Rorate Caeli

One Holy Apostolic Rite

[En français]

A few bishops around the world, especially in the Eldest Daughter of the Church, are desperate with the possible papal document restoring the Traditional Latin Mass to its place of honor. The bishop of Angoulême said today that "biritualism" cannot be "forced" in such a way; a few days ago, the bishop of Metz had warned that any such measure would "endanger the unity of the Catholic Church".

In the daily newspaper of the Communist Party of France, L'Humanité, one of the greatest French Catholic advocates of "tolerance at all costs", Father Gilbert Caffin, has finally found something he will not tolerate: liberty for the Traditional Rites of the Latin Church.

The measure, its critics say, will "endanger unity of worship". It is impossible for these Rites to live together!

I share their sincere and heartfelt concern for the One True Faith and that is why I present the following pictorial manifesto:

The institution of this pernicious biritualism... intolerable to the People of God!

The unity of faith... the Catholic Church will be undermined... the existence of parallel rites!

The Latin Church must stand ... defense of its liturgical unity,...

...of its unitary ritual purity,...

...of the active participation of the faithful,...

...against duplicitous attempts... introduce divisions within the People of God!

The faithful cannot be forced to cope...

...with such unprecedented variety in worship.

It is clear that a "liberalization" of the long-forgotten rites...

...will shatter the united front of Catholicism... it faces its enemies!


  1. Well said.Sad but true.

  2. And the public dissention among the Bishops begins...

  3. Anonymous11:03 PM

    What is the picture with the priest celebrating ad orientem (though you can see there's a Novus Ordo altar set up, too) and all the boys or men kneeling in the sanctuary? It's under " participation of the faithful..."

  4. To this end, it is the sad necessity that your consistent denial of the authority of a General Council and of five Popes must lead to your excommunication.

  5. Let me thank Gillibrand from Catholic Church Conservation (link in our sidebar) for several of these images.

  6. Say what, brownish-bear???


    Gregg, I believe that is from the Assumption Grotto, in Detroit. It follows the new Missal.

    The intent, naturally, was not only to show "scandalous" events, but to underline the existing "variety" and the absurdity of the bishops' comments.

  7. The picture with Holy Mass ad orientem is from the Assumption Grotto, a thriving parish in the middle of Detroit. The priest is Fr. Perrone. The boys and men are wearing what are probably white albs, as is their custom for the Easter season. The Parish attempts to make the Novus Ordo as Traditional as possible, with propers and ordinaries in Latin. Unfortunately, they were denied use of the Traditional Mass by the Archdiocese. However, we will see what happens November!

  8. Re acu tetigisti!!

    Biretta tip to you!


  9. Thank you, Father Zuhlsdorf! It is an honor to see you here as a commentator!

  10. Excellent! We need more of this disseminated throughout the Catholic media to expose the absolute nonsense spoken by catholics about NO liturgy.

    When the "authority" of a general council bears such rotten liturgical fruit Roman Catholics everywhere have the right & the duty to question such "authority". This is a question of the utmost urgency. VC II did not have infallible authority as Pope Paul (RIP) stated. Neither did any pope have the right to depart wholesale from established liturgical norm and values which such pictures here, and in abundance elsewhere, reflect. The fact that he had clear doubts about the outcome of the councils is more than evident in sentiments he expressed in public. Even Pope Benedict XVI as Cardinal in 1980s stated doubts in his Catholic Theology about the value of some councils. History is, perhaps, already revealing considerable doubts to us about more recent conciliar outcomes.

    Today we have NO services demonstrating a church which has lost its way, lamentably so. And who among the last 5 popes was the engine room behind liturgical inculturation?

    If a bishop tells you to attend an ecumenical service in which Catholics are expected to swallow the lie that we are all the same religion cosmically and all going to Heaven, then excommunicate me please. I would rather attend The Latin Mass as my great Roman Catholic forefathers did and disobey said bishop. Many of the novel behaviours at NO services actually infringe current rules about validity of the Mass. I would tell him to his face as I have before to one here that he is giving false teachings. St John Chrysostom told us the skulls of many a rotten bishop pave the floor of Hell - use of the word bishop would presuppose bishops of Rome, too.

