Rorate Caeli

The Instruction
Pope may have ordered review of the last draft in order to remove more restrictions

And this comes from the latest edition of the "ultra-Progressive" French weekly Golias (tip to our friends at Messa in Latino), among other information we and MiL had already reported regarding the instruction on the implementation of the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum:
We have learned, from a direct Roman source, that this decree of application has indeed undergone a double correction. At the beginning, it has ben prepared by Mgr. Guido Pozzo, secretary of the Pontifical Commission « Ecclesia Dei », in charge of the matter. Subsequently, Cardinal Levada and his faithful adviser, Mgr. Charles J. Scicluna, a Maltese, had strongly amended the text in a restrictive sense. With the agreement of Cardinal Cañizares Llovera, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship! Our recent information had thus been precise. [Rorate adds: so had ours.]

Once it had been modified by Levada, the document arrived at the Pope's office. And the latter would not have been pleased with the about-turn that had taken place. It [the draft] was thus replaced, more or less, by the document as it had originally been written by Guido Pozzo. [That is,] In a sense that is more favorable to Traditionalists.
So many things make sense in Golias's account - and dovetail perfectly with what we know - that we give it great credence, though it is still a collection of internal rumors almost impossible to verify with certainty. Our thanks to all who have prayed for this and signed the Petition. 


  1. It doesn't matter what this documents say, many here will just keep insulting the Pope call him a modernist in disguise or convince them selves that he is just setting us all up for the great fall.

    All I know is that with Pope Benedict XVI we have seen the Mass of ages restored, things that were unthinkable during the pontifical of JPII are now common and most importantly everything is now in place for the return of our Catholic tradition.

    Are there things that could be better? There always are, Is the Pope may be too patient on his approach? I think so but then again I am not Pope.

    God does as he wills with his Church, should He decide to plunge it in to darkness for another 40 years, so be it. Make no mistake though this is His Church.

  2. Anonymous6:28 AM

    However, according to the Golias article, the ban on ordaining diocesan priests according to the older rite will remain.

    It also names Cardinal Canizares Llovera -- twice -- as one of those wishing to foist a restrictive application of Summorum Pontificum. With friends like this....

  3. This would appear to be an exercise of discerning and revealing true colors. And it would appear to be successful! But we'll know more when the document is actually promulgated.

  4. The restriction on ordinations of priests that are not attached to traditional orders is a matter of form rather than one of desire, I believe.

    As you many know the ordination according to the older rite presumes the existence of the minor orders. Paul VI (the gift that keeps on giving) suppressed these for regular seminarians therefore it makes it impossible as a matter of proper form to ordain none traditional seminarians according to the older form.

  5. Can we please in this light of the positive news stop the boo-boo-ing the pope and at the same time rah-rah-ing the SSPX?

    Such prophet of doom comments are uncharitable, mood killer and annoying.

  6. Gratias7:27 AM

    Thank you Rorate Caeli for the petition for a positive Intruction for Summorum Pontificum. 12,000 signatures from all over the world! It was so interesting to scroll down the names of those that stood for TLM.

    Benedict XVI is a Holy man who restored the liturgy. Pray that his pontificate will be a very long one.

  7. Anonymous7:44 AM

    Mr. Cattaneo,

    If The Holy Father does not enforce his own documents, are we just to shut up about it? Would you consider it disrespectful to hold him accountable if he does not?

    A.M. Lapietra

  8. Anonymous7:54 AM

    According to other articles from Golias, Cardinal Cañizares Llovera is no friend of the Traditional Mass. He supports only the strict application of the rules edicted by the Paul VI missal in a conservative way.
    Is he the man who is supposed to celebrate the EF mass in Saint Peter's choir soon? We can expect big surprises from him...and not in the good sense. Like the fact that he wants all the priests from the Ecclesia Dei institutes to concelabrate the new mass with their diocesan bishops.

  9. Anonymous8:09 AM

    Could it be that Golias leaked this information in order to rally the liberals and the world episcopate, just as the previous "leaks" had rallied the friends of Tradition?

  10. Anonymous8:12 AM

    @GA Cattaneo:

    You make an interesting point about the incompatibility of the new and old ordination of priests.

    AFAIK a "higher" ordination (i.e. becoming a deacon, rather than a subdeacon) automaticly includes all the graces and powers of the preceding ordinations. Hence, one could be ordained a deacon directly "from scratch". Isn't that correct?

    Hence, diocesan seminarians could be ordained according to the old rite - although that would be a bit bumpy..

    But I wonder: in the new rite, then, are all those minor orders, as well as the ordination to subdeacon, included in the modern rite of ordaining deacons / priests? I thought they were simply left out. In that case, what does the modern rite consist of that makes it so different from the ancient one, and which makes them incompatible?

    Thank you in advance for the explanation!


  11. We have just received the following from a reader:

    Dear New Catholic,

    Your latest post on Golias is correct but this is only the tip of the iceberg and I believe that it is worth having the whole story.

    That article by Golias is just a substitute for their original report... that is now no more available on their web page. It used to be an article dated March 24th... which was no less that a complete copy-paste of an article by Christophe Saint-Placide on his Summorum Pontificum Observatus website:

    No mistake possible: the match is 100% and Summorum Pontificum Observatus posted it on March 8th, while Golias did so on March 24th. In other words, publishing it on Golias's website, under Romano LIbero's name, is just intellectual robbery.

    When Summorum Pontificum Observatus and Osservatore Vaticano exposed this incredible abuse, Golias just deleted the article from its website, without offering any explanation, and substituted it with the one that Messa in Latino and you have just reported about.

    Just on more word: Osservatore Vaticano gives an interesting analysis of this incident:

    I can confirm that this is not the first instance of Golias plundering material from the trad www, although they had never gone so far as stealing a whole article.

