Rorate Caeli

Fellay: "mixed feelings" about the Instruction

In an interview available at the website of the German District of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX /SSPX), its Superior General, Bishop Bernard Fellay, expresses "mixed feelings" about the Instruction Universae Ecclesiae - particularly about n. 19 and n. 31.


On the point of the "legitimacy" of the ancient rite, the Fraternity is "clearly unsatisfied" - "why would one go to the ancient Mass if one is satisfied with the new one?"

On the point of the prohibition of ordinations, Fellay is of the opinion that they should have been given the same freedom expected in the celebration of the Mass.

Regarding the doctrinal talks, the Superior General says that they are covered by confidentiality, and that time will tell if there will come a moment for a joint declaration - though a reconciliation is not to be expected "in the short term". "It is very, very hard to say something clear regarding the outcome of the talks".

[Source: Kreuz.net; tip: reader & Angelqueen]

51 comments:

New Catholic said...

Our caveats regarding the Instruction are related to those exact same points, nn. 19 and 31 - 19, as a matter of practicality and the wideness of the concept of "legitimacy"; 31, as a matter of general principle.

NC

Anonymous said...

/sigh

That Fellay isn't thrilled about the ordinations bit, no problem. But UE 19 shouldbe no problem for him at all - unless he decides to become a sedevacantist afterall. Now many commenters friendly to the SSPX keep repeating that the SSPX has never stated anything that runs counter to UE 19. So let them maintain that position and keep silent about that paragraph! Grumbling about it can only be seen as pandering to part of the SSPX base who sometimes DO hold the positions excluded in UE19. Fellay can't have it both ways: either the SSPX is obedient to the pope, or it isn't, and if they do recognize the authority of the pope, they should admonish their followers who don't, rather than playing nice with them.

And before some raises the point that UE19 could be used as an excuse by malevolent bishops to again impede EF masses for SSPX followers: that's laughably ineffective - the objection would last only as long as the persons concerned need to declare that they do recognize the pope's authority, that is, 1 second.

Steve said...

The Pope didn't say Traditionalists have to be "satisfied" with the NO, but only admit that it's "legitimit." That's not asking much. It's merly an agreement that the Roman Pontiff has the right to promulgate a Roman Missial, which he legally did. That's all. As a Traditionalist, I can agree with that.

New Catholic said...

We can all agree with that - the problem is, for Catholics who PETITION for the Mass in each Parish/Diocese (they are the ones to whom this n. 19 is addressed), who defines what is "legitimacy"?... Is it enough for them to declare it? Must they attend the NO, at least once, under the careful eye of the Parish Priest or Diocesan "Inquisitor", so that they can show they are bona fide Catholics?... It is clear that Traditional-minded Catholics are objectively placed as second-tier Catholics by n. 19.

Mere acceptance of "validity" would not entail any of this: "legitimacy" was added for a reason, words are never misplaced in legal texts and we cannot just pretend that "validity" and "legitimacy" are synonymous or quasi-synonymous...

Anonymous said...

I'm not much interested in Bishop Fellay's comments on U.E. They are not particularly insightful (not a criticism, just an observation).

I am much more intrerested in his open references here to "joint declarations" and "reconciliation". Even to mention such as possibiilites looks to me like the changing of tune. Methinks something is in the works--something imperfect like, like, like--like the Instruction itself!

He seems to be pointing to a difference between joint declaration (likely on doctrine) and reconciliation (likely on unity). Of course, a joint declaration might very well be followed by a unilateral regularisation from Benedict XVI. You never know.

I happen to think that this Pope wants somehow to finish the work he almost accomplished in 1988. He doesn't have forever to do it. If this separation is not addressed soon, it might not be solved for some decades to come.

P.K.T.P.

New Catholic said...

I agree with you, Mr. Perkins.

paul said...

Apb. Lefebvre is quoted by Michael Davies as describing the NOM as "a bastard rite" (Lille, 29 August 1976).

So, unless the translation from the French adds something surprising, this sounds like questioning the legitimacy of the NOM to me (as opposed to its mere validity). Thus para. 19 should indeed be a matter of interest to the SSPX ... "rule 19: no Lefebvrists!"

