Rorate Caeli

IMPORTANT
Pozzo speaks

[UPDATED] From an extensive interview granted by the Secretary of the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei", Mgr. Guido Pozzo, to Nouvelles de France. [Tip: reader.]

"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." (Instruction Universae Ecclesiae, n. 19). Is this remark directed at the Fraternity of Saint Pius X?

The article of the Instruction to which you refer is related to certain groups of faithful who consider or propose an antithesis between the Missal of 1962 and that of Paul VI, and who believe that the rite promulgated by Paul VI for the celebration of the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass is detrimental to the faithful. I wish to make it clear that it is clearly necessary to distinguish the rite and the Missal in themselves, celebrated according to the norms, and a certain understanding and application of the liturgical reform, characterized by ambiguity, doctrinal deformations, abuses and banalizations, events that are unfortunately so common that they led Cardinal J. Ratzinger to speak, without hesitations, in one of his publications of a "collapse of the liturgy". It would be unfair and false to consider the reformed Missal the cause of such a collapse. At the same time, it is necessary to receive the doctrine and the discipline that Pope Benedict XVI gave us in his Apostolic Letter Summorum Pontificum for the restoration of the extraordinary form of the ancient Roman Rite and to follow the exemplary manner in which the Holy Father celebrates Holy Mass in the ordinary form at Saint Peter's, in his pastoral visits, and in his apostolic journeys. 
Does the Fraternity of Saint Pius X recognize this missal [of Paul VI] as valid and licit?
It is the Fraternity of Saint Pius X that should be asked that. 

Does the Holy Father wish the Fraternity of Saint Pius X to reconcile with Rome? 
Certainly. The letter of removal of excommunications of the four Bishops illegitimately consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre is the expression of the desire of the Holy Father to favor the reconciliation of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X with the Holy See. 

The content of the discussions that take place between Rome and the Fraternity of Saint Pius X is secret, but what points do they touch and in what manner do they progress? 
The essential point is of a doctrinal nature. In order to reach a true reconciliation, it is necessary to move past certain doctrinal problems that are at the basis of the current fracture. In the ongoing talks, there is a confrontation of arguments between the experts chosen by the Fraternity of Saint Pius X and the experts chosen by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. In the end, conclusive summaries of the positions of both parties are written. The themes under discussion are known: primacy and episcopal collegiality; relations between the Catholic Church and non-Catholic Christian confessions; religious liberty; the Missal of Paul VI. At the end of the talks, the results of the discussions will be submitted to the respective authorized levels for an overall evaluation.

It does not seem conceivable that a call into question of the Second Vatican Council may happen. Therefore, where do these discussions might lead? To a better understanding of this? 
They concern a clarification of points that detail the exact meaning of the teaching of the Council. It is what the Holy Father started to do on December 22, 2005, by interpreting the Council within a hermeneutic of renewal in continuity. Nevertheless, there are certain objections of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X that do make sense, because there has been an interpretation of rupture. The goal is to show that it is necessary to interpret the Council in the continuity of the Tradition of the Church. 
Cardinal Ratzinger was in charge of these discussions for nearly 20 years. Does he still follow the progress now as Pope? 
First, there is the role of the secretary, which is that of organizing and taking care of the good development of the discussions. The evaluation of these is the responsibility of the Holy Father, who follows the discussions, with Cardinal Levada, is informed of them, and  gives his opinion. The same goes regarding all points with which the Congregation deals.
[See also: Fellay speaks]

54 comments:

New Catholic said...

This translation, as the one that preceded it, was done much faster than it would be desirable... Apologies for any inaccuracies.

Anonymous said...

Interesting.

Bp Fellay alludes in ever so subtle a manner of the end of "a phase". I agree with PKTP in the previous post who posits that this means that there is some demarker between the end of these doctrinal discussions and a "next phase".

What will that demarker be? Normalization? Likely not given the SSPX's stated desire to have clarity of doctrine before normalization.

Perhaps Mgr Pozzo gives us a clue when he states that (at least) some of the SSPX concerns "make sense" given the "intrepretation of rupture".

Therefore, it would appear that some document will be published as the demarker of this "phase" that summarizes the perspective of the CDF and that of the SSPX on primacy and episcopal collegiality, relations with non-Catholic confessions, religious liberty and the Missal of Paul VI.

The wording may or may not seek some common ground with SSPX, without being overly generous to the traditionalist cause, but will IMHO seek to entrench the "hermeneutic of continuity". This will be used by the Holy Father to continue dialogue with the SSPX but primarily as another weapon in his quiet battles against the lavender mafia in the college of Cardinals.

If I am right, I think this will be a yawner for us who have high expectations of something historic.

I am not Spartacus said...

"...interpreting the Council within a hermeneutic of renewal in continuity... "reads differently than ..."interpret the Council in the continuity of The Tradition of The Church."

The phrases seem to be used interchangeably and so if it is to be claimed that both phrases mean essentially the same thing then why not stick with the one phrase referencing Tradition?

And is it just me or does "continuity" in the phrase referencing Tradition seem a needless tautology or is there such a thing as discontinuous Tradition?

In any event, thank you. NC, for the translations.

I confess that my ears perk-up when I hear or read the word "renewal" because my experience with it over the past one-half century has not been pleasant.

Cruise the Groove. said...

Does the SSPX recognize this missal [of Paul VI] as valid and licit?

From what I have heard from SSPX priests and seen on their webpage in the USA, the Society recognizes the Missal of Paul VI as valid but not licit.

dcs said...

"Nevertheless, there are certain objections of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X that do make sense" - that is quite an admission on the part of Msgr. Pozzo.

bernadette said...