  12. Anonymous9:26 AM

    You are right Mr. Cattaneo. Nonetheless, these are confusing times for the Church and it is good that we can have discussions about them. I find degenerating into insults especially regarding the Supreme Pontiff completely unacceptable and not worthy of serious Catholics. As you correctly state, Pope Benedict has done a great deal in the restoration of the Old Mass, for which I will be eternally grateful. I need to pray more for The Holy Father. God bless him.

    This is good news. Thank you Rorate Caeli.


  13. Anonymous12:44 PM

    Of course Cañizares Llovera is no friend of Tradition! He is the main endorser of the Neocatechumenal liturgy!

  14. Joe B2:11 PM

    I love this Holy Father, but let's at least be honest here. This strain of comments that Benedict XVI restored the old mass is just not true, and it remains to be seen if his efforts on its behalf will bear any significant fruit at all, judging by P.K.T.P.'s excellent ongoing analysis, for example. I hope his fruits are wonderful, but so far they are being exaggerated in these comments. They are tenuous at best.

    Many priests heroically kept the old mass alive, but if any one man can be said to have "restored" it, it would have to be Archbishop Lefebvre, although it would be more accurate to say he continued it and increased its open use, eventually successfully pressuring John Paul II, not Benedict XVI, to act and establish the FSSP. But many priests and groups have thus far done more for the old mass than our Holy Father, God bless him.

  15. Anonymous3:12 PM

    Well, you can't believe anything that Golias writes, as it is a leftist source. This coudl all be a fable. However, it *may* have been true and so the petition launched in large part through this site was a good idea.


  16. If you are at all aware of now, Cardinal, Levada's left leanings and his past in California, is this a surprise!

    J. C. Tzos

  17. Anonymous4:53 PM

    Despite his good intentions, it seems, and some isolated acts, the Holy Father is far from restoring the TLM.
    We, although accepting his authority, remain critically awaiting true signs of restoration.
    In this particular Instruction we should remain careful of congratulating what we really ignore. The Pope is at the same time siding with modernists and liberals, and in this sadly double politics Rome has accustomed us for so long.

  18. Anonymous5:23 PM

    It may be time to begin actively calling out obstructionist bishops, by documenting and protesting their illegal actions. I've learned, recently, that my Archbishop, who, at one time, had a reputation for being orthodox and tradition-friendly, is in fact nothing of the sort; in fact, he is very unfriendly with priests who dare to exercise their rights under SP. Why should he get away with this? It would be good to set up a traditionalst "whistle blower" website that accepts tips, names names, and holds bishops accountable.

  19. Anonymous6:28 PM

    @ Joe P.
    "This strain of comments that Benedict XVI restored the old mass is just not true, and it remains to be seen if his efforts on its behalf will bear any significant fruit at all,..."

    Dear Joe P,

    The comments say no such thing. They read that Pope Benedict has been the "intstrument" of restoration. There is no going back. The process has been started. I discovered the Old Rite through Summorum Pontificum and I'm sure I'm not alone. I am not budging from that is my home in the Church and I have the Supreme Pontiff to thank for that. This doesn't mean I have "prosciutto over my eyes and ears" I am aware of what's going on....even if it's confusing.
    Kind regards,


  20. Anonymous8:09 PM

    Wouldn't it be great if Benedict XVI surprised the entire Catholic Church and restored the minor Orders leading to priestly formation, thus supressing a Paul VI ruling which should never have been made in the first place.
    Then all seminarians could be ordained according the Tridentine Latin Mass and Roman Pontificale.

    With barely 6 months to go before a more traditional, reverent Mass is celebrated in English, when are the USA bishops going to announce groundwork for its introduction (parish preparedness, etc).

  21. Anonymous8:24 PM


    What if they yank it out from under you like they did to us in the sixties?

    Maybe you would understand some traditionals much better if you pondered your reaction to such a scenario.


  22. Anonymous8:35 PM

    Mr. Tzos is exactly right. I do not like that man and his presence in the curia is very troubling. He is there because he is an old student and confidante of Benedict XVI but his record as Archliberal, excuse me, Archbishop of San Francisco is anything but positive. While in that position, he suppressed the T.L.M. as much as he could (which meant totally for most of his time there), persecuted the good Fr. Eugene Heidt, and did nothing to condemn the inverted and perverted culture of that Sodom of California--both within and without the Church. One wonders just how far that Sodom has 'penetrated' the priesthood in S.F.

    I worry about his influence also in regard to the Anglican-Catholic incomers. Confidential information has recently 'come into my hands'. It does not involve Levada in the least but I wonder where he stands in regard to it. The information is that 'powers that be' in the new Ordinariate in England--and with the help of the magic circle in the Latin hierarchy there--are asking traditionalist Anglicans from the Church of England to 'leave their patrimony at the door' when they join the Ordinariate. There seems to be a process in place for vetting incomers so that those who are too attached to their patrimony are discouraged from crossing into the hierarchy.

    As I have suspected all along, the three former FiF bishops, helped by Latin Bishop Alan Hopes, will likely try to foist a Mass text on the English Ordinariate, one that is impoverished by the noxious influence of the Novus Ordo Missæ.

    It has been revealed from other sources that two Ordinariate Mass texts are emerging from the vapours: the Burnham Book for the FiFers of Engalnd and a TAC book for other countries. We can only pray that the T.T.A.C. (TAC in England) will not have an N.O.-tainted liturgy shoved down its throat. I'm willing to pray all day, fast, say the Clock of the Passion (sleep deprivation as a mortification), use the discipiline and wear a hairshirt to prevent that from happening. Bishop Mercer and his people must be allowed to continue with a liturgy that is proper to their patrimony.