Anonymous of 07:38 may be correct when he says "many commenters friendly to the SSPX keep repeating that the SSPX has never stated anything that runs counter to UE 19", but IMHO those "many commenters" would not be correct in what they "keep repeating".

Practically speaking, para. 19 may be not so much of a problem, especially as it's not unknown for SSPX followers to be enjoined to eschew anything connected with the NOM (as most SP/UE TLMs will be, in the sense they are celebrated by priests who accept the NOM as legitimate); thus SSPX-ers won't be even be asking for parish TLMs in the first place.

But as a matter of principle, para. 19 is pretty awful:
(1) it revives the terminology of the 1984 Indult (which inherently tacitly endorsed the idea of the abrogation of the TLM, as contradicted by SP_
(2) it cruelly excludes some of the people who most feel the need for the TLM (i.e. those who find the NOM at least illegitimate) from asking for same. Indeed, it in a sense excommunicates them.

Paul

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

Until the New Mass is condemned for the abomination that it is, these instructions will have little effect.

Anonymous said...

@Paul

Regarding your first point: it sounds a bit farfetched to me (abrogation is clearly not in BXVI's mind), but we'll have to see.

Regarding those who consider the NO illegitimate, well, in my book they are placing themselves in a position close to excommunicate. Afterall, you can only arrive at such a position if you're a sedevacantist, or if you deny the authority of a pope to promulgate a new missal. That directly affects the office of Peter, and ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia ...

I maintain that the pope is not asking too much with UE 19.

paul said...

yikes, at least two pauls here ... small p and big P

Julie said...

Considering that the SSPX is actually BUILDING new seminaries and continues to GROW, as opposed to the status quo in most dioceses where seminaries, churches and schools are closing at an increasing rate, the future is clearly on the side of Bishop Fellay.

The SSPX is a force that must be reckoned with.

Sure hope your musings are correct, P.K.T.P.

paul said...

@ Anonymous 12:29

(small-p paul responding to your response to mine of 11:26)

Abp. Lefebvre wasn't a sede. but called the NOM "bastard".

Cheers
paul

Anonymous said...

For legitimacy UE means that the NO was promulgated according to law (divine and/or ecclesiastic). Some people say that the NO is illegitimate because of Quo Primum, but that is clearly a error because a legislator cannot bind his successors.

So, UE19 is just asking people to be rational.

Jordanes551 said...

Until the New Mass is condemned for the abomination that it is, these instructions will have little effect.

However, God has deprived the Church of the ability to pronounce a condemnation on her formally approved Eucharistic liturgies.

Anonymous said...

Some SSPX supporters can say Sec. 19 doesn't say anything against them, but it doesn't matter what they say does it, since it was given to the wolves the power to interpret this section.

An objective view of things shows that the SSPX criticism of the New Mass is a criticism of "legitimacy" ... and probably also "validity". Go read the FAQ on the SSPX's USA District website on the Novus Ordo and see for yourself. Inter alia, the SSPX position there maintains the Missal was never properly promulgated ... which is a criticism of its validity in creating a new obligation (which is not necessarily the same as saying the rite itself is invalid, but certainly it is the argument that it is not legitimate).

Section 19 says "support or belong to". No lay people (except for the third order) "belong to" the SSPX, but apparently a request for a diocesan traditional mass can be denied if a reticent priest happens to know you threw 50 cents into the collection basket at a SSPX chapel at some point.

Anonymous said...

Why is it that any criticism of the modernists' attempt to condemn those who have reservations about the NO is seen as disloyal to the Pope and subsequently to Holy Mother Church? Are we adults capable of accepting criticism and responding in a charitable and thoughtful manner or are we liturgical thugs out to silence the opposition?

And here's one for you - what is the NO? Is it the innumerable versions of what was once one "form" in the Missal, I said Missal, of Paul VI that is now whatever the mind of the celebrant and the laity think it to be? It seems that anyone who is trying to be truthful would admit that there is no such thing as one "form" of the NO as it is implemented around the Church. But that cannot be said of the TLM or the traditional form of the sacraments. What you see there is what you get - here, there and everywhere.

