Rorate Caeli

For the Record: Mexican agency interviews Castrillón

The Mexican news agency Notimex published a news release (see website of Mexican National daily Milenio) based on an interview with Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos.

The article includes the information that "The... President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei revealed in an interview with Notimex that this document [the motu proprio] is already written and its release will take place in the next few weeks." Since this is not an actual interview, but an article based on an interview, it is not clear what were the genuine words used by Castrillón regarding the document and its current status.

Among the words spoken by Cardinal Castrillón, we find the following (translated and adapted):

"There is no turning back, [the Pope] is not leading the Church to a reverse position; the Pope is the Vicar of Christ and has the Holy Spirit who always guides him forward, which does not mean that things which may have deteriorated may not be perfected."

"It [The Traditional Mass] will not be imposed on anyone, it does not in any way contradict the current [Mass], the Mass of the Council Fathers was that of Saint Pius V, they did not celebrate the Mass of Paul VI, these two Masses are not be be [mutually] opposed."

"In the Mass of Saint Pius V there is a ritual expression which is enjoyed by some; there are those who wish to celebrate it occasionally, but without it meaning any disregard, [but] complete respect for the new rite."

"The Pope wishes to preserve for mankind a treasure which sanctified the Church for more than a thousand years: the rite codified by Saint Pius V; this treasure, this cultural expression, this language which was the language of the Church from the earliest time". [Benedict XVI] "loves the liturgy [and] does not wish to retroact, does not intend to impose, it is an offer for those who have this sensibility."

Regarding the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X, Castrillón said:

"They are not schismatics, the priests are under a suspension for illicit exercise, and the Bishops are excommunicated because the ordination of new bishops without a permission from Rome received this punishment latæ sententiæ."

[Tip: Father Gonzales]


  1. Better and better! I can't wait to see the whole interview! I particluarly like the part about the SSPX not being schismatics. Can he say it any more bluntly?

    And his comment about "what may have deteriorated may yet be perfected" is most excellent. We're pulling 1962 forward to us, and going forward from there. It's the only thing that makes sense.

  2. Anonymous11:27 PM

    What of the comment the MP will be ISSUED in "a few weeks"?

    How solid is this information? At this point I highly doubt it was made up or a misrepresentation, but I honestly dont know.

    Hopefully this is just the START of the official good news and we will see more official comments in the near future.

  3. Anonymous1:52 AM

    It is very instructive ti have this piece come right after His Eminence's speech the CELAM conference, as we can see that he seems to be using his words carefully with regard to the current status of the SSPX. Thus he refers to the epicopal consecrations as a "schismatic action" and later to the "schismatic situation" in the CELAm speech, but he states in the interview (and he has said the same elsewhere) that the SSPX people are not schismatics.

    My take on this, for what it's worth, is that Cardinal Castrillon is saying that there is a state of material separation between the SSPX and Rome (which no one can deny), but that the SSPX individuals are not formally schismatic, in the sense that they have not committed "withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him" (the definition of schism according to CIC can. 751).

    I know that some would not agree with Cardinal Castrillon's view, but I would submit that it is better, especially for us lay folk, to be charitable and give the other guy the benefit of the doubt, than to be judgmental.

  4. Anonymous1:53 AM

    Typos. Ugh. Sorry.

  5. Anonymous10:41 AM

    My only concern with the MP release is that there will be no updates to the liturgical books. While beautiful, the 62 needs to be updated to include new feasts like Divine Mercy, etc. We cannot remain in 62 forever.

  6. Anonymous11:59 AM

    The "update 1962" issue is a red herring.

    The 1962 rubrics already allow for the celebration of the festal Mass of a saint inscribed on a given day in the Roman Martyrology, let alone generous provision for the Votive Masses of saints. Many saints found in the 2002 Missal are actually in the Appendix of the 1962 Missal, with proper Masses. Those lacking proper Masses can be celebrated with the Commons.

    The Divine Mercy Feast is one most traditionalists would not favor inserting into the calendar. Low Sunday is already the Octave Day of the most important day of the year. In the 2002 Missal, it has zero proper texts, merely a title on the page with the existing Easter Octave liturgy.

  7. Anonymous2:44 PM

    Dear Bloggers:

    Rocco Palmo said today about these quiet days of Pope Benedict in Rome and Castelgandolo -and in reference to the release of the expected Motu Propio- the following:

    "... and when resistance to it has been led by your curial heads, maybe there's no better time to let it drop than when they're half a world away."