    Liberals never give in; they never stop. They dare even with this Pope to present a restrictive draft on the Instruction for S.P. They are currently working to exclude from the Ordinariates Anglicans who want to preserve their patrimony. So we need to remain vigilant and hope that the Pope will remove the problem. And the problem is certain people.


  23. Anonymous11:01 PM

    Moto proprio...


    It is unbelieveable to me that the ancient Liturgy of the Church of Rome has been reduced to the above.

    Just offer the TLM.

    Anything else is unnecessary.

    Nobody...nobody can take the TLM from the Faithful. Nobody!


  24. Anonymous12:52 AM

    As usual, good points from P.K.T.P.

    Fortunately, however, liberals are indeed mortal.

    Demographics and time are on our side here.

    It's a question, largely, of how much additional damage they'll be able to inflict before they're stopped.

    My sense is that the tide has turned against them. That said, our tide is not exactly a tsunami. At best, we're at a standstill. Two steps forward, one-and-a-half steps back.

    A restrictive Instruction would simply, I believe, halt the inevitable. It could, perhaps, set us back for another generation. But it won't change the ultimate outcome.

    A non-restrictive / neutral Instruction would allow us to maintain the ever-so-gentle momentum we have on our side.

    And a favorable instruction would provide a small boost to our momentum.

    I'm not saying this to be suggest complacency. Heaven knows, we really don't want to wait for another generation for the restoration of the Church, do we? Look at what has happened to our miserable world over the last 40 years thanks to a Church that effectively went AWOL. Now, more than ever, the world needs a vigorous Church. (Not to mention the fact that WE would benefit from that as well!)

    But I am suggesting a certain degree of peace. Work as though everything depends on you, pray as though everything depends on God, but be at peace along the way.

    -Prof. X

  25. Anonymous2:01 AM

    I agree with Prof. X entirely. A fortiori, how we welcome a favourable instruction is not the same thing as how effective it will be in the short term. I am still young enough, I suppose, that I tend to think long-term, not short term. I am much happier when I hear about a new every-Sunday T.L.M. in the Cameroon or India than I am when I hear of yet another one in Toronto or Philadelphia, or Versailles. This is about saving the world, literally. And saving it especially from the N.O. Freemasonic scourge.

    What we need to pray for while this pontificate lasts are measures that will ensure a long-term permanent entrenchment of our Mass in every corner of the world. It matters little if the pace of improvement is slow over the next decade or so. What counts are provisions that will recognise that our Mass is an essential party of the Latin Church.

    The Novus Ordo might be here to stay for a long while, in one form or another. Our work is to ensure that we have a protected place in the Church while the Barque of Peter weathers this storm. There are several ways to ensure this, as follows:

    (1) Grant us one international and personal particular church or, if it must be, regional particular churches or ordinariates.

    (2) Enact measures to ensure that every diocese must have a certain number of T.L.M.s as a norm at law, over and above those requested by groups in parishes. I propose a norm that there be AT LEAST ONE every-Sunday T.L.M. per diocese on the planet earth. That is not too much to ask. (Vicariates and prefectures apostolic, and territorial prelatures, could be exempted, as could those dioceses having fewer than ten priests incardinated in them.)

    (3) Recognise publicly and at law that S.S.P.X Masses fulfil the obligation.

    One or more of these is needed. If not attained, this initiative of Benedict XVI could die on the vine. I would like to see all three enacted.

    The idea is absurd that French bishops would have heart attacks and Italians bishops would suffer uncontrollable fits of weeping over such things. That is just nonsense. The truth is that such measures would not have momentous effects in the shorter term, and the liberal prelates could continue to retire in pretended honour. That is why this is all so stupid.

    Just do it, Your Holiness. While you are immortal, your time down here cannot be all that much longer. Do the right thing while you have the chance and, who knows? Perhaps we are in for a surprise and you will live as long as our oldest bishop, who turned 105 a few days ago. But we daren't wait another twenty years. We need a settlement in place soon so that everyone will come to accept it as a standard.


  26. Anonymous3:45 AM

    The best thing to hear is that the Holy Father was able to catch this evil watering down intention and stop it. It maens that even while busy he is running the Church and guiding and doing what is best for it. If this would have slipped through it would seriously make people wonder who is the head of the Church and cause serious credibility issues. Do not have fear of the wolves Holy Father, Christ has got your back as we are getting proof of. Fear not...All must pray for a long Pontificate. If given the time he will do many wonders...

  27. chiapet4:47 AM

    'Many priests heroically kept the old mass alive, but if any one man can be said to have "restored" it, it would have to be Archbishop Lefebvre'

    That's for sure. Although those of a neo-traditionalist bent often seem uninterested in acknowledging this, as if it had magically popped back out of nothingness by the hand of JPII and the Indult folks.

    If this story is true, it's good to hear, but we need to be somewhat measured in our light of recent Benedict gaffes, disturbing statements and the Good Friday disgrace, I can't get too crazy over what's going on.

    God bless him though, I hope he does more good things like this.

  28. Anonymous5:29 AM

    Again, what bothers me about all the commentary is that I fear it to be a diversion. Let us retrace our steps. We had been hoping for a measure that would supplement current provisions for our Mass on the grounds that the 2007 motu proprio has run its course. I mean that our sweet and kissable bishops have learned how to circumvent S.P. They do it, in a word, by threatening their own priests with persecution, sending them far away from parishes, to serve in the gulags.

    So we had not been hoping to defend what we already have but to advance it. Then along come rumours--incomplete rumours and therefore selective hearsay being reported for a specific purpose. These rumours threaten to take away some of what we have.

    Suddenly, we are no longer fighting for more; suddenly, our position becmes entirely defensive, and our people pray to keep what they have.

