priests must be required to learn the Extraordinary Form within a given time period and all newly ordained priests must also be required to learn.This should be required for EVERY priest!No priest should be allowed to say he cannot celebrate the EF.The Holy Father needs to require this for all those in the Holy Priesthood.

Anonymous said...

Question for the crowd. A principle of law is that it is to be interpreted in the manner which is most generous to those legislated. So referring to:


> 31. Only in Institutes of Consecrated Life and
> Societies of Apostolic Life which are under the
> Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, and in those
> which use the liturgical books of the forma
> extraordinaria, is the use of the Pontificale
> Romanum of 1962 for the conferral of minor and
> major orders permitted.

It says "conferral of minor and major orders" which would imply all seven from porter up to priest. The generous interpretation therefore is that only the Ecclesia Dei institutes may do all seven but others may do some subset of the seven (since that means they will not confer the "minor and major orders").

Does this possibility hold any water? I am interested in hearing from those more knowledgable of the law than I.

Ben C.

Knight of Malta said...

Michael Matt and Christopher Ferrara end their piece, re: UE:

"in sum, today cannot be seen as a good day for those who had hoped the Instruction would signal Novus Ordo revanchism. We cannot fail to note the significance of the approval of the document by the Holy Father on the very Feast of St. Pius V.

Overall, a sigh of relief is indicated, but not without vigilance for what will no doubt be a continuing rearguard action against the dreaded return of liturgical tradition."

Ahh, indeed! I imagine some Bishops are screaming like Satan does at the end of The Passion, and already plotting their rearguard actions!

Certainly, in the least, one can say the pendulum is swinging in the right direction, vis a vis Tradition.

Anonymous said...

JBrown, thank you for answering me! I often feel like everyone just ignores me here such a nuisance I am.

You are correct in what you wrote and it makes me suspicious.

I am also wondering why they require traditionals to pledge allegiance to the Church and the Holy Father yet allow the liberals to run around doing what they like without a word said to them.

In short, after having slept on this document, I am now troubled by it, and this teaches me a lesson - keep my mouth shut and hands off the keyboard until the initial reaction passes.

Delphina

Anonymous said...

Even the remnant took this more gratefully than the old negative know-it-alls who comment on this blog. For the sake of your souls and sanity, stop being such entitled, ingratious bitches.

It is bad for my soul to keep reading this blog. You have lost a long time reader: it was not this dreadfully bitter or entitled before, or at least it was more balanced. When you gave column space to a heretical sedevacanist, I knew this day was coming for me. I am sad over this.

Jordanes, you are the only reasonable voice left. Blessings on dealing with such spiritual malaise as often floats around this blog. Even New Catholic has become jaded.

I will pray for you all, but I no longer can come here and leave with charity intact. Please, someday remember God made us for joy and not the eternal philistine grumblings of peasants.

Okie

Alex Benziger G said...

In Madras, South India, we and Archbishop of Madras-Mylapore exchanged many letters to grant an Indult to have a TLM Mass in a church on every Sunday but all in vain. Then we wrote to Eclessia Dei Commission but no reply has been received so far nearly two years. Lay catholics are just fools. Here bishops are running after money and they want cheap publicity.
DEO GRATIAS

Alex Benziger.G

Anonymous said...

Okie, thanks for the promised prayers. I need them!

Delphina

Anonymous said...

Delphina said in part...

I am also wondering why they require traditionals to pledge allegiance to the Church and the Holy Father yet allow the liberals to run around doing what they like without a word said to them.

There is a division in the Roman Rite, Delphina, and the modernists know it. They have built their house (NO) on sand (protestant influences) and they realize that if they allow the traditionals any equality whatsoever, the house of sand will fall. That is why they appear to be giving when, in fact, they are taking away. It is also why there has been no jurisdiction granted to the FSSPX or other independent groups; the modernists fear the end result - massive flocking to the Traditional Mass and the Faith that it signifies.

They recommend, indeed they insist, that anyone who believes in the Traditional Mass and the Faith that it signifies - well, they must do so with one of the Societies under the auspices of the Ecclesia Dei Commission under a prefect who has a disturbing past as a liberal (Archdiocese of SF). It is their way of controlling things so that Traditionalists can be minimized and their influence kept under control, so to speak.

But, they have underestimated the Traditionalists will to persevere in the Faith given to them by their forefathers and they will not succeed, not now not ever. For they have failed to answer the one question that continues to reveal their arrogance: "What is it that a Traditional Catholic, including those in the FSSPX and independent groups, believes that is other than what Holy Mother Church has always held, taught and professed to be true from apostolic times?"

The answer to that question is, of course, NOTHING! They cannot answer it and they will not answer it because to do so would bring in to the mix all the modernist propositions advanced since Pope St. Pius X railed against them in 1907. So, take heart, good soul and do not fear. All errors will eventually be made public and all who hold to the true Faith will be vindicated.

LtCol Paul E. Haley, USAF(Ret)

Anonymous said...