Cruise the Groove said this..."From what I have heard from SSPX priests and seen on their webpage in the USA, the Society recognizes the Missal of Paul VI as valid but not licit."

My question is this:
How can something have legal force (valid), but not be lawful (licit)?
That sounds like Vatican II ambiguous talk...

Joe B said...

Speculating that the next phase is the drafting of clarification documents on how to interpret the council consistent with tradition and agreeable to both sides. It needs to be done. Now that Rome apparently agrees that one might have logical concerns about the obvious meaning of the controversial subjects, then the two sides should and could work together to draft a clarification to end such a source of division. If so, I think it bodes well. This is far more important than some statement on the validity of confessions by SSPX, which is what Bishop Fellay is saying. I think.

Anonymous said...

On Anon. 20.52's remarks, I expect that the demarker might be a juridical provision but will definitely not be normalisation (regularisation).

Anon. seems to mean that the demarker will not be seen to be something historic. Whether or not the impression matches the objective situation is another matter.

If the Holy See 'finds' that the S.S.P.X is Catholic, well, that will be major objectively (in the longer term) but could be sold as a mere table scrap. This Pope will go a bit further. I think he'll grant temporary faculties (maily for Society supporters), remind everyone that they are only temporary and then ask faithful not to receive Sacraments through Society priests until the doctrinal matters have been settled. This request will be expressed in emotional terms.

A long period of doc talks with the Society's faculties recognised would help put pressure on the bishops to arrange for the celebration of more Latin Masses. This, in turn, would limit the reach of the S.S.P.X but without causing its decline.

It's all about 'managing' traditionalists and buying time. Time is needed for more liberal prelates to retire. A slow and gradual process ensures a smooth transition. From 1984 to the present, Rome's strategy has been to restore tradition but to do so slowly, so that the prelates who implemented the reforms don't lose face.

The problem, of course, is that the decline and fall of the Church of the New World Order is not occurring at this same slow and gradual rate. That's quite a problem.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

bernadette said...

"My question is this:
How can something have legal force (valid), but not be lawful (licit)?"

I think the confusion here is common, unfortunately. "Valid" (vs. invalid) is a way of expressing whether or not the sacrament in question actually occurred, i.e. were the requirements of matter, form, and intent met? "Licit" (vs. illicit) with regard to sacraments refers to permission, under the law, to confect the sacrament. Ordinations in the schismatic Eastern "Orthodox" Churches, which have preserved the Apostolic Succession, are valid but illicit. A "black mass" could be valid but would always be illicit. Canon Fr. Hesse (RIP) taught that any liturgy which is displeasing to God is illicit.

Louis

Anonymous said...

Joe B.:

Yes, in principle (and that is the subject here!), you are right. But it will take some time to reconcile Society and NewChurch positions. I would say that the time it will take is infinite, since the positions are irreconcilable.

It's the beginning of a process than can only succeed if one side changes its tune. The Conciliar Church can change tunes if the whistlers are replaced. So Tissier has it right: give it a minimum of thirty years. Fifty seems more likely.

P.K.T.P.

John L said...

Here's the sting in this interview:

Nouvelles de France: « Les fidèles qui demandent la célébration de la forme extraordinaire ne doivent jamais venir en aide ou appartenir à des groupes qui nient la validité ou la légitimité de la Sainte Messe ou des sacrements célébrés selon la forme ordinaire, ou qui s’opposent au Pontife romain comme Pasteur suprême de l’Église universelle » (Instruction Universae Ecclesiae, § 19). Cette remarque vise-t-elle la Fraternité Saint Pie X ?

Pozzo; L’article de l’Instruction auquel vous vous référez concerne certains groupes de fidèles qui considèrent ou postulent une antithèse entre le Missel de 1962 et celui de Paul VI, et qui pensent que le rite promulgué par Paul VI pour la célébration du Sacrifice de la Sainte Messe est nuisible aux fidèles. Je veux préciser qu’il faut nettement distinguer le rite et le Missel comme tel, célébré selon les normes, et une certaine compréhension et application de la réforme liturgique caractérisée par l’ambiguïté, les déformations doctrinales, les abus et les banalisations, phénomènes malheureusement assez diffusés qui ont amené le Cardinal J. Ratzinger à parler sans hésiter dans l’une de ses publications d’« écroulement de la liturgie ». Il serait injuste et faux d’attribuer au Missel réformé la cause d’un tel écroulement.

For the non-Francophones; the interviewer asks if article 19 of Universae Ecclesiae refers to the SSPX. Pozzo answers that it refers to anyone who holds that there is some contradiction between the missal of 1962 and the missal of Paul VI, or that the missal of Paul VI is in some way harmful to the faithful. He specifies that he is talking about the missal of Paul VI celebrated according to the proper norms, not about the distorted practices that were used to celebrate it. He claims that it is these distorted practices, not the Novus Ordo itself, that were responsible for the collapse of the liturgy that Cardinal Ratzinger referred to in some of his works, and that it is false and unjust to blame this collapse on the Novus Ordo itself.

What does this man think he is saying? He has interpreted article 19 in a way that condemns not only the SSPX but the entire traditionalist movement.

Anonymous said...

Notice how totally boring these two interviews are? Bishop Fellay and Msgr. Pozzo, I sense, are trying to put us to sleep. They time their interviews. So this is meant to put everyone off his guard. One gets the feeling from these interviews that nothing substantial will happen for a short time of, say, ten years.

So, back to dates. The doc talks are set to end “this spring”, which means that the phase is over by the 21st.