    Then along comes a new rumour, also carefully controlled and therefore limited: the Pope has stepped in to restore what we have. The relief is overwhelming. We are saved! Alleluia!

    In other words, in our relief, into which we were tricked, we forget entirely about our initial objectives and settle for much less, even for nothing or little more.

    Now we are relieved and the liberals are relieved that the Pope will not intrude much more in their established jurisdiction. Everyone is happy and nothing has changed. This gives the Pope yet more time to 'turn over the sod': out with the old liberal bishps, in with new neo-conservatives, with their sick and demented baggage, meaning the outright heresy of charismaticism and the Neo-catatonical Way and Taïze nonsense. These people are not Catholic in spirit. They are merely less unCatholic than are the liberals.

    Now it is time for prayer: to pray that I am wrong--because I hope that I am. Will the Pope fix this problem while he still has the time? Stay tuned next week to find out. Same clerical time, same clerical channel.


    P.S. While all this is transpiring, of course, the Catholic Faith is in a state of accelerated collapse.

  29. Anonymous5:47 AM

    "Demographics and time are on our side here."

    Charles Scicluna is in his early 50's. Stop thinking that the liberals are all old.

    As for the younger clergy, they can be divided into two groups: 1) those truly committed to tradition (the noisy few), and 2) those who know nothing about tradition, and don't know enough to care (the great majority).

    This battle is going to be long and tough.

  30. Gratias7:30 AM

    I agree completely that what matters is establishing every-Sunday Latin masses throughout the world. You need TLM every Sunday to establish a choir and regular attendance. Here in Los Angeles, with 5,000,000 baptized Catholics we have only two every-Sunday TLMs. They were established as indult masses after 1988, and both parishes are located at the edge of town. So the SP has been disobeyed by Cardinal Mahoney. We now have a new Archbishop and we pray he will allow a personal parish of the FSSP.

    The petition here at Rorate Caeli was remarkable in the wide distribution of the signatories: USA, France, Italy, New Zealand, Indonesia, Argentina, Colombia, Phillipines, England, Mexico, Nigeria, and on and on for a total of 12,000 people. The will is out there. And literally the future of the world depends on us, the remnants.

  31. John L8:38 AM

    'Stop thinking that the liberals are all old.'

    The liberal laity are aging and dying off. There will always be younger liberal clerics and lay employees of the Church, however, unless drastic steps are taken to remove them - because people can earn a soft living and gain status as a cleric or lay employee of the Church; and liberalism (sc, modernism) is both attractive to people with such motivations, and still a necessary ticket to a comfortable ecclesiastical career. Organised holy traditionalist orders are the only way out of this problem it seems to me; such orders can actually build congregations rather than living off the funds inherited from previous generations.

  32. Anonymous8:59 AM

    I agree with Anon 05:47
    except that Msgr Scicluna isn't a "liberal" at all but alas a blind neo-cons, if what is reported is true, that is unable to see what TLM really means.

    I disagree with G. Cattaneo.
    The sub-diaconate has been continuously maintained for trad seminarians within the trad. institutes.
    Why would it be so surprising to ordain to the sub-diaconate a diocesan seminarian who has a mission to celebrate and use TLM in the future ?

    That's exactly what Bishop REY (Toulon-Fréjus, France) did, including the sub-diaconate. A few of his diocesan priests have a mission to be priests within the Extraordinary Form.
    Excluding or making difficult the ordination of diocesan priests with the traditional rite is not benign as G. Cattaneo seems to think. It's an ad hominem attack against Bp Rey, probably urged by some FrenChurch officials who are hating this model bishop publicly. (he was loathed by the present Bp of Langres and more subtly by the cardinal-archbishop of Paris himself).

    Bp Rey is the ONLY diocesan bishop in the world who has ordained trad. priests for his diocese. He is probably the most Ratzingerian bishop in France.
    When you know these informations, you understand how vicious would be this side kick.

    Besides it will show for the priests at large that a trad priest is treated as "extraordinary" and this will certainly be used by liberal bishops (and priests) to find excuses to dispense themselves of implementing the rest of the Instruction. As they did for S.P. itself.

    "Are there things that could be better?" (G. Cattaneo) : oh yes so many the list would be a painful harsh Lent penance to read ... the key being as usual what cardinal Ratzinger said in 1998 : to renew the episcopate. Where consistant bishops are, the Church has revived and is dynamic. So far in Europe, very few has been done for that. Who is ultimately, after a complex process, appointing bishops ?


    nb. I'm dubious about the info on cardinal Canizares : infos of Golias are often mixing sound and false hidden news generally laced with a misleading modernist interpretation, so it has to be read cum grano salis always (in this case the info came from another source). But we can see that Abp di Noia is very different from the openly benevolent (now) cardinal Ranjith when he was at the same CDW.

  33. I am honestly at a loss to understand exhortations to obedience towards the Pope and charity towards his motives when there have been various prophecies from Pope Leo XIII onwards that there would be apostasy within the highest hierarchies of the Church.
    Attempts to be charitable about the Holy Father often seem to result in ambiguity and weasal words. Didn't Christ tell us that our "Yea" should be "Yea' and our "Nay", "Nay".
    I am horrified about the loss of souls that has occurred and continues to occur since Vatican 11. To stem this loss should be the most urgent task of the Pope.
    We only have to look at the fruits of this Council to wonder at the motives of any priest bishop,Cardinal or Pope that wants to continue with the the NO Mass however 'improved"
    My Irish Catholic family had kept the faith for over 1,500 years . Of the fifty or so first cousins of my generation ( around 50-60 years old) I should say about 50% still go to Mass on a regular basis . There have been divorces (unheard of in their parent's generation).
    In their children's generation however,I doubt if any go to Mass regularly or take their religion seriously. Children are baptised and receive Holy Communion just to make their parent's happy. So 1,500 years of Catholic history and tradition has been destroyed in 40 years.
    I am lucky in that after a number of years in the NO wilderness I have access to a traditional Mass and thank God my children are able to frequent it and their faith has been immeasurably strengthened as a result.