I personally believe (as well as many other learned persons) that the reason for the restrictions on the Ordinal was due to the Holy Father's wishes that the 1962 Missal's integrity be respected and celebrated fully (no mixing etc). Throughout UE, one sees that there are to be no Novus Ordo elements incorporated in the Extraordinary Form etc. If diocesan seminaries are Ordained in the Extraordinary Form without receiving Minor Orders the integrity of the '62 Missal and the full celebration of it would be somewhat compromised if the seminarians had not received Minor Orders because the '62 Missal presupposes that the candidates have received Minor Orders. Of course, it would have be amazing if the Holy See would have restored the Minor Orders, but alas that hasn't happened. Also, Fr. Z makes a good point that 99% of seminarians would probably ask to be ordained using the traditional books, but most bishops sadly do not know how to using them.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Haley, thank you!

By the way, my brother was in the Air Force too in the fifties and was stationed at Myrtle Beach. He trained dogs and flew planes (what else?). When he left the Air Force, he bought his own plane and flew here and there until his heart trouble forced him to give it up (he could no longer get a license).

Delphina

Enoch said...

LtCol Paul E. Haley said,

"It is also why there has been no jurisdiction granted to the FSSPX or other independent groups; the modernists fear the end result - massive flocking to the Traditional Mass and the faith that it signifies."

Mr Haley, while the problem of modernists does exist, I try to look at the issue from the standpoint of Rome, which will not be a popular position from which to view the situation. Let me explain: I think that the problem of lack of jurisdiction, due to lack of canonical status (as well as other factors) is due primarily to the position which the SSPX and other groups hold fast to; for example: the belief by the FSSPX that the New Order of the Mass is always a sacrilege and at least venially sinful to assist at.

I would be happy to point out where on the official website of the FSSPX where this is officially stated, if you like. This is a huge problem, and it will have to be a hurdle to be overcome and changed, by the FSSPX, if they are to seek canonical status and subsequent jurisdiction.

Anonymous said...

Enoch,

You said: ..."the position which the SSPX and other groups hold fast to; for example: the belief by the FSSPX that the New Order of the Mass is always a sacrilege and at least venially sinful to assist at.

I believe you are overstating the case when you broad-brush the part about what the SSPX and other groups hold fast to. I don't recall ever hearing any of my associates, either in the SSPX or out, say the NO is always a sacrilege and at least venially sinful to assist at. No doubt there are some who take that position but I think the majority of us believe that it could be dangerous to one's Faith because of its modernist and protestant influences - not that it is objectively sinful.

But the real point, as Delphina brought up, is the seeming duplicity by which the Church deals with seeming heretics in the NO clergy while refusing canonical status to the SSPX and independents. What crime have they committed and what juridical process was used to bring their so-called faults to light? The answer the modernists give is by their own actions the SSPX and independents have convicted themselves. Say what??? By firmly attaching themselves to Tradition and refusing the novelties imposed by Bugnini and company, they have convicted themselves?

The current Holy Father has remitted the excommunications, which were by the way, only to the SSPX bishops not the laity. But, still it appears the Church is unwilling to grant the bishops jurisdiction. At the same time independent priests are having to do their work without diocesan approval and are classified as outside the Church. You've got to be kidding. This is Justice?

LtCol Paul E. Haley, USAF(Ret)

Anonymous said...

Steve wrote:

"I would rather NOT have it mandated. Because the majority of the clergy won't offer it with the necessary decorum."

That depends upon how much mandating there is to be. One Mass per Sunday per see, to be phased in according to avaialble resources, would have been far better. The reason is, Steve, that most parts of the world are entirely ignorant of the existence of the T.L.M. option. That is the way it is.

But we have what we have and the rumours continue that the Pope will do more, particuarly in regard to the universal diocese. That would mean provison more readily by existing traditionalist societies and orders, whose priests know how to offer our Mass professionally. Watch and pray.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

In Madras, South India, we and Archbishop of Madras-Mylapore exchanged many letters to grant an Indult to have a TLM Mass in a church on every Sunday but all in vain. Then we wrote to Eclessia Dei Commission but no reply has been received so far nearly two years. Lay catholics are just fools. Here bishops are running after money and they want cheap publicity.
DEO GRATIAS

Alex Benziger.G

You have a hope Alex : write to "Okie", he has a magic stick and turns every negative bishop into a model of Catholic "charity".

ps. in fact he just have a huge pair of pink glasses and it will be of no use I'm afraid with your archbishop like the 500 groups that are asking for the implementation of S.P. in France

Alsaticus

nb. someone wrote that the nasty article 31 was there to preserve the "integrity" of TLM. I've hardly read something more convoluted. So far it was admitted the "discipline" implied the minor orders and sub-diaconate to be lawful. Forbidding the 1962 Pontifical for diocesan seminarians does not make any sense apart from deterring TLM vocations among diocesan priests.

Anonymous said...

In careful reconsideration, I think that the poster was right, very right, who wrote that, under this Instruction, provision for our Mass will continue to be demand-driven. The main difference is that our hand has been strengthened by Section II of the Instruction, by which the bishops have finally been subordinated to the P.C.E.D. in this matter. That will make it easier for us to acquire Masses but they will not come except where faithful submit petitions forcefully. In some cases, success could come quickly because some bishops will not want to be overturned by Rome and thereby lose face. Still, I do not expect a change of attitude on the part of the Bishops of France, for example.

If we consider the situation in France, several of the hold-out sees do have Latin Masses less often than every Sunday. Reims and Soissons and Verdun are among these, as are La Rochelle and St-Claude and even Ajaccio (Corsica). Others are Tulle, Rodez and Digne. This means that there are groups of faithful in those dioceses who favour our Mass and want it offered through the dioceses. For the life of me, I cannot understand why there are no diocesan T.L.M.s in the very poplous diocese of Cambrai. But those living in Cambrai are in the same Départment as Lille, where the T.L.M. is offered widely by the I.C.R. and others.