    It is not without justification that we are admonished in Acts to obey God and not man and told by Our Blessed Lord to worship in Spirit and in Truth. Employing a little sensus fidelium and guided by consistent teachings of The Catholic Church throughout 2000 years we may know what is novel and untrue and what is true and worthy of belief. In this respect, a good look at many bishops around the world suggests that they ought to take St John Chrysostom's warning more seriously than they evidently do.

    If we study the good wishes sent by The Vatican to Hindu's at Deepavali we see it claim God loves everyone and His love is unconditional. Reading Psalm 5 which states God hates doers of iniquity, Ezechiel, Romans, Hebrews and St Matthews Gospel gives sharp reminders that maybe God does not actually "love" everyone. As Our Blessed Saviour said in St John's Gospel "If you love me you will keep my commandments". Now, this is conditional whether The Vatican likes it or not. How can you love God if you are in continual disobedience of His Will. St Paul explains how obedience works in this respect. And so you can see how the modernist obsession with ecumenism and interfaith "dialogue" has wrecked the Roman Catholic liturgy and made revisionist interpretations of Sacred Scripture which are novel and bear seeds of untruth.

    QED - the accompanying pictures amply indicate the desperate need we have for a return to the normal Catholic liturgy and respect for the clear indications of Sacred Scripture. To claim we must obey a pope, or bishop for that matter, at all costs and every one of his utterances, is definitely not Catholic doctrine, however you manipulate the definitions.

  11. Brownish Bear- I think New Catholic is exposing that what is passed off as "obedience to the Council and the popes" is no such thing. Do you honestly believe that these pictures represent the "exact implementation" of the 1970 Missal, which was demanded by Paul VI?

    Mack- exact quote, no manipulations: "Furthermore, we declare, say, define and proclaim to every human creature that they by necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff" (Boniface VIII).

  12. One of your best posts ever. Thank you. Let us pray very hard because these are critical days.

  13. St. Catherine of Siena – "We've had enough of exhortations to be silent! Cry out with a hundred thousand tongues. I see that the world is rotten because of silence."
    Pope Felix III – "Not to oppose error is to approve it, and not to defend truth is to suppress it, and indeed to neglect to confound evil men when we can do it, is no less a sin than to encourage them."
    Pope Leo I – "He that sees another in error and endeavors not to correct it, testifies himself to be in error."
    Pope Pius V – "All the evils of the world are due to lukewarm Catholics."
    Pope Pius X – "All the strength of Satan's reign is due to the easygoing weakness of Catholics."
    1 Timothy 5:20 – "When they sin rebuke them in the presence of all, that the rest also may have fear."
    Proverbs 17:15 – "He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, both are abominable before God." 1Jn. 4:1 Beloved do not trust every spirit but test the spirits to see whether they belong to God because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

    And one the subject of God "loving" all unconditionally mistakenly expressed in an ecumenical good wish to Hindus at Deepavali. No, God does not love everyone unconditionally.

    Jam. 4:4 Adulterers! Do you not know that to be a lover of the world means enmity with God? Therefore, whoever wants to be a lover of the world makes himself an enemy of God.

  14. What is sad is that you can show this pics to bishops, our teachers, and they just WON'T get it! A poor state of affairs has been left to this pontiff...

  15. Anonymous4:03 AM

    If I wanted such silliness up on altar, I would have stayed a Protestant.

  16. MacK,

    >>When the "authority" of a general council bears such rotten liturgical fruit Roman Catholics everywhere have the right & the duty to question such "authority".<<

    That sounds pretty much like Protestantism to me.

    >>VC II did not have infallible authority as Pope Paul (RIP) stated.<<

    Even if the late Pope had something like this, it is not in the authority of a Pope to set aside an Ecumenical Council. But I doubt that he said that.

  17. For Mr Str, who sadly thinks the Second Vatican Council authoritatively could define or has defined new teachings with ordinary or ex cathedra authority!

    Pope Paul VI:
    “Today we are concluding the Second Vatican Council. [...] But one thing must be noted here, namely, that the teaching authority of the Church, even though not wishing to issue extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements, has made thoroughly known its authoritative teaching on a number of questions which today weigh upon man’s conscience and activity, descending, so to speak, into a dialogue with him, but ever preserving its own authority and force; it has spoken with the accommodating friendly voice of pastoral charity; its desire has been to be heard and understood by everyone; it has not merely concentrated on intellectual understanding but has also sought to express itself in simple, up-to-date, conversational style, derived from actual experience and a cordial approach which make it more vital, attractive and persuasive; it has spoken to modern man as he is.” (Address during the last general meeting of the Second Vatican Council, December 7, 1965; AAS 58)

    As to infallibility of the Council:
    “We have to distinguish according to the schemas and the chapters those which have already been the subject of dogmatic definitions in the past [like papal primacy, the Immaculate Conception]; as for the declarations which have a novel character, we have to make reservations.” (Mgr. Pericle to Mgr. Lefebvre.)