  34. A poster on another thread(I can't remember which) said that because the Vatican II changes were accepted so widely and with so little opposition showed that at the time Catholics were ready and prepared for such changes. This was not the case at all. The Vatican II changes were accepted because of the culture of blind obedience to the Church heirarchy and the Pope.I think the apostates within the Church counted on this obedience to effect their changes.
    Catholics were taught never to question the Church heirarchy because they were assured that the Church would always act in their best reliious interests and because it was guided by God.
    I remember as a child being impressed by teachers at my Catholic school with the absolute sanctity of the Host and how it could only be handled by consecrated hands and that one crumb could not be allowed to escape. Then communion in the hand was introduced! I recall being so shocked and astounded as if the whole earth had trembled under my feet. I think such radical changes contributed to the loss of credibility of the Church. How could teachings of two thousand years be overturned in one fell swoop. I think communion in the hand has resulted in disbelief in the Real Presence.
    That is why I cannot agree with the posters who are always urging us to be obedient. If Catholics had been more questioning and less obedient at the time of Vatican II perhaps the NO Mass would have had a far harder time in being accepted

  35. I agree with Anon 05:47
    except that Msgr Scicluna isn't a "liberal" at all but alas a blind neo-cons, if what is reported is true, that is unable to see what TLM really means.

    I would not characterize Fr. Scicluna as a liberal either. "Conservative" - but certainly not traditional. He seems to be a man of some integrity given his role as point man in dealing with sex abuse cases coming to the CDF.

    My guess is that (if this rumor is true) he simply worked up the changes that Cardinal Levada ordered him to insert into the instruction. "Following orders" isn't much of a defense, obviously. Only that it is Levada - Benedict XVI's one real curial appointment that was worse than the man he replaced - who is the primary mover here.

  36. Anonymous4:35 PM


    I can only imagine what devastation the faithful must have undergone when the New Rite was forced upon them. I have read personal testimonies and they are heart-rending...really shocking as well is the documentaion of the implementaion of these novelties. I have been reading about Cardinal Ottiaviani's intervention during a Council session re: the liturgical reform and I was aghast to discover that they turned off the microphone when he was speaking...and those present LAUGHED! A good priest told me that that was the moment the Holy Spirit left the council! That sounds about right to me!
    This is not the time and place to recount my experiences in the Catholic fold...but after years of wandering in the wilderness - as another poster said - I was given the gift of the Old Mass.....the utterly unique, great prayer of the Catholic Church.

    It frightens me not a little that the same thing could happen again...but I don't think so. With all the modern means of communication at hand, the faithful who love the TLM will not sit back and let it happen. We saw this in the appeal launched on the internet a few weeks ago. The young will "get it" if they are exposed to the Old Rite. I think this is a primary task - to tell the young. That's what I do...and pray.

    @ Chiapet
    Just for the record - I am not a neo-traditionalist (I hate these labels)- and yes, I understand perfectly the role Archbishop LeFebvre played in preserving the TLM, and will be grateful forever for what he did - I am simply a Catholic who has been given back the patrimony that was so ruthlessly taken away from the generations of the past 40 years.


  37. Anonymous5:41 PM

    P.K.T.P. Just do it, Your Holiness.

    Just do what? Nowhere, in your many comments or in others here, have I ever seen a single practical suggestion of something specific that Pope Benedict can or should do, beyond what he has already done? Something that it's conceivable he might actually do.

    For instance, forget about the idea of some kind of personal ordinate. Could it be more obvious that Benedict wants to use the TLM to spur reform of the Church's liturgy as a whole, and would never consider segregating it in a ghetto that would render it useless for his primary purpose?

    Moving on in search of something sufficiently sensible to be worth serious discussion . . . . What could be more unrealistic that a formulaic approach--like one Sunday TLM per parish, one per diocese, one per deanery, one per every 100 square miles, one within 10 miles, etc? It's silly to talk about requiring TLMs where there's no priest qualified to celebrate it.

    No, all such ideas of rigid requirements are too impractical for Benedict to consider them seriously. What can be done is what he has already done. Freed the TLM for every priest to celebrate who wants to. And is willing to take whatever flack he gets for it. Neither the pope nor anyone else can make life a bed of roses for everyone. People have to deal with thorns. Especially, faithful priests.

    In my very small diocese with no TLM support from our bishop, we have Sunday TLMs celebrated in several different locations. More TLMs, in fact, than justified by the number of people to attend them. All by junior priests who are willing to take the consequences. Being regarded as trouble makers, for instance

    Reports from a number of seminaries indicate that half or more of all U.S. seminarians plan to celebrate the TLM as well as the “normative liturgy”. This is what Pope Benedict has done. He’s made possible a generation of faithful young priests who will not be intimidated. In due course they will be pastors and bishops. That's the biological solution. That's the time scale for restoration of the Church. Why not get used to it? And be grateful for it.

    And again, what is there he could possible do, above and beyond what he’s already done, that not absurd or simply impractical on its face?

  38. Noting 'the Sixth Continent', recalls a comment by Fr. Malachi Martin: "I have my own channels, I don't trust the regular channels to the Vatican." In effect; Golias, Osservatore Vaticano, and Sumorum Pontificum affirm the Rorate Caeli petition. (google translation follows).

