Bp. Trautman issues his own norms for the older form of Mass

WDTPRS’s favorite critic of the Holy See’s liturgical translation norms, His Excellency Most Reverend Donald W. Trautman, the outgoing Chair of the USCCB’s liturgy office has determined it best to issue his own norms for the use of the 1962 Missale Romanum in the Diocese entrusted to him by the Supreme Pontiff, the Successor of Peter, the Vicar of Christ whose own provisions were published for the Universal Church in Summorum Pontificum.

The document released by Bp. Trautman, with a splendid instrument of PROMULGATION (see right) is 16 pages in .pdf form, some of which are actually the Holy Father’s cover letter and an unofficial and highly questionable translation of the Holy Father’s Motu Proprio,

Ironically, this also gives us an opportunity to see in action what principles of translation His Excellency favors.

Let’s have a long look… for it can be nothing other than that… at this Erie "mega biblion".

First, the document maybe be perused here.  I call to your attention that it is called (I am not making this up): tridentinenorms.pdf

I suggest you get yourself a calming pot of tea, or a stiff drink, or something which will sooth you.

My emphases and comments.

 

DECREE OF PROMULGATION
of the Instruction Norms for the Implementation of the motu proprio Apostolic Letter Concerning the Extraordinary Form of the Celebration of the Mass and Sacraments Summorum Pontificum in the Diocese of Erie

On July 7, 2007 His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI issued motu proprio the Apostolic Letter Summorum Pontificum in which he gave, as the Supreme Legislator of the Church, new norms for the celebration of the Mass according to the 1962 Missale Romanum. These norms, which have become universal law for the Latin Church and which took effect on September 14, 2007, are to be adhered to by all members of the faithful in the Diocese of Erie, clergy and laity alike. [This begs the question.  What else is needed?]

In order to provide for the faithful observance of the law and to determine with greater precision the ways in which the law is to be observed in the Diocese of Erie, I promulgate with this decree the attached instruction Norms for the Implementation of the motu proprio Apostolic Letter Concerning the Extraordinary Form of the Celebration of the Mass and Sacraments Summorum Pontificum in the Diocese of Erie.

This instruction is to be adhered to according to the norm of Canon 34. Its provisions take effect and acquire the force of particular law for the Diocese of Erie on the Solemnity of All Saints, November 1, 2007.

Anything to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Most Rev. Donald W. Trautman, S.T.D., S.S.L.
Bishop of Erie

The Rev. Edward M. Lohse, J.C.L.
Chancellor

Given at the Chancery
of the Diocese of Erie
on this 5th day of October, 2007

Signatures and seal are on file in the Chancery Office.

Norms for the Implementation of the motu proprio Apostolic Letter Concerning the Extraordinary Form of the Celebration of the Mass and Sacraments Summorum Pontifcum in the Diocese of Erie

Introduction

On July 7, 2007, Pope Benedict XVI issued a motu proprio apostolic letter concerning the extraordinary form of the Celebration of the Mass and Sacraments. The title of this letter, Summorum Pontificum, is taken from the first two words of the original Latin text. Summorum Pontificum establishes norms for the celebration of the Mass and sacraments according to the liturgical books in force in 1962.

At the same time, Pope Benedict XVI issued a separate letter to all the bishops on the occasion of the publication of the letter Summorum Pontificum in which the Holy Father explains the rationale for providing for and regulating liturgical celebrations according to
the 1962 Missal.

In speaking about these new norms concerning the use of the 1962 Missal, Pope Benedict XVI states that "the use of the old Missal presupposes a certain degree of liturgical formation and some knowledge of the Latin language; neither of these is found very
often
. Already from these concrete presuppositions, it is clearly seen that the new Missal will remain the ordinary form of the Roman Rite, not only on account of the juridical norms, but also because of the actual situation of the communities of the faithful."
In the same letter to the bishops, Pope Benedict XVI explains that the norms established in Summorum Pontificum do not lessen the authority and responsibility of bishops [And who can doubt that this is the real point, here.] for the liturgy or for the pastoral care of the faithful in their diocese. In this regard, Pope Benedict XVI states, "Each bishop, in fact, is the moderator of the liturgy in his own diocese." Finally, Pope Benedict XVI exhorts the bishops to continue their role as moderator of the liturgy by remaining "watchful that all is done in peace and serenity."