The 29th is the Feast of SS. Peter and Paul. Good time for the Pope to exercise his authority and grant something, together with some sort of joint declaration. The 30th is no good because it is the anniversary of the unapproved consecrations of 1988 (whoops!). The 1st is the Feast of the Sacred Heart and the 2nd , a Saturday, the Visitation. Then Rome closes shop and the hot summer begins.

Watch for something on the 29th, then. Maybe something signed on that day and then published in the first week of July.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

John L.:

Yes, your interpretation is correct. However, it doesn't matter in regard to U.E. The wording of the Article refers only to those who petition for a T.L.M., not all those who are permitted to benefit from its celebration. A petitioning gruop can comprise as few as three persons. So interested parties only need some of their members to sign the petition for a Mass. Afterwards, the others are free to 'come along'. So, if some in your group do not want to agree to Article 19, they simply don't join the petition.

What is perhaps more worrying is that the same principle might be applied in other documents in the future. But I think this to be a tempest in a teapot. Article 19 was only put there as a flag of defiance by Cardinal Levada and Msgr. Scicluna. It was modelled on a similar clause from the original indult of 1984, “Quattuor Abhinc Annos”. That one was (perhaps inadvertently) wiped out by the closing clause of Art. 1 of S.P. Some liberals in the curia obviously wanted it back. Let them have it. It is a terror for children.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

I think Paragraph 19 is really important to some PCED traditionalists who still hold fast to the origins of the traditional movement as well as to SSPX'ers. Both groups would say that the NOM is valid but illicit in the sense that while the consecration is valid, on a whole the Mass is desacrelizing. If we are forced to say that the TLM is just our liturgical preference then the point for the TLM to exist no longer is there. The spirituality is totally different. It cannot just be a liturgical preference.

wpaforex

Anonymous said...

"And is it just me or does 'continuity' in the phrase referencing Tradition seem a needless tautology or is there such a thing as discontinuous Tradition?"

It is a necessary redundancy in an age where people think that "tradition" is just the grab bag of things that have been done before, or whatever the Church decides to do now. While the word, itself, means "what is handed on," the concept in most people's minds these days tends to be "old stuff."

Woody said...

Peter, I bet the Holy Father will want to consider the findings of the talks over the Summer at least, so would be surprised if there an announcement so soon. OTOH, look for the erection of at least the Ordinariate for the US by the 29th.

Jordanes551 said...

For the non-Francophones; the interviewer asks if article 19 of Universae Ecclesiae refers to the SSPX. Pozzo answers that it refers to anyone who holds that there is some contradiction between the missal of 1962 and the missal of Paul VI, or that the missal of Paul VI is in some way harmful to the faithful. He specifies that he is talking about the missal of Paul VI celebrated according to the proper norms, not about the distorted practices that were used to celebrate it. He claims that it is these distorted practices, not the Novus Ordo itself, that were responsible for the collapse of the liturgy that Cardinal Ratzinger referred to in some of his works, and that it is false and unjust to blame this collapse on the Novus Ordo itself.

That seems a strange idea of "illicit" to me. Then Cardinal Ratzinger previously criticised the process of liturgical reform that produced the new Roman Missal, so couldn't even he be said to think that the reformed Missal is in some way harmful to the faithful?

Joe B said...

P.K.T.P., I'm not ready to accept that it's so hard to explain the VCII controversial documents. It can't be, or the church isn't "the ground and pillar of truth." Whatever the explanation is, the church has it.

It appears to me that the Holy Father has tried to explain the controversial documents by saying they generally addressed temporal issues or situations of limited scope, and that their usefulness has either passed or is still being tried but has limited application, and with the help of SSPX they can jointly address what the council didn't intend. However, the 'infallible whether they reject it or not' crowd just won't let their infallible pope infallibly limit his own council's scope. That's the bigger problem. That's what may take 30 or 50 years - acceptance by those who don't want to hear it.

Peter can do this. No problem.

Anonymous said...

The simple fact of the matter is that one cannot make some kind of bright line distinction between abuses of the 1970/2002 Missal and the language of the 1970/2002 Missal itself. This is because that Missal itself contains so many ambiguities and so many options (not to mention the suppression of the Offertory prayers, etc.) that they go hand in hand. It is flimsy to claim that the Novus Ordo celebrated by Pope Benedict XVI is the "true" Novus Ordo. It actually is just one of about 25 different possible "licit" variations one can have in that Mass (and that is a low estimate).

Even the Pope's Mass does not contain the traditional Offertory prayers, which most certainly are part of the Church's liturgical patrimony and which have been sharply broken away from in the new Missal. Also, the Holy Father insists on Communion in the traditional posture, generally only uses male servers, utilizes a great deal of Latin, has many traditional vestments, etc. All of these are merely options that can be "licitly" ignored by any priest in the Latin Church. Msgr Pozzo fails to mention this.

Furthermore, a Novus Ordo can be "licitly" celebrated without Latin (e.g., using the yet to be corrected English), using only girls wearing albs as servers, no Communion kneeling (or on the tongue), under both kinds, no central Crucifix/ad orientem, using Eucharistic Prayer IV, with terrible liturgical music, Eucharistic ministers, lay women readers, ugly vestments, in churches with no discernible Catholic art or imagery. To claim that this "licit" Mass as described above does not constitute an actual break with Catholic liturgical tradition is utterly wrong, but that seems to be the claim here. Such a Mass is a break from the 1962 Missal - it was intended to be such by the promulgators and originators of the 1970 Missal and subsequent options and indults/variations. It is laudable that Benedict XVI disagrees with their intentions (which failed to be carried out completely only through Divine Providence), but to actually carry such thought into action, he would need to make the above-described Mass illicit. Until such time, it is simply a fact that some "licit" celebrations of the Novus Ordo do constitute a break from the 1962 Missal and Catholic liturgical tradition. They are a "banal, on the spot production".