My own opinion, repeat opinion, on this is neither #19 or #31 of the Clarification is necessary except to disenfranchise Catholics from the traditional form of the sacraments. It is the loophole that any Modernist could drive a truck through.

Furthermore, it seems to be an obvious attempt to further the division among Catholics by placing one faction against the other and using the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as the vehicle to accomplish this further division. And, it is a not-so-veiled attempt to further denigrate the FSSPX and those who sympathize with them. In summary, it is wholly unnecessary and bad karma to boot.

If there is ever a reconciliation to take place in the Church it seems to me that it must start with the Worldwide Apostolic Administration for the "traditional use" (how's that for an adaptation?) of the sacraments and include the SSPX as fully-fledged members of that Administration in "full communion" with the Holy See. Failing that, we will continue to see the division fester and no amount of "clarifications" will solve the problem. But again, folks, this is my opinion on the matter.

LtCol Paul E. Haley, USAF(Ret)

Anonymous said...

New Catholic states that "It is clear that Traditional-minded Catholics are objectively placed as second-tier Catholics by n. 19."

I am so tired of so-called "traditional Catholics" claiming to be abused or "second class" and just overall "victims." It is insulting to hear such talk because there are REAL Catholics who truly ARE second-class and are abused and/or killed for their faith. I speak of those Catholics in the Middle East at this very moment. It is insulting to them that you and other "traditional-minded (who are actually conventional-minded Catholics and there is a difference) Catholics keep wallowing in your "victim status." Perhaps you should take as the patron of your "cause" Don Quixote, for you truly are fighting with ghosts in your own mind.

You are in desperate need of some perspective New Catholic. You are becoming very bitter. You are not only hurting yourself but you are hurting the reputation of this web site and the others who are associated with it.

JM said...

Trads *are* treated as second-class citizens. Your trick of trying to shift a particular discussion to those suffering physically in nigihmare regions is lame. There are different types of suffering, obviously. Most relevant here is my suffering from your histronics. Desist please. Fellay has been playing the man in these talks, to a Vatican Machine insisting on calling good what has been a poorly conceived and badly executed liturgical quagmire. Sorry if that truth stings just a bit. I know the thought of criticizing Rome is an offensive one.

New Catholic said...

13:59 Anonymous: you are absolutely right. The INTERPRETERS are the local parish and diocesan structures.

14:15 Anonymous: if you think that about this poor opinionator, please pray for my soul to the Holy Queen. I can assure you that this site is where is has always been - just re-read our archives... Always hopeful and good-humored, but always realistic.

Anonymous said...

JM,
Nothing "stings" from your warped view of the Church JM I assure you.

Have a good day.

M. A. said...

'Non-bitter', no-trad, Mr. congenial, ANON 14:15 says to our esteemed and mild NC:

"I am so tired of so-called...."

"It is insulting to hear such talk.."

"... for you truly are fighting with ghosts in your own mind."

"You are in desperate need.."

"You are becoming very bitter."
___________

NC, just ignore such nonsense. It is so easy to see who the bitter ones really are, and it isn't you. Nor do I worry about ruining my reputation by frequenting this site, and mingling here with other valiant, Traditional-minded Catholics whose intelligent and knowledgeable commentary I appreciate.

God bless you and this apostolate!

Cruise the Groove. said...

Anon,

How is JM's point of view "warped" as you say?
There are many suffering in the Church and there are various kinds of suffering.

Thank you,
Anonymous

Anonymous said...

Jordanes
There are bishops in good standing right now who are publicly saying that the ICEL translated liturgy (i.e., the "Ordinary Form" in English) contains theological errors. So...that means they are condemning what is an officially approved liturgy, unless theological error is not worthy of condemnation. Just noting that this is more complicated that simple answers.
That said, it is hard to fathom that the Roman Church could formally promulgate liturgical forms which have formal invalidity, sacrilege or heresy. That would seem to violate every idea of indefectibility of the Church. On the other hand, there are so many options that it is possible that when one combines all the options, along with poor discipline and example from Rome, you end up with something very close to formally bad liturgy. J Brown

Sam said...