With due regard for the authority and responsibility of the diocesan bishop for the liturgy, these diocesan norms are issued so that the norms established in Summorum Pontificum are implemented in peace and serenity with due regard for the actual situation of the
faithful in the Diocese of Erie.  By decree of the Most Reverend Donald W. Trautman, Bishop of Erie, these diocesan norms take effect on November 1, 2007 (the norms established in Summorum Pontificum having taken effect on September 14, 2007).

    1. Ordinary Form

    1.1 The "ordinary form," i.e., the usual/normal manner for the celebration of the Mass and the sacraments remains the Roman Missal of Paul VI of 1970 as revised in the third typical edition promulgated by John Paul II in 2001 (Summorum Pontificum, Art. 1).  [So… the "usual/normal manner" is according to the Latin edition of the Missal… we get it…] The ordinary form is usually celebrated in the vernacular (common language of the people)[Good heavens… ]

    2

    1.2 In the Diocese of Erie the common language is English, according to the translations of the liturgical books prepared under the direction of the USCCB Committee on the Liturgy and approved by the Holy See. [ummm…. can a bishop determine what the common language of a Diocese is?  Won’t that depend on the neighborhood these days?]

    [Now watch this next part carefully.  He will try to establish that if any other language than English is used for Mass there has to be some demonstrable or verifiable competence in that language, both passive and active.]  1.3 In some instances, other modern languages may be used (e.g., Spanish, Polish, Italian, etc. [Pretty euro-centric, I’d say…]), depending on the needs of the people. This may be done only in those celebrations where a language other than English is truly understood by the people and in which the people are capable of participating by making the responses in that language. Liturgical books (missal and lectionary) must be used which contain translations in the vernacular issued by the competent Church authority. Celebrants are not permitted to prepare their own translation of the liturgical books (canon 846 .1). If the people are not conversant [There it is!] in another language, the liturgical celebration should be in English, including the prayers, Eucharistic prayer, readings, and homily. Traditional hymns in another language that are known to the people may be used.

    1.4 In accord with the norms of the General Instruction on the Roman Missal, the "ordinary form" may be celebrated in the Latin language. [Of course… in the Latin Church how could it be otherwise.] This is not to be confused with the "extraordinary form" (see norm 2.1). The prayers of the ordinary form in Latin are according to the 3rd typical edition (2001) of the Roman Missal. The readings and homily are in English (or in another approved vernacular language if warranted according to pastoral need). [If memory serves, the readings are part of Mass and Mass may be celebrated in Latin, in whole or in its various parts.] Liturgical celebrations according to the "ordinary form" should not be celebrated in Latin unless the people are adequately prepared and therefore able to participate in the responses (canon 928). [Let us not forget that the Council mandated that pastors of souls (all this time, btw.. for decades now) have had the obligation to make sure their flocks could both sing and speak those parts of Mass pertaining to them in both their mother tongue and Latin.  I wonder how well that project is going?] The possibility of celebrating the ordinary form in the Latin language is commended to all priests for consideration as an alternative [!] to using the extraordinary form in satisfying the spiritual needs of the faithful who desire a "Latin" Mass.  ["ANYTHING but that OLD MASS!   Even Novus Ordo in… in… Latin….".  However, while Latin is in many respects very important, most people will not think to reduce the older form of Mass only to the language.  His Excellency’s point is actually a little condescending.]

    2. Extraordinary Form

    2.1 The celebration of the Mass and the sacraments according to the typical edition of the Roman Missal of Blessed John XXIII issued in 1962, i.e., the so-called Tridentine Rite, is the "extraordinary form" (Summorum Pontificum, Art. 1). All of the requirements for the valid, licit, and reverent celebration of the Mass and the sacraments according to the extraordinary form are to be observed, even in celebrations where the faithful are not present (canon 834 §2).  [Why was this not said for the "ordinary form" above?  Is there some sort of sneering double standard being applied here?  Is there some pre-supposition at work?  Are all the "ordinary" celebrations without any question "valid, licit and reverent" so that no comment need be made?]