    Kind regards,

  8. Regarding the celebration of feasts for saints added to the calendar since 1962, I quote from the PC "Ecclesia Dei":

    4. With regard to the celebration of the Masses of saints canonized since 1962, the Latin orations published in the Missal of Pope Paul VI and those subsquently published by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments should be used taking the remaining parts of the Mass from the Common.

    From letter to Mr. Michael Sternbeck
    Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei"
    June 7, 1993 N. 24/92

  9. "Keep on Praying"

  10. Anonymous2:38 AM

    Please answer this question: will the battle between the two Masses end with the "motu proprio" or will it have just begun? Any sagacious comments in light of the fact that, upon its publication--the great "motu proprio" of Benedict XVI, that we will still have two different lectionaries, two different rubrics, two different calendars, two significantly different forms of worship and reverence-- especially vis-a-vis the Sacred Eucharist with Communion in the hand in one Mass and not in the other, in short two different priesthoods of worship?

    j hughes dunphy

  11. J. Hughes, the fight has been going on for about five hundred years now. The only difference is that it has now moved INTO the church instead of being waged by the church with forces without. That part will not change, there is no reason to suspect that it should. But the disarray of the new mass will continue to deteriorate, and the order and stability imparted by the old liturgy will not only draw, it will CREATE more and more adherants, eventually co-opting the novelty form. It is an inevitability. The traditional ROMAN mass is the most humane and successful form of worship ever devised. It cannot be eradicated.

  12. Anonymous4:09 PM

    Wait a second. Look at this comment by his Eminence: there are those who wish to celebrate it occasionally, but without it meaning any disregard, [but] complete respect for the new rite."

    Who are those people? I have never heard of anyone saying that the Clown Mass is fine sometimes and the Tridentine Mass on others and a Hippy Guitar Mass on others. The main adherents to one form are usually dead-set against the other. What group is he talking about?

    Most Catholics will go to Mass that's at their parish Church. If the 1962 Missal were imposed, they'd complain a bit, but they'd go. It would not be a problem until some demagogue started working.

  13. Anonymous7:42 PM

    SSPX are not schismatics . . . finally a word of directness and clarity.

    Now how long is "a few weeks?" I can't take it.

  14. The Cardinal is a negotiator not a conserver. Nix

  15. Anonymous11:25 PM

    "I have never heard of anyone saying that the Clown Mass is fine sometimes and the Tridentine Mass on others and a Hippy Guitar Mass on others."

    True enough -- but then there aren't just two extremes, an abuse-laden Pauline Mass vs. a perfectly-offered Tridentine Mass. Though unfortunately not very common, there are perfectly-offered Pauline Masses. There can also be, and have been many times in the past, abuse-laden Tridentine Masses. In reality the abuse-laden Pauline Mass seems to be the rule rather than the exception, but in theory the Pauline Mass can be as fitting and dignified a liturgy as any Pian Mass.

    I would like to see the Pian Mass to be much, much more common, but I do not mean "any disregard, [but] complete respect for the new rite." I also want to see more Latin Pauline Masses and less vernacular ones, and more Gregorian chant and no more Protestant hymns and cruddy Catholic hymns. I would like to see a return of the apostolic ad orientem posture and an end to Communion in the hand. I'd also like the scripture lections to be chanted rather than proclaimed or merely read.

    I doubt most of those wishes will come true in my lifetime, but at least the Holy Father will take this desperately needed step of derestricting the pre-Vatican II Roman Rite. One small step in the right direction -- and may we soon see more steps along that path.

  16. Great blog. You should insert a link to a feed so people can subscribe to it. Your feed is:

  17. IMHO:

    the MP will (also) deal with the Novus Ordo, but then I have always thought that.

    I'll tell you what Jordan, if there was but ONE thing I could change on my own (non-existent) authority, it would be communion standing-in-the-hand.

    I have a silly hope that FORCING people to adopt a sacred (set apart for God) posture &c. would have a cascade effect.

    I am not holding my breathe.

    Double cheese hold the pickle?

  18. the SSPX people are not schismatics.

    Does that mean that assistance at the SSPX masses is protection from the sin of schism? That's impossible, the Cardinal is only saying that assistance at SSPX masses in and of itself does not constitute an act of schism. However, if one's internal attitude is of refusal to submit to the authority of the Roman Pontiff, then one is schismatic, regardless of where one assists at mass.

