Rorate Caeli

Summorum Pontificum for pilgrims to the Holy Land; TLM forbidden in the regular parishes of the Latin Patriarchate

The Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem made public today a decree (original text: French) on the application of Summorum Pontificum in its jurisdiction:


DECREE No. 49/2011

On the use of the Liturgy
in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite


To the Rev. Rectors of the Basilicas and Sanctuaries,

In the parishes and chaplaincies of the diocese of the Latin Patriarchate, the Eucharist is always celebrated according to the ordinary form of the Roman Missal approved by the servant of God Pope Paul VI (1970) and promulgated in its third edition by the Blessed Pope John Paul II (2000).

Considering the consistent number of basilicas and sanctuaries built on the holy places and open to the reception of pilgrims coming from the entire world, the celebration of the Eucharist according to the extraordinary form remains always exceptional. It is only allowed to the groups of pilgrims already used to its usage in their country. It is subjected to the norms contained in the Instruction of the application of the Apostolic Letter Summorum Pontificum (April 30, 2011), published by the Pontifical Commision Ecclesia Dei.

For the spiritual good of these pilgrims,

The Patriarch, FOUAD TWAL,

Diocesan Ordinary,

with the consent of his Episcopal Council,

orders that,

in the Basilicas and sanctuaries,


the norms contained in the instruction be observed, along with the following:

1. All those in charge of a basilica or sanctuary, either a rector or a sacristan, must behave in a welcoming spirit, of pastoral zeal and prudence.

2. Demand from the priest who asks to celebrate to show the 'Celebret' document before preparing what is needed for the celebration of the Eucharist according to the extraordinary form.

3. No priest is allowed to celebrate the Eucharist according to the Extraordinary Form without a sufficient knowledge of the rite.

4. The rector must furnish the basilica or sanctuary of which he is in charge of the Roman Missal promulgated by Blessed Pope John XXIII in 1962; the Missal of Pius V must not be used.

5. Those in charge of the sacristy of a basilica of sanctuary must have at disposal the ornaments and liturgical material required for the celebration of the Eucharist according to the Extraordinary form.

6. It is recommended that each basilica or sanctuary have an altar in a side chapel that allows for the celebration of the Eucharist with the back to the people.

7. Concelebration not being allowed in the Extraordinary form of the Roman Rite, and in order not have the holy place occupied with individual celebrations, priests in pilgrimage that are present must participate in the Eucharist celebrated by one among them.

8. The rector of the basilica or sanctuary will not allow the administration of the sacraments of baptism, confirmation, and marriage without the express permission of the local Ordinary; it is obligatory to follow the directives.

9. The ceremony of diaconal, presbyteral or episcopal ordination is never allowed without the formal written approval of the Patriarch of Jerusalem. Disobedience is punished with the sanctions foreseen by the CIC. [Code of Canon Law]

10. Priests of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X (known as Lefebvrists) may celebrate in the basilicas and sanctuaries in private and without publicizing their initiatives.

Granted in Jerusalem, on September 23, 2011.

† Fouad Twal

Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem
[Tip: reader; original language: French]

41 comments:

George said...

This hardly look like it's "forbidden." It simply says that, due to the large number of pilgrims, the ordinary form is to be used at all times except when requested by a group of pilgrims. Furthermore, major pilgrimage sites are to have ready all the necessary furnishings for the celebration of the Missal of 1962; and, of great joy to many frequenters of Rorate, the priests of the SSPX _are_ permitted to celebrate the Mass so long as they do not announce it as a special SSPX Mass.

If this were an attack on the 1962 missal, he would not have permitted the SSPX, nor would he have demanded that all basilicas and sanctuaries stock up on the necessary implements for the 1962 liturgy.

It really seems that, even if some of us might disagree with the phrasing of the letter or even with its conclusions, the Patriarch is indeed concerned with the good of pilgrims. He is not exercising a vendetta against the 1962 missa.

Therefore, dear New Catholic, I think that your headline is needlessly inflammatory, although people of good will can of course disagree on matters such as these.

George said...

Upon re-reading your headline, and the document, I see what you're driving at. It does seem that regular parishes are _perhaps_ forbidden, although that would depend on what is mean by "always exceptional." Does a parish request make it not "exceptional" or perhaps "exceptional but permitted"? I retract my comment about your headling being needlessly inflammatory. As for the other comments, though, I stand by them. I think that he really does have the good of pilgrims in mind.