In the U.S.A., I would hope for success in Las Vegas, Laredo, the two dioceses in Montana, Bismarck, Baker, perhaps Pueblo (by F.S.S.P. mission), Greensburg, Steubenville, especially Mobile (where Arcbhishop Rodi has been very resistant), and one or two others.

There are signs of hope right now in Brazil, Argentina, Chile and Colombia but not much elsewhere in South America. Canada is a black hole, thanks to the Maoist Mafia that runs our episcopate from Quebec.

There could be real progress in the Philippines. I am hopeful about the situation there.

For the rest of Europe, we might see some progress in most countries. But I cannot see how this Instruction will make much difference in Indonesia or India or anywhere much in Africa. Cardinal Burke wanted a more even distribution. This instrument will not achieve that in my view. The universal diocese for tradition remains necessary, even if it would take decades for it to provide Masses dispersedly in large parts of the world. Such a structure would not be the proper topic for an Instruction on S.P. but might follow soon thereatfer. Keep praying.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

No, Mr. Ellingham, if they'd meant liceity, they'd have said it. Legitimacy means that promulgation of the New Mass is a legitimate act of Church. There are some who claim that the Church simply has no right to compose a New Mass or to make major revisions to a received Rite that have not been adopted gradually from existing forms, since the Sacred Liturgy is an opus Dei. In other words, committees and Bugninis and even popes are still not above the Holy Ghost. Well, Bugnini was greater than God but the rest are not.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Dear Adam:

Thank your for your comments. Is Fr. Bleau still offering our Mass? Is Fr. Normandin still doiong so in Montreal at St. Irene?

As for U.E., that refers to Loyalists to me!

P.K.T.P.

P.S. Fr. Normandin is a hero to me. Ditto for Fr. Gavigan in Toronto. But I'm not sure how to improve the situation in Montreal.

Enoch said...

LtCol Paul Haley said,

"I believe that you are overstating the case when you broad-brush the part about what the SSPX and other groups hold fast to. I don't recall ever hearing any of my associates, either in the SSPX or out, say the NO is always a sacrilege and at least ventially sinful to assist at."

Mr. Haley, I'll provide a quote here, then, from the official website of the SSPX, from the FAQ section. The answer they give is to whether or not the NO is invalid or sacrilegious, here is the last paragraph of the SSPX answer to this question:

"However, regardless of the gravity of the sacrilege, the New Mass still remains a sacrilege, and it still in itself is sinful. Furthermore, it is never permitted to knowingly and willingly participate in an evil or sinful thing, even if it is only venially sinful. For the end does not justify the means. Consequently, although it is a good thing to want to assist at Mass and satisfy one's Sunday obligation, it is never permitted to use a sinful means to do this. To assist at the New Mass, for a person who is aware of the objective sacrilege involved, is consequently at least a venial sin. It is opportunism. Consequenly, it is not permissible for a traditional Catholic, who understands that the New Mass is insulting to our Savior, to assist at the New Mass, and this even if there is no danger of scandal to others or of the perversion of one's own faith (as in an older person, for example) and even if it is the only Mass available."

Link to the SSPX FAQ section:

http://www.sspx.org/catholic_faqs/catholic_faqs__traditional.htm

Anonymous said...

ConfraterUK:

Rome can always make exceptions for ordinations but otherwise you would seem to be right.

Of course, should the Pope grant us a universal diocese ....

There is one other way. Under an earlier ruling of the P.C.E.D., one can be affiliated with the Campos personal apostolic administration, even if one lives outside its bounds. This might lead to a Campos ordination in the pre-conciliar Rite (there being no such thing as a form no matter what this Pope may think). One could then seek excardination, and so forth.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

I strongly disagree with Alsaticus’s bitter and negative assessment of this Instruction but I am cheered by hearing about 500 applications for Masses in France. The P.C.E.D. will undoubtedly favour some of them.

What Alsaticus says about Germany is tosh. Has he been watching the situation there? I have, and with great attention to detail. There have been CONSTANT improvements every month there. There are now scores of Latin Masses in some dioceses and nearly every see has at least one every-Sunday T.L.M. Before S.P., only one-third of German dioceses even had ONE LATIN MASS. Where has he been getting his information? Germany and New Zealand have been the major exceptions, getting additional permissions for Latin Masses for the full four years since 2007.

I agree with his assessment of the situation in France, of course. But if there are 500 outstanding petitions there and the P.C.E.D. may now overrule the bishops, THERE WILL BE PROGRESS. The P.C.E.D. forced His Eminence of Zagreb, Croatia, to back down. It also forced to back down Bishop Ramirez of Las Cruces. Alsaticus should know that Bishop Ramirez is the most anti-trad Bishop in the Western Hemisphere. He once swore that he would allow our Mass in his Diocese “over my dead body”. Now there is one, just months before he turns 75.