Basically, it would be helpful that Msgr Pozzo not be publicly commenting on such matters while they remain under discussion with the SSPX. As he acknowledges, the question of the Missal of Paul VI is one of the major topics, and all of this is under the discussion secrecy embargo. He might be prejudicing those proceedings if he is trying to circumscribe what the SSPX can actually say in its behalf (and which they see as in behalf of Tradition itself). J Brown

John McFarland said...

There is absolutely no question but that the SSPX considers the New Mass valid but illicit. What "illegitimate" means is for the Vatican to say; but clearly it was no accident that it didn't use "illicit." The Benedictine Vatican remains true to the Vatican II "pastoral" strategy of avoiding clarity.

This is all quite consistent with Cardinal Koch's remarks a while back.

The big picture goal is to organize everything around the hermeneutic of renewal in continuity -- that is, historical relativism with the Holy Ghost somehow maintaining continuity around the experience of risen Christ.

The liturgical corollary is the eventual combination of the two Masses into one, which of course would be a lot more like the new one than like the old one. Cardinal Ratzinger's critique of the New Mass in the 90's as cobbled together, banal, etc. is no longer operative. The current line is that only obvious abuses of the Novus Ordo Missae are to be criticized; the answer to all other shortcomings of the New Mass is the eventual reform or the reform that will produce a single rereformed rite.

If anyone thinks that there's anything for dogmatic or liturgical tradition in any of this, he's kidding himself.

The Vatican may well continue to replace the hierarchical bomb-throwers with more conservative types, but their replacements will be 100% committed to the program described above, or they won't be picked.

Anonymous said...

This is Anon 20:52 again.

Joe B makes some good observations however with regards to his speculation that "the next phase is the drafting of clarification documents on how to interpret the council consistent with tradition and agreeable to both sides.", while I agree that that would be the next logical step, I would be surprised (pleasantly) if it were pursued. The CDF documents tend to be wordy and written from a Vatican-2 coloured lens ... whereas the SSPX is very much into the simplicity of the Pius popes, and seeing the two bridge the divide on a mutually-agreed upon document would not be likely although I would be happy to be wrong on this.

It could be that the next phase would in fact not be a collaboration at all - that the CDF, driven by Pope Benedict XVI, would issue some "clarification document" on how to interpret Vatican 2 in a "hermenutic of continuity", with an understanding of what was discussed with the Society. Like most things coming out of Rome wrt Tradition these days, I would imagine that there would be hopeful signs mixed in with some ambiguous disconcerting things that themselves would require a clarification of the clarification.

In that regard, PKTP's statement that the time required would be "infinite" may be reasonable, allowing for PKTP's pleasantly artistic license to describe a "pretty long time". These things would all serve to continue to hold the view of a true rapprochement with the Society and a steady albeit very very slow progress of the Ancient Mass back into the life of the Church.

Meanwhile, to Jordanes and Bernadette's comments about valid and licit, Louis (in my view) hits the nail on the head. Pope Benedict XVI may not feel that the NO is "harmful" to the faithful.

He may just feel that it is "not as beneficial" to the faithful. And there is a difference between the two. A number of Una Voce people would state that the EF is termed "Extraordinary" precisely because it is "better". But being "better" does not necessarily presume that the alternative is "harmful" only that it is "good but not as good".

Whereas, there can be no doubt that the Society considers the NO not only "not as beneficial (as the EF)" but downright harmful. And frankly, so did Saint Padre Pio.

Without getting into another tirade on pg 19 of UE, the question of liceity of the NO may be bridged in the following way:

"It is licit in the sense that the Pope has the Divine authority to authorize a new ordo for the Mass".

"It may be illicit in the sense that the abrupt imposition of a new ordo with input from heretics (cum separated brethren) against the will and sensibilities of many faithful - as evidenced by the respectful petitions made to the Holy Father both prior and after the NO was instituted - may have constituted an *abuse* of that Papal authority".

I do not believe the Society disagrees outright that the Pope has the juridical authority to institute changes to the ordo of the Mass but rather that the Pope should never do such a thing outside of the natural development of the rite.

But I agree that the insertion of the condition of accepting the "liceity" (in UE 19) of the NO may and likely will be used to continue to stigmatize the Society for some time to come.

Traditionalists actually *petitioning* the Mass however will be at liberty to state that the EF is better than the NO, as long as they don't state that the NO is positively "harmful" or that Paul VI did not have the authority to institute a modified (drastic or not) ordo of the Mass.

Brian said...

article 19 of Universae Ecclesiae refers to . . . anyone who holds that there is some contradiction between the missal of 1962 and the missal of Paul VI

If so, then it would certainly refer to the former Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani.

bernadette said...

Anon 20:52 said:
He may just feel that it is "not as beneficial" to the faithful. And there is a difference between the two.

I don't really agree with that statement...it's like saying a mother will give her child soda pop instead of milk, and while she knows it is not as beneficial as milk, she continues to give it...that is not a responsibility of a good mother but a negligence, if not a crime, against the child, depriving him of good nutrition with full awareness of her actions. No normal mother is that stupid, and no pope would choose a less beneficial mass unless he did so willingly and with full knowledge of his actions.

Tradster said...

Joe B.,

I think once we start talking about documents, pre-VII, VII, or post-VII having some kind of limited scope, context, or conditions that are not outlined in the document, we become a Church of flimsy positivist theology with no absolute norms of truth.