New Catholic said...

Perhaps you could read it a third time... The very first paragraph states, "the Eucharist is always celebrated according to the ordinary form of the Roman Missal". We are not here speaking of a supposed exceptionality of the Traditional Mass, but of the celebration, ALWAYS, with no mention of exception, of the New Mass, in the churches that are not basilicas or shrines. Not only that: it means that a lay pilgrim that is not part of a pilgrimage that includes a traditional priest will have to be lucky enough to find a visiting traditional priest, since the document is clear about its application to visiting priests.

Now, of course it is good that the Basilicas and Sanctuaries are to furnished with what is needed for the TLM, and that visiting traditional priests are to be welcomed. But there was no need to stain a reasonable document with illegal limitations of Summorum Pontificum and Universae Ecclesiae.

NC

Brian said...

Poor St. Pius V - no room at this particular inn for his missal.

HSE said...

Back to the people? Or do they mean facing the Tabernacle?

Is your glass half full or half empty?

Matthew said...

Why does the Patriarch find it necessary to include Paul VI's title, Servant of God, but not Pius V, that of Pope Saint Pius V?

"With his back to the people"
As opposed to his back being toward God?

This letter is quite condescending and restrictive in tone and language. Ordinaries seem to continue to decide that they may arbitrarily impose restrictions on Summorum which they are expressly disallowed to do. Will this one, like so many others, go unchallenged and unpunished?

Thank you, Rorate, for airing more of this nonsense in the hopes that it ceases.

Samuel J. Howard said...

This is much better than one might have expected. The rules for the parishes of the Patriarchate are silly, but they're illegal and any priest who wants to celebrate the EF will quite possibly just ignore them.

The rules for the shrines (except the rule about pilgrimages of priests requiring concelebration) are actually quite "progressive," in requiring that the shrines make available the things required for the liturgy.

Anil Wang said...

"Roman Missal approved by the servant of God Pope Paul VI (1970) and promulgated in its third edition by the Blessed Pope John Paul II (2000)"

But not SP or UE by Pope Benedict XVI?

It does seem odd.

In the Holy Land, there are so many languages and cultures that it there just aren't enough parishes and times of the day to have masses in every language under the sun. Pilgrims wouldn't expect to understand the mass anyway. Pilgrims also expect to see history. TLM, and Eastern Catholic masses are especially suited.

So even if TLM were on par with NO, any atheist could see that TLM should be the norm and NO should be the exception.

I'm not really a TLM pusher (I think the NO done right...we're still a decade or two of revisions from that point but I trust God) is good. But I fail to see how the NO more pastoral in this context.

New Catholic said...

Dear "rams",

Your comments are most interesting and should be posted. We have saved them, however, in our folder of comments waiting for moderation so you can think over if you actually really wish us to let them through, since they include a certain level of personal information.

Best regards, and thank you for sending them.

NC

spero said...

This is a mixture of good and bad. This is the first I have ever seen a bishop specifically promulgate a law permitting sspx priests to say private Masses in their chapels. It is a great good that this bishop is requiring by particular law that the Holy Places have altar furnishings for the Mass of the ages. In a sense the whole thing is directed in light of pilgims. And he does acknowledge that traditional priests must be accomadated.

The law about the ordinary form being celebrated is illegal and unfortunate, but at least comprehensible. The bishop is saying that the Ancient Mass is an exception (not in law, but in practice) for those who ask for it rather than the default (unfortunately SP doesn't seem to fix this). Therefore, he is trying to prevent those who did not ask for it from being forced to attend it. Given that most of the Holy Places are primarily directed toward pilgrims and very secondarily parishes, he rules that the desires of the local parish and pastor should be trumped by the need to protect the average Novusordinarian from being forced to go to Mass, if that Mass should be according to the Ancient Roman Rite. There also might be that false fear about disunity. When Catholics are by far a minority, even a minority among the Christians, there might be fear of anything that he imagines could cause division. May the PED correct this.

Elizabeth said...

What about the Jerusalem Rite (Rite of the Holy Sepulchre, which became the Carmelite Rite due to the association of the early Carmelite hermits with St Albert of Jerusalem, Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, who gave them their rule)?

Historically there is a local rite/use that is proper to that place. That would seem to be the even more fitting liturgy for the local priests than the 1962 Missal. Is the Rite of the Holy Sepulchre used by local priests there? I don't know much.

Bruno Luís Santana said...