    "In total there is evidence that a project widely interpreting the Motu Proprio, considered by the authorities of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith at the end of 2010, was sent to a partial overhaul because too favorable. It was during this process (to finish), the alert was given in the Anglo-Saxon (the site Rorate Caeli), and drummed on all continents, especially in the Sixth Continent that 'is the Roman Curia. It is not impossible that the pressure of the Internet has also helped the reviewers (did they favor?) Back on line more favorable interpretation."

    Michael F Brennan
    St Petersburg, Florida

  39. Anonymous8:05 PM

    Regarding the liberals....
    I have no illusions here. The battle will be long and hard.

    That said, "liberal Catholicism" is inherently contradictory, and not self-sustaining. Like communism, it simply cannot last in the long run.

    Which is exactly why we see the Church in free fall after Vatican II.

    To the extent that the liberalism has been curtailed (see Pope John Paul II and, to a much greater extent, Pope Benedict), the free fall has been slowed somewhat.

    When the "Novus Ordo" Church has bottomed-out (and probably before then), traditional Catholics will come to define Catholicism.

    (That could, sadly, take decades. And it could leave us with a Church 1/10th the size.)

    -Prof. X

  40. Anonymous writes:
    And again, what is there he could possible do, above and beyond what he’s already done, that not absurd or simply impractical on its face?

    I don't think any of PKTP's suggestions are impractical, much less absurd. They may be difficult or inopportune, but that's something quite different.

    What exactly is impractical about erecting a judicial structure for traditionalists or recognizing that SSPX Masses fulfill the Sunday obligation? or that every diocese have at least one every-Sunday TLM? What is absurd about it?

  41. My gratitude goes to Pope St Gregory The Great & Pope St Pius V together with the Tridentine Councils. These have granted to us perpetual rights and infallible doctrinal guarantees covering The Holy Mass in Latin according to the prescribed codified text. This was universally in use in the western Latin Rite Chruch until the so-called liturgical renewal movement got its deconstructionist hands on it.
    Pope Benedict XVI has given the lie to those who fraudulently or ignorantly attempted to fossilise it by abrogation. He merits our thanks for this. Nevertheless, he is much more focused on "latinising" the NO which, of course, cannot be interpreted as being in favour of restoring tradition. Therefore, to look to the SP as a form of document of right to the Latin Mass would be mistaken. It is nothing of the kind unlike "Quo Primum" and other liturgical measures which more authortatively protect our ancient liturgical rights.

  42. Anonymous9:10 PM

    "What is absurd about it?"

    Furthermore, I would add, "What is absurd about asking that the Holy Father celebrate the TLM himself?"


  43. Anonymous10:47 PM

    "What is absurd about asking that the Holy Father celebrate the TLM himself?"

    He won't. Remember, the Pope might see the benefits of having the traditionalists on his side, and he might even be more traditional minded, but he is not traditional. The Pope seems to prefer an image of a church as a big umbrella that includes trads, kikos, charismatics, liberals and all of the sort.

  44. To P.T.K.P.


    "I am much happier when I hear about a new every-Sunday T.L.M. in the Cameroon or India than I am when I hear of yet another one in Toronto or Philadelphia, or Versailles. This is about saving the world, literally."

    Your global reach is really most appreciated.

    I let out a cheer when I read this ...

  45. Anonymous12:57 AM

    "That could, sadly, take decades. And it could leave us with a Church 1/10th the size."

    I believe that it will take at least 100 years — perhaps 200 years — to restore liturgical sanity to the Latin Church via the TLM.

    It will take decades just to introduce "Latin" Catholics to bits of Latin and Gregorian Chant.

    Those initial steps will, of course, take place at Novus Ordo Masses as 99.9 percent of "Latin" Catholics are attached to the Novus Ordo (vernacular Masses).

    Yes...we're headed likely to a Church 1/10th current size.

    As Pope Benedcit XVI declared, in "areas of the world the faith is in danger of dying out like a flame which no longer has fuel..."

    The liturgical/ecumenical revolution came with a steep price — the emptying of the Church.


  46. Gratis7:40 AM

    We should be vey grateful to our Holy Father. Many here have found TLM since Summorum Pontificum and have their faith renewed. It will take time but the liturgy will be gradually improved. Deo Gratias.

  47. Henry1:04 PM

    dcs: ”What exactly is impractical about erecting a judicial structure for traditionalists

    Not an impractical idea, just a bad idea—sacrificing the long run for the short run. Our goal should be right liturgy for all Catholics everywhere, not just for a few “traditionalists” shunted off conveniently into a separate structure. As previously, Pope Benedict’s primary goal is for the TLM’s presence and visibility in the “ordinary” Church to serve as a model and stimulus for the reform of the liturgy for the whole Church.

    ”What exactly is impractical about . . . every diocese [having] at least one every-Sunday TLM?”

    Nothing whatsoever. Cardinal Hoyos has already said it is the pope’s intent that every parish [of sufficent size, perhaps] have a Sunday TLM. My own very ordinary (i.e. large Novus Ordo) round-church parish has a TLM every day (in its own small chapel), seven days a week. A couple of other parishes within easy driving distance have Sunday TLMs. Pope Benedict accomplished this with Summorum Pontificum.

    The point is that our Holy Father as already established the conditions for this to happen everywhere. As the “millennial generation” of young priests is augmented by a steady flow of orthodox seminarians and moves up through the clerical ranks (and into the episcopal ranks). Of course this will take a generation.

    I would like to hear of a practical suggestion of some tangible further action the Pope could take that would have an immediate and tangible effect, given the world-wide episcopal opposition he faces. If no one can suggest what he can actually do, I see little to be accomplished by continued whining and griping that he should “do something”.