    God Bless,


  19. sp-vb,

    I have a silly hope that FORCING people to adopt a sacred (set apart for God) posture &c. would have a cascade effect.

    The Latin expression is "lex orandi, lex credendi", and the Church has always trusted in it's power. Force may be a little strong for some of these situations, perhaps normative for some, and required for others.

    God Bless,


  20. Hello Matt!

    Well, by force I meant certeris paribus unless one kneels and opens ones mouth, there shall be no reception.

    "Super size me and an apple pie please."

  21. Anonymous9:24 PM

    Dear Bloggers:

    The Motu Propio must not create a division between catholics. And the traditionlists have the burden to make that a reality.

    Remember these wise words of Holy Father Paul to Marcel Lefebvre.

    "Let us come now to the more precise requests which you formulated during the audience of 11 September. You would like to see recognized the right to celebrate Mass in various places of worship according to the Tridentine rite. You wish also to continue to train candidates for the priesthood according to your criteria, ''as before the Council," in seminaries apart, as at Econe. But behind these questions and other similar ones, which we shall examine later on in detail, it is truly necessary to see the intricacy of the problem: and the problem is theological. For these questions have become concrete ways of expressing an ecclesiology that is warped in essential points.
    From the same erroneous conception springs your abuse of celebrating the Mass called that of St. Pius V.
    You know full well that this rite had itself been the result of successive changes, and that the Roman Canon remains the first of the Eucharistic Prayers authorized today.
    The present reform derived its raison d’être and its guidelines from the Council and from the historical sources of the Liturgy. (...) We have sanctioned this reform by Our authority, requiring that it be adopted by all Catholics. (...)
    It is also because, in your case, the old rite is in fact the expression of a warped ecclesiology, and a ground for dispute with the Council and its reforms, under the pretext that in the old rite alone are preserved, without their meaning being obscured, the true sacrifice of the Mass and the ministerial priesthood. We cannot accept this erroneous judgment, this unjustified accusation, nor can We tolerate that the Lord's Eucharist, the sacrament of unity, should be the object of such division (cf. 1 Cor 11:18), and that it should even be an instrument and sign of rebellion.
    Of course there is room in the Church for a certain pluralism, but in licit matters and in obedience. This is not understood by those who refuse the sum total of the liturgical reform; nor indeed on the other hand by those who imperil the holiness of the real presence of the Lord and of His Sacrifice."


  22. Anonymous9:26 PM

    Paul VI, obviously.

  23. Anonymous2:17 AM

    Arianism is a historical fact of the Church. 80% of the Bishops at that time subscribed to it. I would say that 75% of our Bishops subscribe to modernism, which is also a heresy. Only God can judge their hearts. "They may have our churches, but we have the faith." Indeed, if one walks into many of the once-Orthodox Catholic churches in the world today, one is met with a form and practice our Catholic forefathers would have found blasphemous.

    The greater question is this: is the Eucharist validly consecrated at a modernist mass? I would say Yes. Moreover, I would even venture to say that the Eucharist was validly consecrated at an Arian mass. God may supercede a heretical priest or bishop to Himself shepherd His faithful. All of us can't fly 1,000 miles to attend a perfectly faithful mass. God will watch over those of His faithful who have their hearts in the right place and try to remain true to the Traditional Church.

  24. Does anybody doubt that Paul VI was a tyrant? I pray that the SSPX does not come into full communion with Rome.

  25. I still don't understand why JPII decided to open the canonization cause of Paul VI, since clearly Montini was not saintly pope. If JPII was playing internal politics then this speaks very bad of JPII.

  26. Anonymous5:06 PM

    "I pray that the SSPX does not come into full communion with Rome."

    Thankfully, God doesn't listen to prayers that Christians remain forever unreconciled, anymore than He will grant a request that a sinful desire be granted.

  27. Anonymous6:35 PM

    I think some do attent the traditional mass without being committed to it exclusively. Some of these are curious, some are interested for mainly aesthetic and historic reasons. Of course, one can grow to embrace the fullness of the faith, from an initial interest, but there could be a problem if participation is only aesthetic and precludes worship. My fear is that the motu proprio turns the traditional mass into a museum mass, or a form of religious tourism, somewhat like irish culture has become watered down theatre for tourists.

  28. Anonymous12:06 AM

    "I pray that the SSPX does not come into full communion with Rome."

    Everytime I read something like this I think of the parable of the bad servant who buried his talents. I also cannot help but think that the SSPX is the yeast that could leaven the Church.


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!