The latin patriarchate DON'T have authority to decide about such matters. The patiarchate, if is still a catholic patriarcate, must obbey the universal laws of church, because Summorum Pontificum and Universae Ecclesiae are not matters of conscience, it's about a liturgy that is part of centuries of catholic tradition. They talk about FSSPX, but FSSPX doesn't exists for itself, but to repit the words of Archpishop Lefevbre "Tradidi quod et accepi" — I have transmitted what I have received. The FSSPX doesn't needs personal favors, doesn't exists for it.

MKT said...

I concur with NC here.

Nothing positive - this again is baring a grin while clamping down on traditionalists in the Holy Land. It is not overly overt though - perhaps for fear of looking *blatantly* disobedient to the Holy Father.

But again as NC points out:
- Holy Land Masses will ALWAYS be NO Masses
- The very odd exception has to involve a *foreign* pilgrimage group
- There are 10 commandments (!!!!) governing the conduct of a priest saying the EF Mass! Wow! That's a lot of legal rope to hang someone by if the need arises.
- Maybe I read too much into it, but the comment "... of the SSPX (called Lefebvrites)" seems odd to me. Call Lefebvrites by whom? Is Lefebvrite a formal term of Vatican-speak these days? In all the news updates on the pre-amble I have not seen Vatican officials call the SSPX "Lefebvrites". It almost seems like a slur in this letter.

In general the spirit and tone speak of a LACK of generosity to the Old rite rather than what the Holy Father expressly wanted in SP notably a greater generosity towards it.

I'd be happy to be wrong in my interpretation.

Fr. A.M. said...

This is decree is certainly a 'mixed bag'. I suppose if any parish priests want to celebrate the Usus Antiquior, they should get on and do it. The decree cannot forbid them from doing so, as this would be contrary to the universal law of the Church. ANY visiting priests with a group of pilgrims should be allowed to say this form of Mass, no matter if there are more than one with a particular group.

Gratias said...

Seems to me the Patriarch is disobedient.

The USA is where the Latin Mass will develop.

rams said...

Spero,

You are 100% spot on.

I know the Patriarch and he is not personally antagonistic to the TLM- He just fears for his already dwindling flock. Christians are only 2% of the Holy Land, when a mere 30 years ago they were 30%. And of the 2%, an insignificant fraction is Catholic, and an even smaller amount is latin rite... So, I'm going to break it to you... there are basically no traditional catholics in the middle east... atleast not among the Latin Rite Catholics. There is certainly no demand for the TLM there AT ALL.... (except for pilgrims). People don't even know what it is let alone request it. But who knows what they'll say if they did know about it... they would probably be turned off by the Latin since they all speak Arabic and the 2 languages don't even use the same alphabet. So, I'm not sure if it is in order for PCED to intervene. However, if the Holy Father wants to implement SP in such a way as to promote the TLM and not merely provide it for those who request it (as cardinal Hoyos said)... it would be in order for PCED to intervene. Hmm... this scenario could be a platform to see if such an interpretation is really what the Holy Father Had in mind. This is a question of prudence... The local community in the Holy Land is fragile and miniscule. I disagree with the uneccesary restrictions, but I understand where His Beatitude is comming from.

NC- lets hold off on publishing the comments for now. I should think about this more, and if I'm going to go public, I would do it in a very public way. Do you think that an open letter to the Patriarch, coupled with an appeal to PCED would be fruitful? Atleast in the sense of giving the PCED an opportunity to rule in favor of an implementation SP and UE that PROMOTES the TLM, and not merely allows it under restricted circumstances??

Cruise the Groove. said...

"10. Priests of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X (known as Lefebvrists) may celebrate in the basilicas and sanctuaries in private and without publicizing their initiatives."

So the SSPX are getting preferential treatment?
The other Ecclesia Dei groups such as the FSSP may not offer Mass in the Holy Land but the SSPX are?

Sixupman said...

Pilgrimage sites: a plethora of pilgrim nationalities; a plethora of Missal translations. A veritable Tower of Babel.

TLM the once unifying [practical] force. Now denigrated in favour of the 'national' church concept?

Knight of Malta said...

For all we know Paul VI might be in hell. The cause for saints on him was opened, but quickly closed.

But I will forever appreciate Humanae Vitae!

That said, who knows if he was truly a "servant of God" or not; maybe not? Popes are fallible, and can even generate evil, thing the Borgia popes.

One thing is certain he, along with Bugnini, devised a liturgy inimical to the Catholic faith...