The problem with #19 is not, perhaps, in the intent behind it, but in the easy excuse it could provide. A priest of good intent could read UE and say: “I will help this group discover the error of their schismatic tendency, and gladly provide the liturgy they request.” A priest who begrudges any catering to groups that smell too traditionalist could easily say: “UE says this is a group who does not qualify, therefore I am not obliged to help them.” I think it’s unfortunate that #19 could be used as a weapon to drive certain folks back into their burrows where they feel a need to barricade themselves against the hierarchy. That is, of course, assuming that there are any priests out here with less than generous attitudes toward the traditional liturgy.

Athelstane said...

The problem with #19 is not, perhaps, in the intent behind it, but in the easy excuse it could provide.

Exactly. And those of us who have tussled with intransigent chanceries already know that it is sure to be (mis)used in just this way at some point.

Fortunately, there is a clear appeals process in place. But that means a lot of work and patience to clear up the roadblocks. What is ultimately needed is more bishops who are open and generous to tradition. All the instructions in the world won't make up for that.

Anonymous said...

Neophyte - Part 1

The fact that Archbp Lefebvre called the NO a "bastard rite" in French may or may not have the signification that he considered it illegitimate.

He clearly felt that the imposition of the NO was an abuse. That the papal acts leading to its institution were illegitimate in a certain sense, in the sense that no Pope should have crafted a new rite the way it was done in 1965-1969.

But Archbp Lefebvre was clear in his recognition of the authority of the Pope. His "disobedience", if one can call it such, was only with regards to preserving the birthright of Catholics that as a priest at his ordination he had sworn to defend, notably the Traditional Mass. Even so, one can debate how rash such a "disobedience" was, when only 22 years after the Council had ended, a Council he was a signatory to, did he feel he had ample reason to feel that there was a state of emergency to consecrate new bishops.

"Bastard" could mean in the sense of its creation, and perhaps a better English translation of what the Archbp intended to say was "bastardized" rather than "bastard", since I agree that "bastard" alludes to illegitimacy.

I maintain, as I did in the original post, that UE19 is not a threat to the SSPX or to Traditionalists who view the NO as inferior and hacked and who believe in fact that from the standpoint of the long term view of the Church it is venially sinful to assist at an NO.

I have not seen Fr Z's comment on the Latin word actually used to designate "illegitimate" and what the legal sense of that term is, and perhaps I am wrong in how I am reading it.

But I see UE 19 as condemning two thesis:
1. That the NO is invalid: that is, actually not effecting the blood-less re-enactment of the Sacrifice of Calvary;
2. That the NO is illegitimate: that is, illicit, and actually goes against the perennial law of the Church.

(to be continued)
---
Sincerely Neophyte

Anonymous said...

Neophyte - Part 2 (continued from previous post)

Thesis (1) would mean that 99% of the Catholic Church has stopped effecting the bloodless sacrifice of the Mass for over 40 years, including every Pope, Bishop and most of the clergy.

Thesis (2) would mean that 99% of the Church has engaged in an illicit or canonically illegal celebration of the Mass for over 41years.

The SSPX has a softer view than thesis (2) as I read it, but I am not an SSPX member and neither am am I an SSPX official spokesperson.

In my view, the SSPX believes that the NO procures a valid Mass, albeit one that is greatly inferior, when compared to the Traditional Mass, in the Adoration, Reparation, Thanksgiving and power of Petition Mass; that is, in the key benefits one derives from the Mass.

And secondly, I believe that the SSPX believes that the Pope's authority de jure makes the NO Mass licit/legal/legitimate (when offered according to the Latin and faithful vernacular translations without addition or deletion of other rubrics and factors). But that the Pope's use of his authority to craft a "bastardized" rite, that is, a form that did not develop naturally from the previous form, but was manually hacked and pieced together unnaturally and in a forced way, with advice from heretics, represented an abuse of Papal power, and that in assisting at those Masses, the faithful, esp those who know their history and how things came to be, perpetuate that abuse against the birthright Mass of each Catholic. Being against the abuse of Papal power in forcing an unnatural rite on the Church is not the same as claiming that the Pope did not have the power to do so.

So, I see a distinction. But I concede, I am not a canon lawyer who can accurately describe the Latin and canonical etymology and intent of the word translated into English as "illegitimate".