    Dignitatis Humanae and other things questioned by the SSPX are new, and part of the authentic magisterium, not of the universal ordinary or even the extra-ordinary magisterium.

    Of course to the French modernist "Episcopate" Vatican II is the only Superdogma, which erased all other dogmata of the Roman Catholic Church. But I do not belong to their Newchurch, but to the Roman Catholic Church.

  18. frightening and alas too vivid illustration of the destruction of the "Roman rite" in its "ordinary" version.
    We are indeed far from anything Vatican II was asking for ! but we are in the middle of the Bugninist carnival which has replaced liturgy nearly everywhere within the "Latin" Church.
    I would add three remarks :
    - unity is not uniformity and has never been. Vatican II is specifically rebuking the fantasy of one single rite for the whole Church. This is a very traditional statement made by the Council.
    - Bp Dagens, being a very learned man, is deliberately fooling people around with a twisted presentation, he knows himself very well being scientifically wrong.
    Bp Dagens is a prominent neo-cons French bishop and was involved in the very "Wojtylian" revue "Communio".
    It is noticeable to see a neo-cons bishop, who was known for his respect for the Sovereign Pontiff and his fidelity to Rome, adopting a posture which is frankly a challenge for the Pope. He is the second bishop to do so after the incredible act of defiance from cardinal Barbarin of Lyons. Bp Raffin is also considered as a neo-cons bishop, though he has evolved these past years as the unofficial spokesman for the French litnik lobby.
    These 3 bishops are old friends of cardinal Lustiger.
    - the Abp of Paris André Vingt-Trois is trying to calm down this eruption of gallicanism, a pernicious condemned doctrine which is clearly behind these shocking episcopal statements.
    He told a news agency : "Est-ce une communion de l'Eglise uniformisée et uniformisante ou qui fait droit à des différences de sensibilité, d'approche?"
    [is it a communion through a compulsory unified Church or a communion that allows differences betweeen several sensitivities, several approaches ?]
    This reminder from the Abp of Paris, another neo-cons and protégé of cardinal Lustiger, is like blowing the whistle : the Abp is discreetly asking his irresponsible colleagues to remember their oath during their episcopal consecrations ...
    Thank you Your Grace : a word of episcopal wisdom is welcome these days among French bishops.

  19. New Catholic,

    To your knowledge, are such public episcopal jitters taking place anywhere else in the world?

  20. it is not in the authority of a Pope to set aside an Ecumenical Council.

    The infallibility of a general council is dependent on the infallibility of the Pope, so if the Pope does not engage his infallibility (for example, when he receives the decrees of a council), then the council in question is not infallible.

    Councils are not superior to Popes. To claim that they are is a serious error.

    We are not talking about what a future Pope might say about Vatican II, but what they very Pope who presided over it said!

  21. dcs, thank you for this explication. Indeed the infallibility of an Ecummenical Council is derived from the infallibility of the Pope. Nothing is above the Pope, except the word of God.

    And thank you for the interesting exchange of information about the faith, I have found in this blog. It has nurtured my faith.


  22. Has anyone read/have comments on John Allen's column today?

    He presents more handwringing over the purported document. Many of the objections are things I hadn't anticipated.

  23. Allen still wishes to build on his myth of "lack of consensus", which we discussed here in April. Naturally, he and his friends will make up "obstacles" for any wise move by the Holy Father -- who, if interested only in "consensus" and in "easy solutions" would never have pressed this matter in the first place.

  24. I am entirely unconvinced that the liberalization of the Tridentine Mass shall have any more earthshattering consequences than the occasional presence of Byzantine Catholic priests operating in Latin Rite dioceses does. The bishops worried about the consequences seem, so far, to be straining at gnats. Simply adopting the same rules for tridentine worship as is already done for Byzantine priests operating in Latin Rite dioceses would seem to be the simple, easy way to proceed.