JTLiuzza said...

If the Patriarch is concerned about his dwindling flock, it seems to me that the remedy is not to adhere to a liturgy that has done nothing but disperse the flock since it's inception/imposition on the faithful. The TLM is the antidote to a dwindling flock.

And the liturgy implemented based on "demand" is yet another reflection of the horizontal nature of the post-conciliar Church. I believe the Holy Father correctly referred to that as a form of "religious entertainment."
Jason

New Catholic said...

Yes, dear rams, if you are in the Latin Patriarchate, you could certainly use the legal means made available to you by SP and UE to respectfully challenge the limitations that may be affecting the right of your group - if this is necessary. The implementation of SP in your parish is certainly something that does not need any special authorization and, if you can speak to a parish priest or rector in your area willing to have the TLM regularly celebrated, he can certainly do so by simple application of SP.

NC

rams said...

JTLiuzza,

His Beatitude would say that the flock is not dwingleing as a result of the new mass. In his view, this is happening in the middle east in general as a result of persecution, not to mention being in the crossfire of militant muslim fanatics and israeli soldiers. I've tried to talk to him about this- He does not see mass in Latin as something feasable for the people. He often does say mass in latin, and ad orientem, especially since some of the altars in the holy land do not allow a versus populom posture. He and the franciscans there, and the seminarians often say mass all in Latin. But when His Beatitude says mass with the public, he does so in the common tounge- arabic. Its no use trying to talk to him about it.... and the situation is so grim there that just keeping the status quo is a challenge. I'm against the novus ordo- I don't attend it myself.... but I see just how difficult it would be to try to implement a return to tradition in the Holy Land... it would really and truely have to be the work of the Holy Spirit in order to bear fruit and not de-stabalize the church in that area.

rams said...

NC,

Problem is... I live in the US. I cannot request a Latin mass unless I'm there.

GQ Rep said...

The Pope is a failure because he does not enforce his own rulings.

Ivan Kamenski said...

I guess the message is: any Catholics attached to tradition who want to make a pilgrimage to the Holy Land must go with the SSPX.

Of course, this means that locals are out of luck. How does it help oppressed Palestinian Catholics to deny them rights granted to them by the Holy Father? That's a hard one to fathom.

Samuel J. Howard said...

In Jaffa, English Masses outnumber Arabic Masses.

Ferraiuolo said...

Disobeying this letter to celebrate one's own TLM would be obedience to summorum pontificum. I suppose the Pope's letter trumps that of the Latin Patriach of Jerusalem.

Peterman said...

Knight of Malta, I couldn't agree more, we don't know where he is now nor the one before him or the one after John Paul I.

MP said...

Imagine how impossible it is to comprehend that returning Tradition to the Holy Land is an impossible feat. That pilgrims should be denied one of oldest forms of the Roman Mass on earth because it will francture unity? That Latin, the Universal Tongue that so many Catholics already know the basic prayers in and when they don't can follow a simple printout, has been barred as a language option in our own Catholic Church. The Holy Land, besides Rome, is where a pilgrim would expect to hear Latin. The Church has become unrecognizable to herself and tell its' Faithful that they will not recognize her either anymore if she does what she has always done. At least until the mid 70's she did. No wonder so many continue to fall away from her. Those in charge of "running" Church and passing on her Traditions keep telling us the sky is green and the grass is blue. They paint her over and over and over again. The paint chips away, the Faithful see it, and they buy more paint. And so goes it another layer. Most likely there will come a Pope, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, that will refuse to fund the paintjob and all will be as it always was. In the meantime I close my eyes but never my heart. The youth is where this struggle will be passed. They are a smart group, they know what color the grass is.

Peterman said...

I suppose it probably never occurred to the Latin Patriarch that the Christian community there is "teetering on the brink" BECAUSE the Latin mass is never offered.

Anil Wang said...

rams, the key inconsistency in what you have said is this.

If there is no demand for TLM, then the letter is unnecessary and makes the Patriarch appear to be in line with the Austrian and Irish liturgy revolters. As today's reading from 2 Maccabees makes clear, even if you do not bend the knee to the spirit of the age, you must not appear to lest you influence the young to abandon their faith.

If there is demand for TLM, then the letter goes against the wishes of the Pope and the people of the Holy Land.

In either case, there is no legitimate reason for the letter.