I think Bp Fellay had to express some concern about UE19 because as this very post and the responses show, it hardly added clarity in any true sense and will likely create confusion. Since some Bishops appear to be intent on disobeying the "mens" of the Holy Father on this issue, it is possible that some will use this to persecute SP Traditionalists, although I feel that the rest of the document is so forceful that they will not have a leg to stand on if they insist on persecuting Traditionalists.

I don't believe SSPXers will be rushing to non-SSPX chapels anytime soon anyways, so clearly UE19 will not affect them. It will also not effect traditionalists who are not members of the SSPX who want the TLM because the rest of UE is geared precisely to promote that occurrence.

As PKTP states, once the Holy Father and the SSPX have their relations normalized, such a development will be the best clarification as to whether UE19 can or cannot be held against those who hold the SSPX view.
Until that happens, UE19 won't effect either non-SSPX traditionalists or SSPX traditionalists. The former is now freer to celebrate the TLM, the latter is unimpacted from their current irregular state.

So overall, I posit that UE19 is not negatively impactful to the benefit of UE.

Sincerely, Neophyte

Anonymous said...

Dear N.C.:

I don't think that any real test can be imposed on petitioners for No. 19. You could in no way question the legitimacy of NewMass and yet still refuse to attend it for other reasons. Maybe you just don't like it. So they can't force anyone to attend NewMass in order to satisfy No. 19. At most, a bishop might force petitioners to sign a statement that they do not quesion validity or legitimacy.

As your say, this only applies for petitioners and not for eveyone who comes to benefit from the celebration of the T.L.M. So the others in your group just don't become petionters.

This is a nothing Article; it is a red flag inserted by Levada to cheer the defeated bishops. They are defeated by Nos. 10 through 12.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Neophyte - Part 2 (continued from Part 1)

Thesis (1) would mean that 99% of the Catholic Church has stopped effecting the bloodless sacrifice of the Mass for over 40 years, including every Pope, Bishop and most of the clergy.

Thesis (2) would mean that 99% of the Church has engaged in an illicit or canonically illegal celebration of the Mass for over 41years.

The SSPX has a softer view than thesis (2) as I read it, but I am not an SSPX member and neither am am I an SSPX official spokesperson.

In my view, the SSPX believes that the NO procures a valid Mass, albeit one that is greatly inferior, when compared to the Traditional Mass, in the Adoration, Reparation, Thanksgiving and power of Petition Mass; that is, in the key benefits one derives from the Mass.

And secondly, I believe that the SSPX believes that the Pope's authority de jure makes the NO Mass licit/legal/legitimate (when offered according to the Latin and faithful vernacular translations without addition or deletion of other rubrics and factors). But that the Pope's use of his authority to craft a "bastardized" rite, that is, a form that did not develop naturally from the previous form, but was manually hacked and pieced together unnaturally and in a forced way, with advice from heretics, represented an abuse of Papal power, and that in assisting at those Masses, the faithful, esp those who know their history and how things came to be, perpetuate that abuse against the birthright Mass of each Catholic. Being against the abuse of Papal power in forcing an unnatural rite on the Church is not the same as claiming that the Pope did not have the power to do so.

So, I see a distinction. But I concede, I am not a canon lawyer who can accurately describe the Latin and canonical etymology and intent of the word translated into English as "illegitimate".

I think Bp Fellay had to express some concern about UE19 because as this very post and the responses show, it hardly added clarity in any true sense and will likely create confusion. Since some Bishops appear to be intent on disobeying the "mens" of the Holy Father on this issue, it is possible that some will use this to persecute SP Traditionalists, although I feel that the rest of the document is so forceful that they will not have a leg to stand on if they insist on persecuting Traditionalists.

I don't believe SSPXers will be rushing to non-SSPX chapels anytime soon anyways, so clearly UE19 will not affect them. It will also not effect traditionalists who are not members of the SSPX who want the TLM because the rest of UE is geared precisely to promote that occurrence.

As PKTP states, once the Holy Father and the SSPX have their relations normalized, such a development will be the best clarification as to whether UE19 can or cannot be held against those who hold the SSPX view.
Until that happens, UE19 won't effect either non-SSPX traditionalists or SSPX traditionalists. The former is now freer to celebrate the TLM, the latter is unimpacted from their current irregular state.