    2.2 The Latin language is used in liturgical celebrations using the extraordinary form. [For pity’s sake…] In Masses where the people are present, the readings and homily should be in the vernacular, [First, the readings are in Latin, according to a "licit" celebration of the older form.  Then they may be in the vernacular.  Second, why say the homily must be in the vernacular if the presupposition is that so few priests know Latin?  But, let’s be fair and let that stand as good advice anyway.] using editions recognized by competent Church authority (Summorum Pontificum, Art. 1).

    3. Required Qualifications [Here we go!] for Priests to Celebrate Using the Extraordinary Form

    3.1 The following requirements must be met for priests to celebrate the Mass and the sacraments using the extraordinary form, even in private.

    3.2 The Diocesan Bishop reserves to himself or to his personal delegate the authority to determine whether a priest is qualified to celebrate the Mass or sacraments according to the extraordinary form (canon 838 §§1, 3).  [How will that be determined?  A test?  This is what he said he would do.  I suspect this norm can be easily challenged and that Rome will give a very favorable hearing to any priest who is disciplined by this bishop for not submitting to a test.  Think about this.  No such requirement will be imposed on any other priest who desires only to use the 2002 edition of the Missal.  There is a blatant and punitive double-standard at work here.]

    3.3 Only priests who are not impeded canonically and are in good standing may celebrate Mass in the Diocese of Erie according to either the ordinary or extraordinary form (Summorum Pontificum, Art. 5 §4; canons 900 §§1-2; 916). An extern priest is to provide an
authentic celebret to the pastor, administrator, or chaplain of the place (canon 903).

    3.4 Priests may celebrate Mass and the sacraments according to the extraordinary form only if they give evidence of their ability with the Latin language as well as adequate knowledge of the rubrics for the proper celebration according to the 1962 Missal
(Summorum Pontificum, Art. 5 §4).  [It is unclear as to what form that "evidence" must take.]

    3.5 Proficiency in the Latin language should be sufficient to demonstrate that the priest is not simply reciting the words of the sacred liturgy, but has an understanding of the meaning of what he is saying. [That is a nice thing, of course, but it is not what idoneus means in the Holy Father’s Motu Proprio.  As Card. Egan pointed out so clearly, idoneus simply refers to a priests minimum qualification, which in this case is the ability to pronounce the Latin properly.] The requisite knowledge concerning the rubrics of the 1962 Missal would be that which would ensure that the Mass and the sacraments are celebrated in a correct and dignified manner. [That’s fair.] These requirements with regard to knowledge of Latin and the liturgical rubrics apply to all celebrations of the extraordinary form, whether in private or with the faithful present.  [But apparently no one using the newer form of Mass need give any evidence that they have the slightest idea of what they are doing or saying.]

    3.6 Any priest who has celebrated the Mass or the sacraments with permission of the Diocesan Bishop according to the extraordinary form since the July 2, 1988 motu proprio letter Ecclesia Dei of John Paul II is presumed to be qualified to continue celebrating using to the extraordinary form, unless the contrary is evident in the judgment of the Diocesan Bishop[So that he has something to hand over the priest’s head.]

    3.7 All other priests incardinated or serving on a stable [here is that world "stable" used in a proper context.  "Stable" has a real meaning in law.  That is why it is WRONG to render continenter (the adverb) as if it were an adjective "stable", as in "stable group".  It implies something about a group that doesn’t really apply.] basis in the Diocese of Erie are to contact the Diocesan Bishop’s delegate in order to verify the prerequisite knowledge and ability to celebrate using the extraordinary form. The celebret for a visiting extern priest must indicate that his knowledge and ability to celebrate using the extraordinary form is verified by his Diocesan Bishop or religious superior.  [For heaven’s sake!   Doesn’t this look like this bishops is essentially imposing his own norms on all the other bishops and religious superiors?  Several words come to mind here to describe this approach… Suffice to say that this seems little more than an exercise in intimidation.]

    4. Required Qualifications for Others Assisting a Priest who Celebrates Using the Extraordinary Form [Not content with these overly restrictive norms for clergy, he will now impose them on lay people… just so that they feel include in his loving embrace of the Holy Father’s provisions.]