We must pray for those in the middle east, but expediency must never be an excuse to weakening the faith. Look at the history of the early church. It was precisely because early Catholics refused to compromise, no matter the personal cost, that the number of Catholics grew exponentially. In the opposite vain, it was precisely because Catholics in Britain compromised that John Henry Newman refused to become Catholic. It was only when he met a Passionist who did sacrifice that he converted.

Edward said...

"Imagine how impossible it is to comprehend that returning Tradition to the Holy Land is an impossible feat."

Not impossible to comprehend.
--------------

"That pilgrims should be denied one of oldest forms of the Roman Mass on earth because it will francture unity?"

Sad but true.
-------------

"That Latin, the Universal Tongue...has been barred as a language option in our own Catholic Church."

It has been that way for decades in the "Latin" Church.
---------------------

"The Church has become unrecognizable to herself and tell its' Faithful that they will not recognize her either anymore if she does what she has always done."

It's been that way for decades.
-------------

Gratias said...

The Latin Patriarch of the Holy Land missed an opportunity of scheduling a daily extraordinary Mass for pilgrims. This was what was done in Rome with Trinita Dei Pellegrini, run by FSSP, and religious tourism has prospered.

Adfero said...

Two of you just tried to post anonymously. We appreciate your thoughts but you must follow the instructions on this page and use a name or pseudonym when posting.

P.K.T.P. said...

These restrictions are simply illegal. They reflect the usual misreading of S.P. Article 5 in S.P. states that, when groups in parishes request it, the T.L.M. should be granted to them. But it is NOT restrictive: it does not say that this Mass may be used by celebrants ONLY when such groups lodge requests. That is the trick wording.

So, Art. 5, in itself, does not answer this question: can a given celebrant freely choose between the T.L.M. and the New Mass when offering Mass, say, in a shrine? Art. 1 provides the answer. The answer is positive: he can. He can because there is a general right to offer the T.L.M., and under Canon 839, it is clear that a general right means a right to offer this Mass even publicly, for Mass is public by its very nature.

A shrine rector could restrict the number of T.L.M.s in order to provide adequately for those who want the New Mass, which is normative. But he could not ban it outright or as a matter of principle.

In parishes, the parish priest may offer the T.L.M. or ask another priest to offer it even if not one single faithful petitions for it. Again, Art. 5 is not restrictive: it only ensures a process in the case of groups asking for the T.L.M. But it does not prevent celebrants from offering it on their own authority.

On and on. Since U.E. was issued in May, five American dioceses have LOST their only every-Sunday T.L.M.s. We have gained by one and will likely gain back two more, but that's still a net loss of two. At present, when parish priests find that the groups attending the Mass are 'too small', they simply cancel the Masses. In one recent case in Missouri, 'too small' meant 40 regular attendees. This is a clear violation of S.P. and U.E. But they don't care. Who can make a parish priest proceed? He can always find an excuse for not doing so.

We need an international structure for tradition. S.P. and U.E. do not provide adequate protection for traditionalists. In many cases, the local bishop simply threatens would-be celebrants: say this Mass and you wil never have a parish.

The 'gang of six' in north-east France simply defies the Pope. Who needs a Pope when you can have an Archbishop of Reims or a Bishop of Langres, Cambrai, Soissons, Verdun, ....?

P.K.T.P.

P.K.T.P. said...

Incidents like this crop up precisely because William Cardinal Levada has seen to it that the P.C.E.D. does not enforce Summorum Pontificum or U.E.

When this Cardinal was Archbishop of San Francisco, he was the lone hold-out against the old indult under Ecclesia Dei Adflicta. He refused to allow even one T.L.M. on any basis whatsoever. All the other Californian dioceses had every-Sunday T.L.M.s but San Francisco lacked even one on a Tuesday at 11.00 p.m. Even Sta. Rosa, with its small population, had its T.L.M. But not the Archdiocese of San Francisco! Not with Levada at the helm!

When Fr. Eugene Heidt tried to offer the T.L.M. and Levada was ordinary, Levada persecuted him. As a result, Fr. Heidt had to decamp to the S.S.P.X.

This Cardinal is the archenemy of tradition. He also openly tolerated all the sodomites in San Francisco. So why did the Pope make him Prefect for Doctrine?

Under Cardinal Levada, the Anglican Ordinariates have been set up. The real Anglican traditionalists in the TAC were ignored, and the structures have been turned over to neo-con and Forward-in-Faith Anglicans, men who would rather be Anglican but had nowhere left to go. The FiF hypocrites were willing to accept womanpriest but not womanbishop.