So overall, I posit that UE19 is not negatively impactful to the benefit of UE.

Sincerely, Neophyte

New Catholic said...

I do not think it can, either, Mr. Perkins. This does not mean that it will not.

NC

Anonymous said...

The term I would use for the NO is "franken-Ordo", rather than "bastard". A bastard is still naturally procured and human, whereas Frankenstein was devised through "dark sciences".

Cheers, Neophyte

Anonymous said...

I find silly and absurd the attacks on New Catholic for saying that this document makes traditionalists “second-class Catholics”. This is actually a very mild expression in English. N.C. is exactly right on this. Look, are the wild asses who abuse every rule of Holy Church required to affirm that they reject womanpriest and homomarriage and universal salvation? Can they be barred from church for refusing to affirm that there is a Purgatory and a Hell? Where is the statement from Rome requiring them to affirm church teaching on these matters as a condition for being free to ask Rome for provision of a New Mass in some outer territory that does not have one?

N.C. makes a valid point and he uses a mild expression to do it. There is no need to moan about Christians in Egypt. They are not only treated as second-class citizens: they are persecuted.

No need to dwell on this point further.

P.K.T.P.

New Catholic said...

Thank you, M.A. and Mr. Perkins.

Anonymous said...

Notice again how everyone here (or most) play right into the hands of Cardinal Levada and talk all day long about No. 19. As I have proved on this blog, 19 has no teeth. I am much more concerned about the Article on requiring basic knowldge of Latin. Were I a bitcher, that's what I would foucs on.

Again, the archtraditionalist gang here does not want to discuss the ten positive items I've listed. I wonder why.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Some nitwit wrote this:

"Section 19 says "support or belong to". No lay people (except for the third order) "belong to" the SSPX, but apparently a request for a diocesan traditional mass can be denied if a reticent priest happens to know you threw 50 cents into the collection basket at a SSPX chapel at some point."


And yet the P.C.E.D. has affirmed that we may make a small contribution to Society Masses. Mere attendance at a Society Mass "sans schismatic intent" does not mean that one questions the legitimacy of the New Mass.

Realistically, No. 19 only bars outspoken rejectors of NewMass and it only bars them as petitioners for it, not as attenders at it. It is a terror for infants. Petitioners simply leave certain names off the petition and then those people 'come along' once the Mass is approved. Duh!

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

PKTP,

I agreed with you from day 1. UE19 should be of little concern to any traditionalist, since UE is so forceful in helping traditionalists get their way "in the trenches" of modern day parish life.

But UE19 seems to be so ubiquitous and the post itself calls out Bp Fellay for pointing out his concern with it, that I felt I wanted to delve deeper into my view that UE19 is not a concern at all.

I agree that its "actual" impact will strictly be to serve as a sedative for the hyper-liberals who are absolutely chagrined by UE to begin with.

To me the real benefit of UE, besides making real strides in freeing up traditionalists who WANT the TLM, is in the re-affirmation by Pope Benedict XVI that he IS the ... (drum roll) ... VICAR OF CHRIST! I haven't heard that from a Pope recently. And the fact that UE squarely tells Bishops to put up or get out of the way has to be cosidered a real dent in the whole liberal notion of co-papacy, er, collegiality.

Sincererly, Neophyte

Anonymous said...

The chance that a Parish Priest will know that *some* petitioners for a T.L.M. reject the legitimacy of NewMass is just about zero, especially since outspoken critics of NewMass may simply not sign the petition but come along later. No. 19 has no teeth. I agree with N.C. that it is bad in principle but we needn’t dwell on it, as it can have no practical effect. Priests can’t go about accusing people of taking positions on anything. That could get them sued in civil court. Let’s just drop this.

I’d be more worried about the article on a sufficient knowledge of Latin, although it may only pertain to the Missal and not to any other text in Latin. Some bishops have indeed tried in the past to claim that certain celebrants were not qualified, as their knowledge of Latin was insufficient. I was hoping that this clarification would overcome that. Given the mens on this section, Neophyte is probably right that a celebrant having a poor grasp of Latin could use an insert to help him along. The F.S.S.P. and others can also grant certificates to those priests who have attended their study sessions.