Catholicism cannot simply be whatever the present pope likes, says, believes, or does. But that seems to be where we may be headed.

LeonG said...

"The goal is to show that it is necessary to interpret the Council in the continuity of the Tradition of the Church"

Therein lies the illusion rather than the goal. The documents generated by the councils are not in the customary clear and unambiguous style of Roman Catholicism. Its very liberal modernist undertone manifests a rupture. This rupture is further consolidated in observable form by the vernacular protestantised liturgical form called the Novus Ordo. Only liberals can demonstrate such audacity suggesting that after 1965 The Church continued along the same continuum. Pastorally andf liturgically this is a new church which is misleading its own flock -contemporary ecclesiastical affairs reveal an institution that is suffering the consequences of a very badly failed experiment.

Anonymous said...

Wpaforex:

You are right in principle but it does not have any real effect in practice. Again, only petitioners for Masss *might* (and in rare cases) be asked to swear that the New Mass is "legitimate" (licit is not the term in the English approved text).

Keep in mind that Art. 19 only replaces a MUCH WORSE clause that was in force, at least in principle, from 1984 to 2007. Our original indult, "Quattuor Abhinc Annos" was MUCH WORSE because it was not restricted to petitioners but extended to all those who attended approved T.L.M.s. It said that those attending must not call into question "the validity or doctrinal soundness" of NewMass.

So this is a tempest in a teapot. If we could live with something much worse from 1984 to 2007, we can live with rRticle 19.

Dear supporters: Don't LOOK for trouble. Fear not, if trouble is what you want, there will be plenty to come from our enemies. We needn't seek it.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Mr. McFarland:

I think that your analysis here is 100% correct. We are also seeing proof of it in Msgr. Pozzo's every word. There is the assertion, for instance, that one may deplore how the NewMass has been miscelebrated but not how it was intended to be celebrated. One may prefer the T.L.M. but not claim that anything in NewMass is per se noxious.

This view, of course, is false. The new forms of prayer were clearly designed to imply a new conception of the priesthood and of what is meant by sacrifice in the Mass. Therefore, the new forms are noxious to the Holy Cathoic Faith. The New Mass is valid and perhaps licit but it is also defective, and seriously so.

Why does Art. 19 use the term "legitimate" in the approved English text? I suggest to you that the liberal framers of that clause, Cardinal Levada and his Maltese lawyer, Msgr. Scicluna, were reacting directly to the words of Archbishop Lefebvre, as recently quoted by Fr. Kenneth Nowak in the "March, 2011", "Angelus". These words, both in French and in English, suggest an evil *origin* for the New Mass:

"This marriage between the Church and Revolution ... is adulterous [and ...] can only produce illegitimate children. The new rite of Mass is an illegitimate rite, the sacraments are illegitimate sacraments, the priests who come from the seminaries are illegitimate priests."

And who is this judge of tradition? Why, he is the former Archbishop of San Francisco, that Sodom of America that he ignored when he was there. There are twelve dioceses in California. Only one of them still had no every-Sunday T.L.M. when he departed. Can you guess which one? Was it a less-populated suffragan? No, it was the Archdiocese of San Francisco. Even now, it has only one every-Su. T.L.M. His malign influence is still there. Enough said.

P.K.T.P.

Timothy Mulligan said...

Jordanes, could it be that the Holy Father, having described the Novus Ordo as you say, has disqualified himself from offering the traditional Mass, and that this is the reason he has not offered it?

(I am laughing through tears.)

John McFarland said...

Dear Anonymous 20:52,

The crisis in the Church is not going to be solved by the SSPX's playing word games with the Vatican.

The Society considers that not a solution but a sellout, and so it will only abandon its position on (to use Mgr. Pozzon's list) "primacy and episcopal collegiality; relations between the Catholic Church and non-Catholic Christian confessions; religious liberty; the Missal of Paul VI" if and when it abandons traditionalism.

No doubt the Vatican is more open to playing word games (after all, it has been doing so for better than forty years); but Mgr. Pozzo indicates quite clearly the limits of those word games: "It does not seem conceivable that a call into question of the Second Vatican Council may happen." If the Vatican were to call the Council into question, it would cease to be what it clearly proclaims itself to be, and is: the supreme authority of the Church, which by its lights is the Church of Vatican II.

There just is no middle ground here.

John McFarland said...

In rereading the interview, I note that the Vatican (or Mgr. Pozzo, at any rate) does indeed effectively define illegitimacy.

He speaks of "[t]he letter of removal of excommunications of the four Bishops illegitimately consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre". Since by the Vatican's lights, the consecrations were clearly illicit, it would appear that illegitimate is effectively a synonym for illicit.

If that's right, it follows that no one who denies the liceity of the New Mass can in good faith petition for the Old Mass under the MP; and furthermore, I don't see how anyone who denies its liceity can in good conscience attend an MP Mass, since it clearly wasn't intended for them.

To put it another way: in this respect, things are exactly the same as they were under the original indult. In order to attend the Old Mass under the MP regime, one must must accept the New Mass.

And what then of those who attend the Masses of the FSSP, etc.? Can it not be fairly said that if they deny the liceity of the New Mass, they are attending the Old Mass under false colors?

Anonymous said...

"There just is no middle ground here."
said John MacFarland after Msgr Pozzo.

This is precisely what puzzled me in this interview apart from the unpleasant 1984 indult mindset flavor.

There is in fact a middle ground. The 1969/1970 missal or its 3rd edition of 2002 is not a sacred book ... Rome herself has urged the various comittees to change the defective translations though these erroneous versions were "approved" by the Holy See before.
If Paul VI was entitled to sign up a brand new missal, entirely reshuffled, why would Benedict XVI be deprived, according to Msgr Pozzo, to change what is obviously weak in this book ?