    At the same time, it is important to recognize some good fruits of Vatican II, to wit, the death of the dubious doctrine that rites are unequal, that lesser rites should be modified and corrected to conform to the preffered rite and other insulting and often bigoted nonsense. The days when Byzantine Catholic bishops were ranked after Latin rite monsignors were not proper, were not respectful of the institution that Christ founded. Attacking the Council as rotten passes over the good that has come about from it and is insulting to those who suffered centuries of discrimination from fellow believers and clergymen.

    To my personal experience, it is far and away most often the case that rotten fruits are coming from people who cite "the spirit" of Vatican II while contravening the documents of Vatican II. This is not the fault of the Council that lies are being told in its name. I would also suggest that anyone seeking excommunication has insufficiently contemplated the consequences.

  25. The anti-TLM sentiments, stated and unstated, of certain bishops is the dying gasp of the post-Vatican II heretics and modernists.

    A return to the reverence of the traditional Latin Mass, the only Mass the Church knew for 1500 years, is the only things that is going to keep the Church from sliding into further ruin (ruin, not destruction, which we know cannot happen).

    A return to the TLM will renew a belioef inthe Real Presence, increase vocations, and certainly raise Mass attendance.

  26. Hat gesagt...
    For Mr Str, who sadly with ordinary or ex cathedra authority!

    Dear AmemusAthanasium,

    I do not only think that the Second Vatican Council, like any other Council in union with its head, the Pope, could authoritatively define a new teaching. Of course it could have. That it hasn't issued such a definition is another matter. Its document, confirmed by the Pope, are nontheless binding.

    Dear dcs,

    "The infallibility of a general council is dependent on the infallibility of the Pope, so if the Pope does not engage his infallibility (for example, when he receives the decrees of a council), then the council in question is not infallible."

    That, I am afraid, is not very accurate.

    Both the Pope's and an Ecumenical Council's (again in union with the Pope) infallibity are part of the extradordinary magisterium and derived from the Church's infallibility promised her by Christ. The Pope doesn't make the Council infallible, but his confirmation make the Council Ecumenical and as such it is authoratative.

    " Councils are not superior to Popes. To claim that they are is a serious error."

    Sure, that would be Conciliarism. But a Council cannot be superior to the Pope, as the Pope is part and head of the Council. But once a Pope has confirmed a Council's document, they are binding as part of the Magisterium and binding upon any future Pope. He may not set them aside anymore as he can set aside Nicea or Vatican I.

    You cannot pick and chose which Council you adhere to. That would be Protestantism.

    Dear Humboldt,

    "Nothing is above the Pope, except the word of God."

    That, I am afraid, is seriously wrong. I guess by "word of God" you are referring to the Bible and not to Christ our Lord, who IS the Word of God. However, are you not forgetting the role of Holy Tradition and the teaching expounded by all of the Magisterium, ordinary as well as extraordinary?

    The Pope is indeed the highest authority on earth, but that doesn't mean that he is not bound by anything.

    Even if I had to be that prescriptive, may the Lord bless you.

  27. Dear str,

    Yes, indeed Jesus is the word of God and the Bible is the word of God, therefore, Jesus IS the Bible and the word of God. Still, we come to know Jesus Christ through the Bible. Of course, the Holy Tradition of the church is necessary to know Jesus Christ, however, the tradition of the church is based on the Bible, and nothing can be depicted as tradition if it contradicts the Bible (correctly understood). Tradition is completely coherent with the Bible, this is the gist of tradition.

    As for the Pope not having anything above him, I must enhance my posting in that indeed the word of God, (the Bible and the Holy Tradition attached to it) is above the Pope, and the Pope is bound to obedience to this tradition, however the Pope is also bound by the ex-cathedra definitions by the previous Popes and the Ecummenical Councils.

    After 2000 years of salvation history I doubt that there is much else to know about Jesus Christ than what we already known, for obtaining salvation. I believe we know everything we NEED about Jesus Christ in order to obtain salvation.

    Let's remember that the faith is not a gift of the Catholic Church or of the Pope, it is a gift given by God himself. The Church and the Pope are just an instrument of God, still sometimes the Church seems to be woking against Jesus Christ, instead of for him.

  28. Thank you New Catholic

    Superb use of the images - these and much more besides over at Catholic Church Conservation

  29. Dear Humboldt,

    I wholeheartedly agree with what you wrote about the importance of the Bible, in its relation to Tradition and the Pope and the Church.