    4.1 Concelebration is not envisioned in the 1962 Roman Missal. No priest may concelebrate [DUH!] or assist in any way that may be perceived as concelebrating at any Masses using the extraordinary form.

    4.2 Any cleric (priest or deacon) who assists the celebrant in a solemn Mass using the extraordinary form in the liturgical role of deacon or sub-deacon, must give evidence of all of the same qualifications enumerated above for priests who will celebrate using the extraordinary form.
   
[This just never ends, does it…an hour of my life I’ll never get back.]

    4.3 Any layperson assisting as an altar server at Masses and celebrations of the sacraments using the extraordinary form must be properly trained to recite the proper responses and to carry out their function according to the rubrics of the 1962 Missal (canon 230 §2).

    4.4 The 1962 Missal refers to acolytes as the ones who carry out the function of altar servers for the extraordinary form. For liturgical celebrations using the extraordinary form, the function of altar server is reserved to males, whether youth or adults, in accord with the prescripts of the 1962 Missal. (In the Diocese of Erie, pastors may permit properly trained males or females, whether youth or adults, to function as altar servers for celebrations using the ordinary form.)  [This is curious.  His Excellency without question has the authority in his diocese to permit females to serve at the altar or not.  However, regardless of what the "prescripts of the 1962 Missal" say about who serves, i.e., acolytes, the 1983 Code has been interpreted to say that females also can substitute for duly installed acolytes.  So.. again, do we find a double-standard?   Mind you, I agree that only males should serve (in any Mass).  But this approach seems a bit odd.]

    5. Occasions for the Use of the Extraordinary Form

    5.1 The use of the extraordinary form is not at all permitted for a private Mass during the Paschal Triduum, whether or not the people are present (Summorum Pontificum, Art. 2). The Paschal Triduum begins with the Evening Mass of the Lord’s Supper on Holy Thursday and concludes with Evening Prayer on Easter Sunday. A private Mass is one that is not scheduled or announced by any means, but celebrated at the initiative of the priest.  [That is his definition of a "private Mass".  Not scheduled or "announced".  A little vague.]

    5.2 With due regard for the prohibition during the Paschal Triduum, and with due regard for the norm of canon 905 §1, a priest who has not already celebrated a scheduled or announced Mass on that day, may celebrate a private Mass using the extraordinary form (Summorum Pontificum, Art. 1).

    5.3 With due regard for the need to “avoid discord and favor unity" (Summorum Pontificum, Art. 5 §1), a private Mass is never to be celebrated at the same time when public Masses are celebrated in the same church, oratory, or chapel (canon 902). Also, a private Mass should never begin less than 15 minutes following the conclusion of a public Mass or other liturgical celebration in the same church, oratory, or chapel.  [Lest… gasp… anyone might still be around.  I wonder if this applies to the newer form of Mass too.]

5.4 The faithful who ask of their own free will to be admitted may attend a private Mass celebrated according to the extraordinary form (Summorum Pontificum, Art. 4). With due regard for the norm of canon 906, a priest should not enlist the faithful to attend a private Mass celebrated according to the extraordinary form, otherwise the Mass is not in fact private, but has been announced and thereby is governed by Norm 5.5. [good grief … any priest disciplined for such a thing would get a very good hearing in Rome, I think.   This is absurd.  The priest really ought to have a server or two.  How else would that happen unless he arranged it?  And what harm does it do that people attend Holy Mass?]

    5.5 A priest may not, on his own initiative, schedule a public Mass according to the extraordinary form. Public Masses celebrated according to the extraordinary form are scheduled only “in parishes where there is a stable group [There is that bad and unofficial translation.  Is the one who so objects to literal translations of Latin for liturgical use applying a "dynamic equivalent" to the provisions of Summorum Pontificum?] of the faithful who adhere to the earlier liturgical tradition" and who request that Mass be celebrated according to the 1962 Roman Missal. This request is answered by the pastor, and not by any other priest. These requirements are explicit in the norms established by Pope Benedict XVI (Summorum Pontificum, Art. 5 §1). 
   