Why would it be impossible to revise a specific pastoral measure promoted by Vatican II when this pastoral measure is proven a bad idea after 40 years of experience ?

I'm amazed by the kind of voluntary blindness of members of the Curia. It's a weird idea to put every single line of every document of a pastoral council above the Creed just as it is another symetrical weird idea to cast a whole ecumenical council into the trash bin.
No between these 2 absurd attitudes, there is a middle ground which is called common sense.

Alsaticus

Mr. Ortiz said...

There is a middle ground if SSPX accepts Vatican II as a legit council---one can't seriously doubt that--and then accepts the fact that the Church's Tradition doesn't stop in 1962, and at the same time rejects the "rupture" theology of many in the Church today, and thus the Society may go on its merry way, possibly with faculties, etc., and live, breathe, and share the Tradition they love.

What's wrong with that?

Knight of Malta said...

If the Vatican were to call the Council into question, it would cease to be what it clearly proclaims itself to be, and is: the supreme authority of the Church, which by its lights is the Church of Vatican II.

John, it all depends on what you mean by "calling into question".

If you mean by that the Vatican declaring the Council invalid, you are quite correct. If you mean by "calling into question" that certain points, such as religious liberty, I think technically you are incorrect. One Council even required Jews and Muslims to wear distinctive garb, and it is morally necessary to call that teaching into question. Maybe for the present, they wouldn't call much of Vatican II (really, a silly and useless Council) into question, but ultimately portions might even be declared heretical someday. Even St. Thomas Aquinas denied the Immaculate Conception. Was he a heretic for doing so? Of course not! He didn't know it was a dogma. Will Vatican II, in the same vein, be heretical for preaching religious liberty, if it were, hypothetically, to be declared heretical to do so? No, for the same reason. Here are a few things to chew on, two from our Pope, and one link to some quotes by Msgr. Gherardini:

The truth is that this particular council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet so many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of super-dogma which takes away the importance of all the rest. --El Mercurio, July 17, 1988

Not every valid council in the history of the Church has been a fruitful one; in the last analysis, may of them have been a waste of time. Despite all the good to be found in the texts it produced, the last word about the historical value of Vatican Council II has yet to be spoken.

Btw: next to Vatican II, Constantinople II, followed by Lateran V, are the most worthless Councils, with Vatican II, by far, leading the charge!

Vatican II, a Much Needed Discussion

Joe B said...

Tradster, not sure it would cause trouble in this case since it was the pope of the council, Paul VI, who said it was not dogmatic and indicated its advisory nature. The problem is that that should count for something, but doesn't. But if it is the truth then it will work, and I happen to think it is. But one way or another, the ground and pillar of truth will eventually settle it. That's one point - it isn't hopeless at all.

But again, I'm just speculating, and nothing specifically in the council's documents will solve anything major anyway. That's because everything we held dear as Catholics prior to the council has been changed or been subjected to such efforts, and it's that mentality of change that has to be replaced by one of protecting what we were given, and that's the humanly impossible part. I say so because it really is quite insulting to those who have the power to change things as they think best to be told and shown that they are destroying all that's holy, whether it be through active change or passivity in resisting it. They reek of intellectual arrogance. Would that they reeked of traditional arrogance.

That's why I'm betting on SSPX - they are the ones who are turning to Our Lady to solve this thing. I think it's all related to the warnings at Fatima and I recommend everybody who is concerned about our turning away from our traditions to say as many Rosaries as possible and throw them in the SSPX pot, regardless of what you believe about their confessions.

By the way, why haven't we gotten a call from Rome for a Rosary Crusade to help us through this crisis? Oh, yeah, what crisis?

John L said...

'The Vatican may well continue to replace the hierarchical bomb-throwers with more conservative types, but their replacements will be 100% committed to the program described above, or they won't be picked.'

Spot on, Mr. McFarland. There are increasing signs of this party line emerging; another example is a talk given by the allegedly 'tradition-friendly' auxiliary bishop James Conley of Denver, whom we find asserting "'I want to say this again: I don't believe there were bad motives involved in the translations we have now.' (http://www.archden.org/index.cfm/ID/6003)". I think this party line will only be overcome by the overwhelming weight of the facts on the ground - expansion of traditionalism, collapse of attempts to revive the Novus Ordo. The danger I see is the attempted hamstringing of traditionalism by the imposition of requirements such as that given by Pozzo. The idea that they don't matter because they legally only apply to the petitioners for an old mass is naive. They will be expanded by the bishops into a requirement that everyone involved in a diocesan traditional mass accept the goodness of the Novus Ordo. That's the plan; we better think of something to do about it. My suggestion is open angry defiance.

Jordanes551 said...

To put it another way: in this respect, things are exactly the same as they were under the original indult. In order to attend the Old Mass under the MP regime, one must must accept the New Mass.

And what then of those who attend the Masses of the FSSP, etc.? Can it not be fairly said that if they deny the liceity of the New Mass, they are attending the Old Mass under false colors?


The diocesan priest who celebrates the traditional Mass we attend "accepts the New Mass" and admits it is licit/legitimate -- he just never sees any great need to celebrate it, and so he doesn't.

Anonymous said...

"and then accepts the fact that the Church's Tradition doesn't stop in 1962..."

No one, not even the SSPX, teaches that. They don't teach that Tradition stopped in 1962 in that no developments are possible after that time. What they DO teach is that many if not most of the developments after 1962 are not compatible with the preceding Tradition.