    To indicate what I mean by “do”, I would like to hear the new instruction say that every seminarian should be taught Latin and celebration of the TLM. But, whereas this will happen very gradually, I know that it will not happen overnight just because he says it. What can he do to require it?

  48. "The Pope seems to prefer an image of a church as a big umbrella that includes trads, kikos, charismatics, liberals and all of the sort."

    This is the postmodernist post-conciliar church indeed. Thisis why it can beatify those who propagate mohamatens being "good mohamatens" & those who pray for St John the Baptist to protect mahomatenism. The new church is desperate to sanitise traditionalism.

  49. Anonymous10:15 PM

    I share with you 100% agreement.

  50. Anonymous10:17 PM

    sorry, forgot to sign: M.M.

  51. Anonymous11:32 PM

    Tom, I agree with you in the time frame you proposed.

    Even if my assistant pastor is right (he said thirty/forty years [a lot more optimistic than you, Tom!]), I'll be dead either way.

    Sad. I have suffered so for Holy Mother Church. I would have liked to at least glimpsed Her Resurrection. As it is, I no longer recognize Her as the Church I once knew, so disfigured She has become. I hate to write that, but it is true.


  52. Anonymous12:19 AM

    My humble thought is that maybe we are not going to see any "resurrection" in the way we are imagining it... maybe it is just the beginning of the Great Tribulation instead. Maybe we are seeing the beginning of the remnant here and there.

  53. Gratias7:05 AM

    In response to Henry, a constructive suggestion would be to make offering TLM a de facto requirement for appointing bishops worldwide. They would all come home, bringing their tails behind them.

    Sadly, at present offering the Extraordinary Mass is a reason for a priest being ostracized in the USA.

  54. There will be no restoration as Pope St Pius X conceived since the modernist post-conciliar church is led by compromisers who are completely disunifed but who imagine unity in hyperealist terms. "Unity in diversity" is disunity however they construe it. Has Our Blessed Lady not indicated this already? This issue is systemically characteristic.

  55. Anonymous2:49 PM

    If only the priests would stand up and say No to the NO. If they would dare to say the TLM and continue to do so despite their ever faithful and sweet bishop, then and only then will the Catholic Church finally pay proper attention to the issues.

    This priest will pay a heavy price but he has recourse to the FSSPX and FSSP, etc. if need be.

    Will the meek and timid and tepid parishioners support him when the cross gets heavy?

    A penny in the collection basket speaks volumes. As does media attention, letters, and vocal cries to the high heavens.

    We all know the answer. In the name of 'obedience' not much noise will be made. We will wait for the Holy Spirit to fix things, etc., ipso facto...

  56. The venacular Liturgy was inevitable. At one time the Sense Fides required Greek to Latin in the West for the same reasons. The majority of the world's Catholics want the venacular. That requires acceptance on the part of all Catholics.
    Many on this site appear to share with no-one but those who think like themselves.
    I know devout and returning Catholics who are alienated by even the traditional Kyrie and Agnes Dei inside the Novus Ordo.
    It will take more than education to make them comfortable with this revolutionary development.
    Having maximum access to the Extraordinary Rite is necessary, but the sanctification of the venacular Mass is the Universal prerogative.
    Neither the Pope nor Curia can or will desert the Universal Church for the Extraordinary Rite. Many readers on this site need to get comfortable with that, and grateful for the extraordinary reform of the reform.

    Michael F Brennan
    St Petersburg, Fl

  57. In actual fact, lingusitically, English is dominating liturgical development increasingly. In many places I have been the NO is in English. While other languages are used for indigenous populations, English is found as the lingua franca for the common liturgy. This is the worst possible outcome. English is not a very pretty language to sing either. In addition, meaning & signification change perennially

  58. Anonymous10:38 PM

    Mr. Brennan:

    (1) The introduction of the vernacular was not done because of popular demand. There was never any such demand from the pews. It was the product of leftist intellectuals whose purpose in introducing the vernacular was NOT to make it more understandable; their purpose was to change the theology of the Mass. One could not transform a sacrificial priesthood into "liturgical presiders" without the elimination of Latin and its replacement with the vernacular. The latter was needed in order to empower the "presiders" to develop localized and personalized cults (which the post conciliar rite has become).

    (2) Probably less than 20% of the western world and less than 50% of the rest of the world's Catholics assist at Mass regularly. That isn't exactly sufficient numbers to formulate your conclusion that a majority of the world's Catholics want the vernacular Mass.

    Therefore I reject your premise that the "sanctification of the vernacular Mass is the Universal prerogative."


  59. Anonymous4:01 AM

    Dear Mr. Brennam,
    "The venacular Liturgy was inevitable"

    OH Really! Says YOU of course!

    "The majority of the world's Catholics want the venacular"

    How could you possibly know this?There are so many factors to be taken into consideration since the introduction of the N.O. I suggest you read up on it.

    "Many on this site appear to share with no-one but those who think like themselves"

    It seems that way sometimes - but there is such a thing as objective reality and LEX ORANDI _LEX CREDENDI...

    "Neither the Pope nor Curia can or will desert the Universal Church for the Extraordinary Rite. Many readers on this site need to get comfortable with that, and grateful for the extraordinary reform of the reform."

    Again who sez so? YOU mmmm...Mr, Brennan it seems from your post that you have little sense of Catholic Identity...

    Of course people on this site think alike..there is a preference here for those who love the TLM. Other sites deal more with the santification of the N.O.