Your assessment is too negative, Alsaticus. Have some faith. Levada turns 75 next month and his quinquennium comes up in September. All these whiners on this blog forget that this Instruction favours us in the matter of the rights of priests who are not Parish Priests, in the matter of a broad definition of cœtus, in the matter of the pre-conciliar Uses of the religious orders, and on and on. Nobody is even mentioning this here. Why? But the PRINCIPAL EFFECT of this Instruction is its subordination of the local bishops to the P.C.E.D. in this question. The bishops have been the main problem from the beginning, even from 1984. Now they have lost their authority to proscribe our Mass. And everyone here thinks that this fails us? Whine, whine, whine all day long. This lot here is just as bad as the opposite extreme, those fools who worship John Paul the Small and his every foolish action. Let’s have a bit more balance here and a bit more faith. This Instruction is disappointing overall, yes, but still important in advancing our cause. Let’s call it as it is.

P.K.T.P.

Cruise the Groove. said...

"Under an earlier ruling of the P.C.E.D., one can be affiliated with the Campos personal apostolic administration, even if one lives outside its bounds."

Mr Perkins,
I live "outside" Campos bounds.
How can I become affiliated with the administration?
This sounds intriguing!

Anonymous said...

Quite a bit of hubbub. Frankly, I was more excited by the news that the Bishops of England and Wales are reinstating the requirement to abstain from meat every Friday.

I had occasion to attend a Novus Ordo Mass this morning. It was part of a high school graduation ceremony and the first Novus Ordo Mass I attended in many years.

Why that entire monstrosity is not shut down entirely and immediately is beyond me. Leaving that Mass this morning all I could think of is how much the MP and now UE amount to nothing more than dithering around the obvious.

I am more than ever convinced that the Novus Ordo Mass is headed for extinction. Probably not in my lifetime but it will end up where it belongs; in the garbage can.

It won't happen with timid, baby step letters and instructions. It's going to happen in one fell swoop at the hands of a Saint Pope. I hope I'm around to see it.

In the meantime, rather than spend an hour sifting through what the blogs are saying about this instruction, it would be better to spend that hour praying for the genuine restoration of the liturgy and the hasty condemnation of what I witnesses this morning.

Anonymous said...

Cruise the Groove:

It caused a great deal of excitement at the time but, for thre to be extrenal chapels, they must be chapels of the local dioceses with only a pastoral oversight from Campos, by agreement with the local bishop. I forget how individuals can be affiliated. It would have little affect for most laics. I'm not sure about those destined for the priesthood.

P.K.T.P.

antonio said...

Most is pretty standard to me. What none has mentioned is 'in future the change of prefaces and the inclusion of new ordained saints'...Meaning a new Missal

antonio said...

Most published is no real change. What is new is the change, in future, to prefaces and inclusion of new saints in the EF Missal and probably to other changes!

Página Católica said...

Our spanish comments to Universæ Ecclesiæ.
http://pagina-catolica.blogspot.com/2011/05/comentarios-universae-ecclesiae.html
Regards

John McFarland said...

Dear Mr. Perkins,

The Holy Father has finally admitted what he knew for years before the MP: that the TLM had been neither abrogated nor obrogated.

He has ordered that under certain circumstances, groups wanting to have the TLM said on Church property have the right to do so.

He has permitted performance of certain of the traditional sacramental rites, and of the old breviary.

I agree that these are good things, and that I am grateful for them; and I don't propose to quibble over the exact extent of their goodness.

But I think it quite clear that this is as far as the Holy Father shows any signs of going.

He may change his mind tomorrow, and God grant that he do so. But I see no indication that he will, and every indication that he won't. I you have any indication to the contrary, I have not seen it in your voluminous commmentaries here and before on the matter.

So, if you'll forgive the Americanism, put up or shut up.

Provide something besides wishful thinking.

Knight of Malta said...

"It won't happen with timid, baby step letters and instructions. It's going to happen in one fell swoop at the hands of a Saint Pope. I hope I'm around to see it."

Bishop Fellay would be a nice choice to head the Barque of Peter, me thinks (though I may be dreaming, it is a licit, and heart-felt dream).

Anonymous said...

Enoch,

OK, you win, the SSPX website says what it says in a FAQ section but that does not mean that every person who assists at SSPX masses believes that. Nor does it prove that even every SSPX priest believes that and it certainly cannot be attributed in any way to independents. But, you have ignored the real issue IMO and that is the duplicity of the modernists in granting canonical status and jurisdiction to material heretics and liturgical innovators while refusing the same to SSPX priests and independents.

Am I to assume (not a good word I admit) that because the SSPX (the one in the USA which is not the official DICI site) says what it says, that this is justification for the injustice being perpetrated against the Society as a whole in terms of jurisdiction and faculties? That, my friend, is not a leap of logic I'm willing to accept. This is my last post on this subject as I fear the moderators are getting quite tired of the SSPX holding center stage on this topic.

LtCol Paul E. Haley, USAF(Ret)

Giovanni A. Cattaneo said...

One thing I would like to say for those that expect for Pope Benedict XVI the one to break the damn that is conciliar-ism. It won't be him, he know how old he is and he knows that if he acts to aggressively he will drive the Church in to open schism.

Now though most of us have no problem with that I suspect that the person responsible for 1.2 Billion souls would.

So think of it this way, Pope Benedict is setting up a table and he is putting all the pieces in its place because he knows there is soon to be banquet however he also knows that he will not be attending it.

The Holy Father is putting the pieces in place all for the next Pope who we pray acts upon his intentions.

John McFarland said...