    I also concur about the Pope being bound by Scripture and Tradition (which includes the definitions of the Church in the past).

    Though I'd say that there is very much we do not know about Jesus Christ and much still to learn, I agree that we know enough to obtain salvation (however I think that has been true for almost 2000 years).

    I also affirm that "faith is not a gift of the Catholic Church or of the Pope" and that these are instruments. To say that Church could be working against Christ is to put the head in opposition to the body, though sometimes members, great or small, of that body fail to live up to their purpose.

    There is one most serious mistake however in your post that I must address: Jesus is the word of God. The Bible is often called the word of God, but in a much different sense. The "speaking of God" would avoid the most dangerous identification of Jesus and the Bible. Jesus IS NOT the Bible. He is not a book. We do not worship a book and we do not believe that God or God's word became book (as Muslims do) but that He became man.

  30. I don't understand why the Oxford Oratory is pictured.... Surely there's nothing wrong happening there??!!!

  31. Repeating myself, Jake: "The intent, naturally, was not only to show 'scandalous' events, but to underline the existing 'variety' and the absurdity of the bishops' comments."

    I would add that almost all events pictured here could probably be justified in some way by the hundreds of alternative rubrics and exceptions available for the new Missal. The whole point is that there is no clear standard and there are exceptions which allow for this unlimited "variety".

  32. Dear str,

    It seems that you have taken the wrong point of view regarding Jesus and the Bible. Jesus is at the center of the Bible, the whole Bible is about Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is at the center of creation. The whole creation refers to him. So in this sense yes Jesus is the Bible. As for knowledge of Jesus, I agree that there is a lot about Jesus which we do not know, and which we probably won't know until we are with him, with the Father. We must be humble, there will always be something else which we don't know about God: Father, Son, Holy Spirit, because we are only humans.

  33. Dear Humboldt,

    I believe that what you actually want to say is all right and I would probably agree, but to say that Jesus is the Bible is, quite frankly, blasphemy and incorrect. If you wouldn't use such problematic wording we wouldn't have a problem here.

  34. str, I don't see any problem with the wording I use. I also would like to remind you that the Bible has been cannonized by the Catholic Church, that is why we call it the "Holy Bible" or "Sacred Scriptures", although one the latest attacks of the NO and of the secularist wing of the Churchy against the tradition of the church has been to expunge the word "Holy" and "Sacred" from the title of the the Bible. AMDG

  35. str, if possible I would like to ask you to explain why you say that saying "Jesus IS the Bible" is blasphemous.

  36. Nice picture of "Former Altar Boy". It reminds me when I made my First Communion. My school priests were still not fully filled with secularism, which engulfed them later, so all boys receiving the holy sacrament did it wearing a white franciscan cassock. For a young kid like me, it was a great way to convey a proper spirituality to the exiciting ocassion that we were receiving Jesus Christ for the first time. Now days, their First Communion ceremonies are minimized to the extreme, therefore devoiding the ceremony of any spirituality. That is what the Novus Ordo has come to. And I am not talking about nostalgy but of expediency,

  37. Strange ... I posted a reply and I saw it appear here yesterday but now it's gone!

  38. Hence, just a short form of it:

    Saying Jesus IS the Bible is saying God IS a book, God became a book.

    But the Christian faith says that God became Man.

    God is not a book any more than he is a vestment, a building etc.

  39. Haha. Well done! ;)

  40. Could you telle me what is so funny, so I can joing in the laughter.


Comment boxes are debate forums for readers and contributors of RORATE CÆLI.

Please, DO NOT assume that RORATE CÆLI contributors or moderators necessarily agree with or otherwise endorse any particular comment just because they let it stand.


(1) This is our living room, in a deeply Catholic house, and you are our guest. Please, behave accordingly. Any comment may be blocked or deleted, at any time, whenever we perceive anything that is not up to our standards, not conducive to a healthy conversation or a healthy Catholic environment, or simply not to our liking.

(2) By clicking on the "publish your comment" button, please remain aware that you are choosing to make your comment public - that is, the comment box is not to be used for private and confidential correspondence with contributors and moderators.

(3) Any name/ pseudonym/ denomination may be freely used simply by choosing the third option, "Name/URL" (the URL box may be left empty), when posting your comment - therefore, there is no reason whatsoever to simply post as "Anonymous", making debate unnecessarily harder to follow. Any comment signed simply as "Anonymous" will be blocked.

Thank you!