"and at the same time rejects the "rupture" theology of many in the Church today"

The thing is that the hermeneutic of reform in continuity preached by Benedict XVI is itself considered by the Society (and by many Trads and non-Trad but very conservative Catholics) to be an example of rupture with the Tradition, by preaching the reconciliation of irreconcilable points of view.

"and thus the Society may go on its merry way, possibly with faculties, etc., and live, breathe, and share the Tradition they love. What's wrong with that?"

There's nothing wrong with living, breathing and sharing the Tradition.

What IS wrong -- and what would have been considered wrong prior to the 1950's by nearly every informed Catholic -- is the idea that you can turn the Catholic Church into a big ark where a wide range of ecclesiastical animals (from the Neo-Cats to the SSPX) can take sanctuary, accompanied by the idea that all of these are somehow equally legitimate examples of Catholicism, with the formulations of doctrine and worship ultimately coming down to mere differences of taste and temperament. Prior to the 50's this would have been rightfully denounced as Anglicanism writ large.

Anonymous said...

"If the Vatican were to call the Council into question, it would cease to be what it clearly proclaims itself to be, and is: the supreme authority of the Church, which by its lights is the Church of Vatican II."

John McFarland, you are absolutely right.

Delphina

John McFarland said...

Mr. Perkins,

So for about the dozenth time, you have reaffirmed that doctrinally, there isn't a Canadian or American dime's worth of difference between us.

And so for about the dozenth time, I must again express my openmouthed stupefaction that you think that the conciliar Vatican is ever going to do anything that will give aid and comfort to the restoration of traditional doctrine and traditional liturgy.

On the premises of the hermeneutic of reform and continuity, to do so would be an abomination.

Anonymous said...

This whole idea about getting Catholics to prove their Catholicity by 'accepting the legitimacy' of the Novus Ordo is ridiculous. As if Catholics are somehow being intolerant when we continue to worhip the way we were before Vatican II.

It's the innovators who have proven their intolerance who need to prove their tolerance; not Catholics who attend the Latin Mass. The latter prove that they tolerate legitimate Catholic worship in the Tridentine Rite every Sunday. It's the innovators who drew up and defend the NewMass that have shown their intolerance of legitimate Catholic sacred Rite.

What does all the effective work undertaken to plan, draw up, promulgate, nuance, refine, re-translate and defend the NewMass prove, except that these innovators do not accept the legitimacy of the Mass of All Times? If they had accepted its legitimacy, they would have been satisfied with it as the sacred Rite of the Church, and would never had tried to re-invent the wheel. Period. If they had been truly tolerant of the decrees of Pope St. Pius V regarding the legitimacy of the TLM, they would have left well-enough alone, and not gone to all the trouble that they continue to this day.

No matter what nice things they say about the TLM, the fact that they continually defend the novelty of the NewMass proves that they believe that it's existence is needed, and thus they must believe that the Rite which existed alone before the NewMass was somehow insufficient, and something new was needed.

It is the innovators who need to prove themselves tolerant, not ordinary Catholics. Let the innovators prove that they accept the legitimacy of the Tridentine Rite. Let them stop coddling the NewMass and putting restrictions on the TLM. Stop showing favoritism toward that which was put forth fallibly over that which was put forth infallibly. Let them make no conditions on either rite, and see which one the faithful are drawn to, and which one dies out first.

Catholics need not prove their acceptance of a novelty when they are already proving their acceptance of a solemnly-declared, legitimate Rite of the Church.

John McFarland said...

Dear Delphina,

I have the uneasy feeling that you think it would be a bad thing if the Vatican were to break with Vatican II, and that you think that I agree.

Just for the record: in my judgment, a break with Vatican II would be the greatest thing to happen in the Church since 1962, if not earlier.

Stephen P said...

Anonymous 13:25
"What IS wrong -- and what would have been considered wrong prior to the 1950's by nearly every informed Catholic -- is the idea that you can turn the Catholic Church into a big ark where a wide range of ecclesiastical animals (from the Neo-Cats to the SSPX) can take sanctuary, accompanied by the idea that all of these are somehow equally legitimate examples of Catholicism, with the formulations of doctrine and worship ultimately coming down to mere differences of taste and temperament. Prior to the 50's this would have been rightfully denounced as Anglicanism writ large"

That sums it up
Thank you

Anonymous said...

What appears to be a liberation of the TLM with the Motu Proprio turned into a document that actually tried to elevate the NO to the ranks of the TLM (unsuccessfully, might I add).

And here we are . . . 4 years older and a lot grayer!

Malta said...

Just for the record: in my judgment, a break with Vatican II would be the greatest thing to happen in the Church...

Amen, brother!

What a massively destructive Council it was indeed.

Cruise the Groove. said...

"Just for the record: in my judgment, a break with Vatican II would be the greatest thing to happen in the Church since 1962, if not earlier."

The Church cannot break with an officially promulgated Ecumenical Council, which is one of the highest acts of the Ordinary Magisterium.
It can however clarify and even redefine ambiguous novelties that are within some of the documents themselves.

Anonymous said...

"Dear Delphina,

I have the uneasy feeling that you think it would be a bad thing if the Vatican were to break with Vatican II, and that you think that I agree.
Just for the record: in my judgment, a break with Vatican II would be the greatest thing to happen in the Church since 1962, if not earlier."

Heavens, no!!! And I am sorry that I give that impression. If New Catholic (or my friend Jordanes) would publish the comments of mine that he declines to publish, you would maybe see that I do not think like that at all.