One interesting thing about some of the commentary here is its implicit notion that based on the MP and Instruction, with perhaps a few more favors from the Holy Father, the doughty warriors of tradition now must carry on to victory (or if you prefer a more economic metaphor, win the market share battle with the NO).

No.

Things don't happen in the Church from the bottom up. They happen from the top down.

Until the then Holy Father is at the head of the army, the battle for tradition can't be anything more than a holding action.

This is not to say that we shouldn't continue to fight the holding action. Woe to us if we do not.

But it is to say that we must not expect what the whole of the history of the Faith tells us is not in the cards.

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr. McFarland:

If the Pope wanted no more, he would not have agreed to doc talks with the S.S.P.X. He was the negotiator between Abp. Lefebfve and John Paul the Small, and he almost succeeded (for good or for worse). He likely wants to finish the job, no? He lifted the declarations of excommunication and this has brought him no applause from NewChurch and little from anywhere else. Clearly, there is evidence of his intent to entrench the ancient Mass in the life of Holy Church. Since this entrenchment has not yet been achieved, it is logical to assume that more will follow. If you don't like the evidence and would prefer to live apart from God's Vicar, taks it up with our Lady.
She might be able to help you; I cannot.

2005: election of Benedict XVI;

2006: Lifting of declarations of excommunication;

2007: "Summorum Ponfificum"

2008: Canonical Erection of the Institute of the Good Shepherd;

2009: Correction of translation of NewMass imposed; Anglicanorum Cœtibus (also did not bring him much applause);

2010: Doc talks with S.S.P.X begin.

2011: Instruction on S.P.: main effect: overrides the bishops, who are the main problem.

I see a pattern here. Where is *your* evidence that the process has ended?

What do you think will happen once the doc talkls are over? Do you think that the Pope will do nothing at all in favour of the S.S.P.X? Please answer honestly. Dishonest answers will be discarded and subsequently flushed down the toilet.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

I must say that I disliked the signal sent in this Instruction by having it published on the N.O. commemoration of St. Pius V, esp. when the day on our calendar lay between this and the date of publication. This little gesture reveals the maclice of that reptile Levada and his Maltese lawyer, Scicluna.

Levada turns 75 next month and his quinquennium ends in September. He needs a well-earned rest. He belongs in San Francisco.

Sorry about this negativity. Overall, the Instruction, however much a disappointment, still deserves to be celebrated because it frees us finally from the local bishops, so many of whom oppose our Mass. A different Prefect of the C.D.F. might improve the situation; on the other hand, too much in this Instruction depends on who is Prefect, who Secretary, who Pope. This is a step to freedom; it is definitely not freedom itself.

P.K.T.P.

New Catholic said...

"A different Prefect of the C.D.F. might improve the situation."
PKTP

A different Prefect might make the situation worse.

I really miss the PCED under Castrillón Hoyos...

Anonymous said...

GETTING PRACTICAL:

There is only one major change introduced by this Instruction and it is a victory for Tradition. This is the subordination of the bishops to the P.C.E.D. in this matter. All the other clauses, both positive and negative, have been put there to distract the nitwits.

SCENARIO:

Little Miss McGillicuddy: Now, let’s see, we have 43 petitioners for our Latin Mass. The McFarout family supports the S.S.P.X and the Secaydas are open sedes. So we’ll leave them out of the petition and they can come along once we get it. That still leaves us with 32. Dear Fr. Sellout:, ….

Fr. Sellout, Parish Priest, reading the petition: Oh, no, not these lunatics again. They are suggesting that that old gasbag, Fr. Faithful, now in retirement but in good health, be their celebrant at my church. I knew the Bishop should have wreckovated the sanctuary. I’ll just say no because Taïzé needs the church all afternoon Sunday and the Charismoronics are throwing themselves on the floor and barking like dogs every Sunday evening.

Bishop Toad, reading the appeal from the petitioners: Oh, Shadwell, what can I do? If I turn down these nutters, that new bastard at the P.C.E.D., Abbé Revanche, will get the pleasure of overruling me. I’ll look like a loser and these locals will send it all to the newspapers. I’ll lose face. I’ll look like I’ve been slapped across the face by the Pope himself. People will laugh at me at teaparties and I’ll never get that promotion to Ottawa. I will agree to this petition and just do my best to keep this quiet. I’ll tell them that they can’t advertise and must have their Mass at two o’clock in the afternoon. If they behave well and don’t call Paul VI the Antichrist in public, I’ll gradually give them a better and better deal. We’ll just keep this small until this old reactionary Pope dies off and gets replaced by someone more with it. Zeus! Why can’t Levada not slip the old boy something in his tea? A little envelope of white powder that looks like sugar, applied while he’s practising a Mozart Sonata. He’d wake up on the other side, where all the idealists can have their own way. Why can't these people live in the *real* world. That reminds me, donations are down 17% over last year and the number of regular parishioners seems to be falling precipitously. I wonder why the average parishioner in my diocese is 78 years old? ....

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

N.C., of Levada:

A different Prefect might make the situation worse.


Really? Have you reviewed what this man didn't do for San Francisco and what he didn't do for the Latin Mass? He's still the Pope's pupil but only the pupil of Professor Ratzinger as he then was.

P.K.T.P.

Martin Ellingham said...

P.K.T.P.