    Your post is slightly offensive in tone especially towards the people who have had the courage (through much suffering) to keep the faith since the "revolution of Vatican II" and its devastating destruction on Catholic Identity world wide. Itìs like saying "Just get over it" ...not very nice when one has lived the Mass as a Holy encounter with Our Lord. The New Rite was thrust upon them.Come on, no-one can deny this. And then the deformation started. Cardinal Ratzinger, himself, said words to the effect that the crisis (Post VII) in the Church had root causes in the liturgical changes. (obviously typed from memory and paraphrased)

    Education, in fact, is the KEY in restoration of the Sacred....young people really do understand if The HOLY is presented to them as an encounter with Our Lord. The New Mass has not the same sense of sacredness. It's just not there. Doesn't mean Our Lord doesn't come down from heaven into the priest's hands although so many liturgical abuses abound in the New Rite that justifies concern about the validity.
    Just saying...maybe you shouldn't be making so many pronouncents without real documentation and/or expereience. The two folks that don't like the Kyries don't count....

    Just to finish, (forgive me the length of this post) a quotation:

    "In recent times, even in materialist North America, the growth of the Church was magnificent with the liturgy being kept in Latin. The attempts of the Protestants have failed, and Protestantism uses the vernacular. We ask again: Why the change, especially since changes in this matter involve many difficulties and great dangers? All of us here at the Council can recall the fundamental changes in the meaning of words in common use. Thus it follows that if the Sacred Liturgy were in the vernacular, the immutability of doctrine would be endangered.
    The introduction of the vernacular should be separated from the action of the Mass. The Mass must remain as it is. Grave changes in the liturgy introduce grave changes in dogmata."

    -James Cardinal McIntyre addressing the Second Vatican Council.

    (in recovery from so much liturgical abuse)

  60. One notices how threatened the closed minded can be. The reality is that from the U.S. to Spain to Poland to China the need for the venacular is and will be predominant in the pews. Certainly Catholics prefering the Extraordinary Rite can accept that. It's a universal perspective inside the Universal Church.

    Michael F Brennan
    St Petersburg, Fl

  61. Gratias5:59 AM

    After the Reformation the Church suffered the Deformation of Vatican II. Brilliant phrase, Barbara!

  62. When the anathematised vernacular rite was imposed on us just about everyone I knew around me who was Catholic was shocked. I never met anyone in this regard who actually said it was about time we had Mass in the common tongue. Sometimes there was a sense of disbelief when a new change was introduced. People at Mass looked at each other bemused.

  63. Anonymous12:19 PM

    Mr. Brennan,

    I won't dispute your claim that the majority of the people presently in the Catholic pews overwhelmingly support the vernacular. That is a far different statement than your original assertions.

    Your problem, of course, is that there are fewer people every year who inhabit the "vernacular" Catholic pews.


    P.S. Labeling those who disagree with you with reasoned arguments as "close-minded" is silly, n'est ce pas?

  64. Anonymous4:58 PM

    "Close minded"

    The favorite descriptive phrase of the libs about those who dare to think differently and not see the "wisdom" of their ideas which, by the way, have been a complete and absolute failure. If they would only let go of their ideology, they would catch of glimpse of the devastation caused by the same ideology.


  65. When the anathematised vernacular rite was imposed on us

    When did the Church anathematise the Roman Rite?

  66. Gratias6:04 AM

    Seems Cardinal Levada was on the wrong side on TLM. I lucently learned that Justin Cardinal Rigali of Philadelphia and Roger Cardinal Mahoney of Los Angeles played poker together at Pacific Palisades with cardinal Levada. No friend of Mahoney's is likely to be a friend of TLM. Interesting how these three diocesan Los Angeles priests got so far in the Church. That must be an interesting story. Fortunately Mahoney was unceremoniously retired on the day of his 75th birthday this Feb 28. Deo Gratias.

  67. Here in France at least, demography is on the side of 'the hermeneutic of continuity' - the phrase the pope uses. The word "traditional" is loaded - it suggests old people going back to the past because they don't like the present. But those here working to ensure the hermeneutic of continuity by following the Bl John XXIII's 1962 missal are mostly young priests looking to ensure that the Holy is once again there for all easily to find in the Catholic Church. They support the conclusions of Vatican II and regret that the Council's recommendations for modifying the Mass were not followed with the result that a neo-protestant theology took hold with the imposiion of the Novus Ordo - although Paul VI insisted that the Novus Ordo was still the Catholic Sacrifice and not the 'Lord's supper' of Cranmer plus more than a pinch of the theology of Calvin.

    The option to face the congregation plus that of receiving communion in the hand (so deplored by Bl Mother Teresa) did much to encourage Catholics to fall into the protestant view that the service is just a human commemoration and not a divine action bringing us the Holy - God himself.

    That this is what the believers want is shown by the fact that it is said that in France more people attend the Mass of Trent (if you include the Lefebvrists) than all the Novus Ordo masses. It is after all - as Bededict XVI remarked when cardinal - the Holy that the young seek but so often don't find in the Catholic church.

    With the 1962 Mass I personally think that - in Europe - once a month in principal churches is the most to be hoped for. There is such a shortage of priests competent with the 1962 Missal. But one priest with a "team" could serve four churches a month - IF he had episcopal backing (which in France is very rare).
    With the Novus Ordo which the pope is so keen should be celebrated with sanctity, the key is the priest leading the congregation with his back to them, and communion - as the pope demands when he celebrates - received kneeling and on the tongue. In London's Brompton Oratory the Novus Ordo is celebrated like that and in Latin - which of course is the definiive language for the NO. All the Church's wonderful treasury of music for the Mass can be drawn upon. (Indeed it is said quite a few non Catholics come out of love for the great composers' settings for the Mass. Every Sunday Brompton Oratory is all but full - so very many people love Holiness and beauty!

    In my opinion bishops should be begged to encourage such celebrations of the Novus Ordo and priests could be reminded that these need no permission.

    Let the 1962 Missal remain the standard of excellence, and let the Novus Ordo recover, using this standard, the sanctity Paul VI intended!


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!