Some Bishops will try to use any rope they are given to stop Latin Masses. But I don’t think that No. 19 gives them ample opportunity. It is more of a threat to archtraditionalists to ‘back off’ and go off to the S.S.P.X because they are not wanted here.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

IMO nobody has answered the question as to why #19 and #31 are considered necessary to be included in the Clarification document. The motive behind such actions will determine whether the Clarification document will be useful or not. If the motive is to further denigrate and ostracize those Catholics who have serious concerns about the NO, by giving local Ordinaries an excuse to deny requests for the TLM and other sacraments in the extraordinary form, then it will fail.

Already I can see a movement developing for a clarification of the clarification to the point of absurdity. The Worldwide Apostolic Administration for Traditional Use, without such problematic paragraphs as #19 and 31 in its constitution, would put the matter to rest and allow both forms to exist in a manner consistent with other rites of the Church - mozarabic, ambrosian, dominican, etc.

LtCol Paul E. Haley, USAF(Ret)

Anonymous said...

As the naysayers move in yet again, I repeat on this thread the ten excellent advances of U.E. Nos. 1 and 5 hereunder are wins against direct attempts by several bishops to limit our Mass.

1. U.E. affirms, against the campaigns of many bishops, that groups petitioning for Latin Masses in a particular parish need not be familiar with that Mass prior to the time of petitioning, and that they need not be parishioners; in fact, they can even come from beyond the diocese in question.

2. In Article 28, it preserves the written and customary laws pertaining to the year 1962, not allowing subsequent written laws to alter them.

3. It applies to the pre-conciliar proper Uses of religious orders, despite attempts to prevent that by Levada and his Maltese lawyer.

4. It restores the Rituale, Cæremoniale Episcoporum, Pontificale of 1962, with, admitedly, one important exception.

5. It clarifies that any priest [including a retired priest in good standing] has a right to repair to a parish church of his choice, having given reasonable notice, to offer the T.L.M. when the church is free, and he can bring invited guests with him and they can fulfil their Sunday obligation there.

6. Masses sine populo [which can include invited guests] do not require any permission from local bishops or superiors of religious.

7. Permission to use the vernacular alone in all 1962 Masses for the lections has been restricted in this Instruction: vernacular alone for the lections may only be used at Low Masses. This was *not* in S.P. itself. It is a new restriction on the use of the vernacular.

8. The pre-conciliar Breviary is permitted; pre-conciliar Confirmation is permitted.

9. The Sacred Triduum is permitted and now, in a territorial parish church, needs the permission of only a parish priest and not the bishop.

10. Most of all, it finally removes the ultimate power of the local bishops—important given the fact that their obstruction has been the principal defect of S.P.

I note that, in several of these matters, we have fought long and hard to achieve what this Instruction confers.

P.K.T.P.

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

SSPX bishops or priests refuse to celebrate the Novus Ordo Missae in any form. Does not that indicate a clear concern with its moral legitimacy?

Cruise the Groove. said...

One of the problems that we see for people that go to SSPX Masses, is that many of them go to SSPX confessions, and so far there is no Holy See provision for faculties for SSPX priests to absolve sins.

Anonymous said...

Dear Brother Anthony,

I would answer Yes, it does. But moral legitimacy is different than legal legitimacy.

Nonetheless, since SSPX is not the intended beneficiary of UE, it is a mute point as some have noted here.

What it might do is prevent the SSPX from offering the TLM in a non-SSPX parish, but the chance of that happening at this time is nil.

If and once the Vatican and SSPX agree on regularization terms, and the SSPX are regularized, one would infer at that point that said regularization in itself clarifies that UE19 does not refer to the SSPX.

At least this is how I read the situation.

Neophyte

Parson's Nose said...

To Delphina:

Goodness, I didn't mean to say anything uncharitable and if I have been flippant it is against myself first, for I am but the Parson's Nose.

But if I might dare, I would dare to disagree that you couldn't run a blog. It is not yourself that must shine forth, but the gift God has given you, your faith.

You could put up pictures or prayers, quotes from the holy books and a few good thoughts of your own. I would click on your site!