It´s very interesting what you said –I don´t express myself in english very often-, but I see two alternatives:

- If someone questions the legitimacy of the promulgation of NOM (e.g., some legal doubts expresed in the ´70s, by Vidigal da Silveira), it´s not accepting -today- a legitimate act of the Church. So, the NOM woul by ilicit, i.e. against the law of the Church.

- If somone claims that the Church simply has no right to compose a New Mass or to make major revisions to a received Rite, because it´s an act prohibited by the divine positive law (I guess, they argue); the NOM is not even a real eclesiastical law, because of the Church´s lack of competence in the subjet; so it would by ilicit, i.e. against the previous eclesiastical law of the Church (Quo primum tempore et al.), regarding the liturgy of the sacraments.

Anonymous said...

As an exclamation point to this instruction, do you think perhaps now, finally, we might see the Holy Father celebrate the EF?

Ralph Roister-Doister said...

I simply do not have high hopes for the Summorum Pontificum or its "clarifications."

In Benedict we have a pope who is conflicted on the one hand by a binding sense of commitment to the fruit of the council in which he played a key role, and on the other hand by a genuine understanding of the appalling events which have unravelled over five decades, largely as a result of that council. His contribution as pope is likely to be a series of clever but brittle rhetorical devices concocted to explain this conflict -- reform of the reform . . . . ordinary and extraordinary "forms" . . . . hermeneutics of rupture and continuity -- which will be found in the end not to bear the weight of careful and honest analysis. Benedict's version of fifty years of Church history requires us to believe that the council which aspired to set the course of Mother Church from 1964 forward has no legitimate relation to the depradations which followed in the late sixties and seventies, and which continue to the present day. Never mind that the leaders who seized control of the council and replaced the agenda of continuity created by Pope John's committee with a rupturing agenda of their own modernist concerns, were in many cases THE VERY SAME PEOPLE who pushed for the post-conciliar excesses which emptied churches, devastated the ranks of the clergy, and prompted a confused and exasperated laity to replace worship with lip service -- or to vanish altogether.

We should all pray zealously for our pope, who asked for deliverance from the "wolves" who seek to devour him. But we should not allow ourselves to be blinded to the flaws of the rickety scenario he has constructed, and which he asks us to accept as real.

New Catholic said...

Ralph Roister-Doister, welcome back! So good to see you here again.

Please, get in touch.

NC

Anonymous said...

Where is the justice in allowing the TLM only to be demand driven? For decades the only thing allowed (the faith diminishing N.O.) was down our throats driven. Is it possible to sue for our rights in an ecclesiastical court?

A.M. LaPietra

ivanandsue said...

While we were in Italy in February of this year with our FSSP priest, we ran into problems with lay people (in the sacristy) who told him that he could not say the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. Our guide then printed off the Motu Proprio in Italian to carry with us as we were scheduled to hear Mass every day and we anticipated further problems. However, because he was then better informed he paved the way and we did not have any further impediments -- God Be Praised!!
Anonymous

Gratias said...

This instruction was written to favor us traditionalists. There should be more gratitude to the Holy Father from this camp.

After the instruction, the Bishops will have to offer many more TLM. It will be up to us now to find, and protect, the priests and attend the Extraordinary Masses. We are only a small remnant of preconciliars. Every time we attend TLM we make a difference to the long-term survival of the Church.

Perhaps, as explained above by experts above, our Holy Father is hoping to bring in the SSPX back to Rome. With their 500 missionary priests protected by this Instruction they could make a huge difference. Rejoice and praise God for giving us this wise and Holy Pope at this critical juncture.

Anonymous said...

I just can't believe how ungrateful many of the people who comment here are.

There is nothing bitter about this instruction. It is sweeter than honey from the comb. Let us go to Holy Mass today with gratitude in our hearts, for the Lord has done a great thing through the hands of his servant Benedict. Remember charity does not insist on its own way. The Mass in the Extraordinary Form is here to stay - restored to a lawful place in the Church. It is for us to convince others of its fulness of truth, just as the first disciples had to convince an unbelieving world.
Stephen

New Catholic said...

It's not bitter - it's bittersweet: there's some sweetness in the end...

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr. Alsaticus,

Thank you for your not so kind reply. It is still not obvious to me from the text that “modernists” will love this document. Unlike you, I am new to the TLM and things traditional,(not even 4 years) and I am in the process of learning about ecclesiastic terminologies, Church laws, norms and rules….esp regarding the holy liturgy. Therefore I bow to your superior knowledge here, undoubtedly you have sound reasons for your distrust and malcontent. That it is an imperfect Church document I agree, humbly. I would have wanted much more myself.
However, reading you and some others on this blog leaves one feeling distressed and disturbed. You pronounce, pontificate, preach, predict (with that air of superiority that is so unattractive – you know – “the know it all” one) and you do not transmit that Our Lord is in charge of His Church and uses even imperfect Church documents (and imperfect people) as a vehicle of His Grace. Case in point – my own. It was through Summorum Pontificum that I discovered the Old Mass and it was like stepping into another dimension where I found the highest wisdom and spirituality. Changed me utterly! In my delight and naivetè, . I attempted to share my new-found love with some “friends” in my parish and also the priest. I was staggered by their reaction. They would have none of it. The parish priest became furious and insulted me. The parish “leaders” became furious and insulted me. The nicer people, maybe not fully understanding or even really caring about the Old Mass, just smiled and avoided talking to me. It was only a bit later on after this eye-opening experience that I realized that “modernist” catholics, could never be authentic Catholics , by the very nature of their mentality. No matter, I knew I had found the treasure of the Church and I couldn’t compromise my conscience. Gradually I left the parish….and found the path through God’s grace to REAL CATHOLICISM. All this through an imperfect Church document . The modernists in my parish went into crisis because of it. There are many other similar tales to be told of conversions to tradition….mine is most certainly not unique.