The result? The Liturgy for the new structures is the Novus Ordo trainwreck and a Modernistic Anglican praybook with the N.O. Offertory, an Offertory designed by Annibale Bugnini to imply that the Mass is only a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving and not an unbloody Sacrifice of our Blessed Lord for the Redemption of man. Bugnini even lifted a phrase from the Cranmer prayerbooks and threw it in ("spiritual drink") to imply that there is no literal transubstantiation.

How ironic, then. These Anglicans flee Protestantism only to be granted a Mass text that implies ... Protestantism. Sure, it is a valid Mass but the Mass must be more than a rite which allows for an orthodox interpretation: it must perforce advance that interpretation. This liturgical provision will dishearten real Anglo-Catholics who want to cross into a protective structure. They will want to hold out *several years* until this problem is resolved--if that ever happens.

Levada must go. He is a saboteur.

P.K.T.P.

rams said...

PKTP-

I am in a position to speak with His Beatitude on an basically personal level. This piece of legislation is not a result of the Patriarch directly and solely- but it seems to me that his "Episcopal Council" has put these restrictive ideas into his mind. These restrictions and not His Beatitude's invention, but from one of his advisers. I know the bishop responsible for these restrictions because they sound an awful lot like a conversation I had with a certain Msgr. He is now a Bishop. Without naming names, lets just say this Bishop W.S. has been discussed on this blog before... calling for a for "revolution" in the the eastern rites along the same lines as has happened in the roman rite was. http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2010/05/in-need-of-revolution.html Despicable really. His Beatitude has surrounded Himself with the wrong advisers in this regard.

I want to compose a (perhaps open) letter to the Patriarch. I'd like to use some of the reasoning you've always published on this blog to help sway his mind. I am in a position where the His Beatitude may consider what I have to say.

~Please provide me a succinct summary to be used in my letter.~

Can u explain how canon 839 is relevant in this situation?

Can. 839 §1. The Church carries out the function of sanctifying also by other means, both by prayers in which it asks God to sanctify the Christian faithful in truth, and by works of penance and charity which greatly help to root and strengthen the kingdom of Christ in souls and contribute to the salvation of the world.

§2. Local ordinaries are to take care that the prayers and pious and sacred exercises of the Christian people are fully in keeping with the norms of the Church.

P.K.T.P. said...

Rams:

I meant 837. It essentially says that liturgical actions are public by definition. The more recent distinction made by decisions of the P.C.E.D. is not between public and private Masses but between 'sine populo' and 'cum populo'. The reference here is to the parish congregation as a whole. A Mass that is public is now defined that one which is celebrated in accordance with a published regular schedule. A sine populo Mass can include invited guests or even may allow those who simply walk in. It may even be published, but not in accordance with a regular schedule. For example, the Parish Bulletin might say 'Mass next Sunday' but it could not say 'Mass every Sunday' or 'Mass every other Tuesday.

Art. 1 confers a general right for priests to offer the T.L.M. In parishes, however, the building is under the control of the Parish Priest, although others can offer Mass there if they are expected to be known in the Parish or they present commendatory letters (cf. Canon 903). Provided that a visiing priest gives reasonable notice to the P.P. and that the church is not scheduled to be used for some other activity, such a visitor may offer Mass there privately in the T.L.M. or N.O.M. and the latter in Latin or the vernacular, and can bring along some guests; others may join them.

Again, Art. 1 oonfers a general right of priests to offer the T.L.M. Art. concerns the rights of lay petitioners but notice that it nowhere says that a priest may proceed "only" if a petition has been lodged. The adverb 'only' is nowhere to be found in Art. 5, and Art. 1 therefore applies.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Well, as I see it, until there is a CLARIFICATION of the Patriarch's statement, my Peter's Pence will be sent elsewhere.

Matt

Cruise the Groove. said...

So apparantly the SSPX have faculties in the Holy Land.

Imagine the regularisation of the Society begins on the ground where God trod.
How fitting.

Elinor said...

I just found out about this today and I am so depressed. I may have to move to Israel for family reasons and I thought that even if the TLM is not widely available there, perhaps I would be able to join or help form a stable group of faithful...as someone with Hebrew Catholic / Jewish connections I must say it doesn't make me feel any better about moving under the jurisdiction of Abp Twal...at this point I feel like asking, is there an SSPX chapel in Israel?