Even if you don't get called to Rome for the best blog award you would gain merits for your soul and eternity by being involved in the Church's mission of New Evangelization.

That's better that just sitting around and having to join in the buzz sessions criticizing what others are doing. Even if your blog gets only a few hits a week, it will stand there like a beacon of brightness in the dark, helping to balance off the pornography and sinful sites with something far better. So let your light shine before men, Our Lord said. You've been commenting here for a long time. You could also manage to upload through blogger.

Yes, santo subito, for Delphina of Siena; and may her light so shine before men, that they may see her good works and glorify her Father in heaven.

Viva Delphina, with God's gracve you could do it.

Una Voce Toronto said...

Brother Anthony T.O.S.F. said, "Until the New Mass is condemned for the abomination that it is, these instructions will have little effect."

Really?

Corpus Christi Thursday June 23 Toronto, Missa Cantata possibly becoming Missa Solemnis, St. Mark's Church, two blocks from SSPX

July 1 Toronto Sacred Heart Feast Toronto, Missa Solemnis to be announced next week with a ???

July 1. Kitchener, Ontario Diocese of Hamilton, Missa Solemnis at Blessed Sacrament with the Bishop of Hamilton in choro.

Now, what was that you said?

Anonymous said...

I can assure you that there are those of us who tire from keeping a monthly TLM going when the parish and priest are LESS THAN helpful. I believe that it would not be OUR failure if it doesn't succeed. The responsibility truly falls on the Bishops and Priests who refuse/limit our entrance. Our family will always look for a TLM and the SSPX chapel is an appealing option even though we would have to travel 50 minutes. It is the Mass that matters!

Anonymous said...

It is disheartening to have appeals sent to local priests, Bishops, and even Ecclesia Dei either rejected or ignored. The only comfort we can take is in the hope that God's Will be done.

pclaudel said...

Una Voce Toronto: If three sung masses in Ontario constitute a UE-prompted revival of Tradition, then everyone from Aristotle's time to this who has accepted as true the view that one swallow does not a summer make nor one day of happiness a lifetime of felicity has been grossly misled or self-deceived.

My money says that Aristotle and Brother Anthony are right.

LeonG said...

Once again, I have to submit the seriously disturbing possibility that the NO was created and implemented as an instrument to deconstruct the "bastions" of the traditional church; it was largely the brainchild of a man who was most likely a freemason and, therefore, excommunicated by default and it was approved by a pope whose private life was abominable (demonstrable evidence exists) and whose liberal modernism had been condemned in anticipation by Pope St Pius X. Thus, I must agree with Brother Anthony - the NO is an abomination and I am only sorry that SSPX apparently abandoned its validity thesis set out in an exploratory booklet many years ago. Be that as it may, there is no doubt at all that many presbyters say invalid NO services because they do not believe in transubstantiation at all - I also know some of them. On occasion they used hosts that contained invalidating substances. They also used forms other than those contained in the Pauline books. In fact, this type of praxis is systemic and has been witnessed everywhere I have travelled and worked.

LeonG said...

As a consequence to those opinions expressed above, it is unfortunate that the Instruction and the SP link inextricably the NO and the TLM because, in principle, this is unacceptable to any truly traditional Roman Catholic. A factor well-understood by the current pope. In fact, it is an inherently repugnant notion that a symbol of the liberalist liturgical revolution that is the NO ought to be equated with the Holy Mass for the Latin Rite Church which is the historical and theologically infallibly guaranteed embodiment of the Roman Catholic Faith in its complete authentic organic sense. Nothing else will suffice. Moreover, it is at this critical liturgical point where the hermeneutic of continuity fails. Objectively speaking, they are two widely divergent forms representing two totally different and contrasting liturgical and pastoral paradigms.

Anonymous said...

Regarding the TLM and NO:

"Objectively speaking, they are two widely divergent forms representing two totally different and contrasting liturgical and pastoral paradigms."

Well said LeonG! And this is one case where opposites DO NOT attract!

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

"Now, what was that you said?"

A few Traditional Masses here and there are exactly that - very little effect.

As long as the pope continues to defend and promote the Novus Ordo Missae, the effect will be very small.