Some traditionalist like you seem to have lost all joy and hope in the Church, which Our Lord said would never fail.…..I feel sorry for you, and I will pray for you.

By the way,I am not a “fan” of Pope Benedict XVI (another nasty dig), but his faithful daughter in the Church. (doesn’t mean I agree with him always on matters not dogmatic). However I’d rather be The Holy Father’s “fan” than be considered a follower of your gloom and doom vision of the Church.

Praise to Our Lord Jesus Christ and His Most Holy Mother!


Barbara

New Catholic said...

Barbara,

Alsaticus is actually a very joyful and reliable person. But he has "seen it all"...

NC

Brian said...

the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei will have the task of looking after future editions of liturgical texts pertaining to the forma extraordinaria of the Roman Rite.

This statement from paragraph 11 has me a little worried.

Joe N. Guilfoyle said...

Solemn Pontifical Mass at the Altar of the Chair in St. Peter's was beautiful this morning. Oddly, Cardinal Brandmuller did not make any references to "Universae Ecclesiae" in his sermon. Also, there was no "surprise" appearance of the Holy Father at the end like some of the rumors were saying there would be.

It would be nice, in the spirit of "One Rite - two forms" if Masses like this were celebrated more often than annually, and also, there really should be daily Low Masses incorporated into the Basilica's liturgical schedule.

Anonymous said...

In the Diocese where I live (a large, major capital city), the Bishops have designated two places for the Traditional Latin Mass on a Sunday. Both churches are fairly close, and the Mass times are almost at the same time. The Masses are constrained by time, and therefore the only option is a low Mass. The bishops here have made it clear that no other parish or place is to start a public TLM. Even if people ask, they are told that there is already generous provision and no more Masses are permitted.

This is not a generous application for people who live at the far reaches of the diocese and have to spend a couple of hours on two or three buses early in the morning to get to the Mass. Even harder for elderly people or large families.

This scenario is not likely to change any time soon. No matter how much groups/people ask, the very few sympathetic priests dare not contradict the Archbishop's decisions. Besides they are already busy and overworked with full Mass schedules on Sunday mornings.

So to answer those who say we lack joy: yes, I am dissapointed with this latest document. 40 years in this wilderness, has been a long hard slog. The crumbs falling from the Pope's table are meagre and discouraging.

This latest document is couched in language that is patronising, vague, and open to multiple interpretations. As with most documents in the last 40 years it seems to give with one hand while taking with the other. There are few clearly mandatory requests which could overnight increase the number of Traditional Masses. The vast majority of clergy, are barely aware of the Traditional Mass let alone the various issues which surround it. Most do not read Church documents. The chances of them reading this one about something already considered a non-issue is unlikely.

Keep in mind also the vast number of priests in religious congregations (obvioulsy there are notable exceptions). They generally have much less awareness of what comes out of the Vatican, and can be quite relaxed (and at times antagonistic) in their attitude to the papacy, liturgy and tradition having adopted an independendent spirit since the Council. It will be years before Tradition begins to filter through to them.

A few strategic, but mandatory requests in the Instruction, aimed at the bishops and clergy, requiring them to concretely implement the Traditional Mass, could so easily have begun the process of reintroducing the TLM in a way that would influence the life of the Church.

Truly this is a disapointing Instruction, which I suspect will be as quickly ignored and forgotten as the Motu Proprio in reality has already become.

Although I pray for the Pope, I cannot in sincerity say that prayer, asking that he have a long life. I think we should begin to pray that God soon send us a Pope (whether this one or the next) who will be uncompromising and vigorous in promoting the faith of our fathers.
JPT

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately, there's been remarkably little out there...I'm thinking some day there may be scholarly articles on this...analyzing what I'm increasingly convinced is the real reason behind the Benedictine pretzel twisting of extraordinary this, ordinary that, never abrogated, etc, etc...good old ultramontanism. Roman authorities have to try anything to avoid any hint of admitting that a pope was ever wrong. For a system that has brought us to a virtual reality of "the pope is God on earth," it is terribly difficult to fix anything a pope does that needs fixing.

New Catholic said...

We could call it a Byzantine situation, right, last Anon?...

Henry said...

Barbara,

It's because of a few good souls like you that I continue to look in here from time to time. Otherwise, like Okie, I'm close to leaving for good.

In the meantime, I'll simply not read any comment that starts off with a "pontifical" attitude, its author assuming that he knows better than the Vicar of Christ. Perhaps he does, but I don't want to hear about it, not from him. We have only one Vicar of Christ at a time, and I'm not interested in hearing from anyone who cannot--at least in his public remarks--submit his will to that of Peter.

Let me add that I (as a young man) discovered the Mass of the Ages well over a half-century ago, and have indeed "seen it all". In that half century I have spent much of my "talent, time, and treasure" trying to support it, but always with charity and love for Church and Pope, whatever their apparent blemishes and those of their terribly imperfect human elements.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 12:31

Exactly. I couldn't agree more.