In my opinion, in our lifetime at least, the Church is not going to break with Vatican II. Both you and I will be long dead before that would ever happen. Personally, I really don't see what is so hard about admitting that a mistake (that's a mild word considering...) was made, but the answer to that is that they do not think Vatican II was a mistake at all.

Delphina

LeonG said...

Because some traditional priests accept the NO as licit does not necessarily mean it is.
There is great weight of objective evidence available now to contest even its validity. In any case, I have spoken with priests from the so-called indult fraternities who correctly question its normalcy which to be less nebulous could also be another manner of questioning its licit nature.
The net negative consequences of the NO to The Roman Catholic Faith are too immense to list here but they have been here and in many other places. In addition, the theological arguments which have been placed before us, let alone the revolutionary origins of the new rite and its fabricator with its more than possible masonic connections, can hardly recommend the legitimacy, licit nature, normalcy or the validity of this liberal modernist liturgical instrument of revolutionary ecclesiastical postmodernisation.
It is fabricated and completely outside of the churches orthodox liturgical experience. Its consequences have been catastrophic everywhere. In view of what we know and understand now, its licit nature is entirely questionable.

Gratias said...

For the fsspx to be back in the fold, admitting that Vatican II took place will be required. It did take place. We can differ in the interpretation of the original documents versus what actually they caused and how that can be remedied. But the price of being in the Church is to admit that the NO pantomime had been instituted legally.

The FSSPX should jump at this opportunity while Benedict XVI is with us. Since giving the forma extraordinaria is not a litmus test for ordinations of Catholic bishops at present, there will be no better time to come in from the cold than right now. Pray, pray, pray as requested by Messa in Latino and Rorate Caeli.

Disclaimer: I attend both forms of the Mass with about equal frequency. The NO Mass in my postconciliar parish is awful, but we have a Sunday obligation to fulfill.

John McFarland said...

Dear Delphina,

Well, I'm very happy to have been dead wrong.

As for the notion of Vatican II as in some sense a "mistake," let me offer a different (ahem) hermeneutic from Fr. Yves Le Roux, the rector of the SSPX seminary in Winona:

"From the first session of the Council, ... a commando force took over the command posts in the Council, thanks to a long-prepared infiltration, and indelibly marked it with Liberalism. Afterwards, ... that commando force worked from within for the destruction of the Church."

And further:

"Let us not be deceived: the enemies of the Church have sworn Her destruction -- and that of our souls -- and they will keep fighting to the very end."

The full text appears in the December 2009 issue of The Angelus, as a sidebar to the rest of a (still continuing) series entitled "The Authority of Vatican II Questioned." I submit that is a precis of the spirit of the SSPX as regards Vatican II.

John McFarland said...

Dear Cruise,

If and to the extent that the doctrine of Vatican II is not in line with what the Church taught before 1962, then it's not worth the paper it's written on.

As Vatican I stated, the purpose of the Church's teaching authority is not the defense of tradition, not the promulgation of novelties.

It follows that to the extent that authority forsakes truth, it does not bind.

"From obedience to apostasy" is not a wisecrack. It is a substantial part of the history of the Church for the last forty years.

LeonG said...

"..there will be no better time to come in from the cold than right now.."

Judging the actual structure of the SP and its Instruction and the linkage of TLM to NO together with the projected benedictine hybridisation liturgical preference, this would be an altogether inappropriate time and potentially completely destructive one for the TLM and logically the tradtional movement, in consequence. The Confraternity must hold firm and protect the TLM absolutely from any intended liturgical hybridisation praxis. If this means remnaining where they are at present, then they will have my unflinching support.

Anonymous said...

Who are forgotten in all the buzz concerning the Rome-FSSPX talks are all the bishops of the Church who were ordained with the Papal Mandate, and all the priests of the Church who were ordained with dismissorial letters from the local bishop.

In the event of a settlement why should Fellay and company be given treatment equal to the regular bishops and priests?

The SSPX bishops should not be recognized as bishops but given a status similar to Episcopal Vicars. Similarly, it's priests should be examined by local bishops before being allowed to minister in a diocese.

At present we have the spectacle of a "Bishop-Vagante" strutting around the world, giving interviews to all who request them ...the sheer cheek of it all!

Charles Martel said...

June 14, The Liturgical Year, Dom Prosper Gueranger:

Peace is just what Basil desired as much as anybody: but the peace for which he would give his life could only be that true peace left to the Church by our Lord. What he so vigorously exacted on the grounds of faith proceeded solely from his very love of peace. And therefore, as he himself tells us, he absolutely refused to enter into communion with those narrow-minded men who dread nothing so much as a clear, precise expression of dogma; in his eyes their captious formulas and ungraspable shiftings were but the action of hypocrites,in whose company he would scorn to approach God's altar. As to those merely misled, 'Let the faith of our fathers be proposed to them with all tenderness and charity; if they will assent thereunto,let us receive them into our midst; in other cases let us dwell with ourselves alone, regardless of numbers; and let us keep aloof from equivocating souls, who are not possessed of that simplicity without guile, indispensably required in the days of the Gospel from all who would approach to the faith. The believers,so it is written,had but one heart and soul. Let those, therefore, who would reproach us for not desiring pacifacation, mark well who are the real authors of the disturbance, and so not point the question of reconciliation on our side any more'"

Picard said...

bernadette,

it is you that is ambiguouse and unclear or more: not accurate.

Because "valid" does not mean "has legal force"; on the contrary, "valid" is independent of having "legal force" and means just if some thing is --- well, valid.

"licitness" or "legitimateness" deals with the "legal force" and "lawfullness".

So it is totally correct and not the least ambiguous to oppose "valid" to "licit".