The conservatives have got into the habit of hearing everything the Pope says as coming directly from God. That is not a Catholic understanding of the papal doctrine - the last 45 years have proved that, with Pope's contradicting themselves and each other. That is why we have to weigh everthing against the Tradition, including the "Benedictine pretzel twisting" (wonderful expression) of the latest document from Rome. It is a document designed as only the Vatican knows best, to cause confusion and further further chaos for the faithful, and continued disabling of the Traditional Mass and all the graces that flow from it.

Anonymous said...

Henry, I will submit my will to Peter when he speaks authentically on doctrine and morals. But NOT to the private personal opinions of the likes of Benedict and John Paul II, especially when they say things that contradict each other and sow confusion.

For example it could be argued that is was JPII's will to kiss the Koran, and presumably as the head of the Church who sets us an example, he would like us all to follow suit in some way. I can't do that - JPII was in that situation at least mistaken (if not worse). In the same way, when he gives us confusing and weak documents about the Traditional Latin Mass, I have to use my mind, logic, and faith and come to a conclusion informed by Tradition. I will not blindly obey and follow a Pope's personal opinions.

Anonymous said...

The the idea of "ordinary" and "extraordinary" forms of the Mass influencing and enriching each other - is just papal jargon.

The only thing which will bring about change, is when priests stop compromising and refuse to celebrate the protestant look-a-like novus ordo Mass and exclusively celebrate the old Mass.

Anonymous said...

Dear Henry,

Thank you so much for all that you wrote.

I agree with everthing that you said.

I'm off to Holy Mass soon and will pray for everyone here.

Again, thank you and God bless!

Barbara

New Catholic said...

Catholics are and ought to be Ultramontane - it is sad to see Catholics disparaging Ultramontanism, as if it were something bad.

This anti-Ultramontane, anti-Papal demeanor is another extremely sad collateral effect of this terrible crisis of the Church, that never seems to end. We have great tolerance for a variety of opinions here, but, please, avoid more of this in this thread.

New Catholic & Ultramontane

Anonymous said...

Anon 12:31 here

I simply offered a thesis to explain the current liturgical mess.

You can't read the documents of Paul VI and have any idea that he intended the preceding liturgical forms to live. He intended his Missal to replace them. It's true he never explicitly abrogated the previous forms...but to think he intended thereby for them to live on somehow is intellectually dishonest. He allowed aged priests to continue using not 1962 but 1962 + 1965 & 1967, and he allowed the same in the much-storied Agatha Christie Indult, which hardly = anything we see in SP, or even ED or QAA.

Benedict is at pains not to come out and say Paul was wrong about anything. That would fly in the face of the modern conception/perception that every pope is well nigh incapable of error.

I think we were healthier in the days when popes (and councils) did condemn each other and point out errors. Of course those were also the days when you didn't have what's amounting to a steady stream of papal beatifications.

Pater ILB said...

200 get!

Knight of Malta said...

"To assist at the New Mass, for a person who is aware of the objective sacrilege involved, is consequently at least a venial sin."

I agree with the LtCol that this is a matter of opinion, not doctrine. I frequently attend FSSPX masses, but when I can't make it, I occasionally will attend a NO (usually to my horror). Well, even if the statement above is true (I'm not dismissing it, out of hand), what is worse, the venial sin of knowingly assisting at insulting, but valid, mass, or no mass at all (which, by Church law, is a mortal sin)? Wouldn't the lesser of two evils philosophical approach prevail? Can't a Catholic even assist at an Orthodox rite if they are in a country where no Catholic rite exists?

Anonymous said...

Barbara,

My story and my wife's are very close to yours. I appreciate all you've written. It's nice to know about others out there with similar experiences. And my wife's name is Barbara, too!

God bless you and this blog.

Bruce

Anonymous said...

"Some traditionalist like you seem to have lost all joy and hope in the Church, which Our Lord said would never fail.…..I feel sorry for you, and I will pray for you.

By the way,I am not a “fan” of Pope Benedict XVI (another nasty dig), but his faithful daughter in the Church. (doesn’t mean I agree with him always on matters not dogmatic). However I’d rather be The Holy Father’s “fan” than be considered a follower of your gloom and doom vision of the Church.

Praise to Our Lord Jesus Christ and His Most Holy Mother!


Barbara"

So I won't bother next time to respond to such an unpolite person like Miss/Mrs Barbara.

You asked for answers, you've been given several with detailed, precised, checked references and explanations.
Then you pour your disdain and insults on me because I simply read a text you seem unable to read. To have a brain and to use it is highly commended you know ? In particular by this pope, but probably you haven't read much of his numerous speeches praising the use of human reason in connection with the faith.

I understand that, like the unbelievable pink glasses Okie, you keep wanting to live in a wonderful Church, with a supposedly benevolent Curia, with saints in every corner.

Sorry Miss it's not the real world. Don't throw vicious stones to the messenger.
Besides I've probably done 20 times more than Okie, Henry and yourself altogether for TLM and priests, I will certainly continue despite adversity under the new course of this pontificate : so please don't patronise me.
Thanks.

Alsaticus

nb. for your additional information, all Catholic media in Europe are delivering the same analysis as mine : a bland document that won't change nearly anything. If you had been following news, you would have known about a petition supported here on this blog because of the maneuvers in Rome, I've signed it and you ?

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 309   Newer› Newest»