    5.6 The Diocesan Bishop has determined that a stable group is one in which there are at least 25 persons [I bleieve this to be entirely contrary to the provisions of Summorum Pontificum.  I think it will be clarified that no bishop can impose such a number, which is not determined in the Motu Proprio.  I suspect that if a group of people objected and put this to the test, they would receive a good hearing in Rome.  At the same time it is reasonable that a parish wide initiative cannot be easily undertaken for a very small group… or can it?  There are all sorts of parish initiative made for smaller groups than 25. I think we all know what this is really about.] who, in the same location and in an ongoing manner, [this is what happens when you MISTRANSLATE LATIN.  This is NOT what coetus continenter exsistit means.] adhere to the liturgical tradition according to the 1962 Missal of Blessed John XXIII. Individuals or groups seeking the celebration of the Mass according to the extraordinary form on an occasional basis lack the required stability for requesting its public celebration (Summorum Pontificum, Art. 5 §1).

    5.7 In granting approval to a request for Mass to be celebrated according to the extraordinary form for a stable group  [There’s that bad phrase again.  They like this bad translation.  It allows them to circumvent the principle of law that when people have rights under the law, those laws that give the rights are to be interpreted as favorably as possible.] of the faithful the pastor must "ensure that the welfare of these faithful harmonizes with the ordinary pastoral care of the parish" and that this is to be done "under the guidance of the diocesan bishop in accordance with canon 392" (Summorum Pontificum, Art. 5 §1).

    5.8 When the services of a qualified priest are available, and when the pastor has approved a request for Mass to be celebrated for a stable group [ditto] of the faithful in that parish using the extraordinary form, the liturgical celebration may never [beacuse we could never imagine any reason or circumstances why that might be a good idea] be the exclusive way in which the Mass is celebrated on Sundays, holy days of obligation, or a weekday. No more than one Mass according to the 1962 Missal may be celebrated in a parish on a Sunday or holy day of obligation. If only one Mass is celebrated in a parish, it must be celebrated according to the ordinary form (Summorum Pontificum, Art. 5 §2).  [And the priest need not demonstrate with evidence any competence or willingness to celebrate it in a manner that is valid, licit or reverent or that he knows what the Mass texts mean.]

    5.9 Liturgical celebrations according to the extraordinary form shall follow the liturgical calendar that is proper to the 1962 Missal. Unless determined otherwise, the liturgical Ordo published by the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, Elmhurst, Pennsylvania is to be
followed.  [Finally… something useful.]

    5.10 For the welfare of the faithful of a stable group [if you repeat it often enough, people might think that is what the Motu Proprio says.] who adhere to the earlier tradition, they may request from the pastor that the extraordinary form be used for special circumstances such as weddings and funerals. Pastors are to respond to such requests in accord with all of the requirements established in these diocesan norms and the norms established by Pope Benedict XVI (Summorum Pontificum, Art. 5 §3). In cases of doubt, the pastor is to consult the Diocesan Bishop or his delegate (see norm 7.1).  [I suggest to the pastors that they never have doubts.]

    5.11 In order that the Diocesan Bishop may fulfill his duty to safeguard and promote unity and the common discipline of the Church, especially in regard to the celebration of the sacraments (Summorum Pontificum, Art. 5 §1; canon 392 §§1-2), pastors are to inform the Bishop’s delegate of any request from and any response given to a stable group for the public celebration of the Mass or the sacraments according to the extraordinary form. In any parish in which the extraordinary form is used for public Masses, the statistics concerning the number of celebrations of the Mass and sacraments, the day(s) on which they are celebrated, and the number of the faithful who are present, are to be indicated in the annual report to the diocese concerning the liturgical life of the parish (canon 528 §2).  [I see.  Because statistics are kept for the whole life of the parish and reports are made, therefore reports are made about the number of people attending the older form of Mass.  I see.  I suppose the same statistics are required by this bishop about every celebration of every sacrament in all places and times in the entire diocese using the newer liturgical books.  I can picture it: at the door a man with a clicker first says "Ausweis, bitte!" and then checks picture id’s as they go into the chapel.  In the case of an announced Mass, they must sign a waiver that they accidently came there, and are not being forced to attend, but are there, despite not having know what was going to happen, of their own free will.]
 
    6. Place for the Celebration of the Extraordinary Form

    6.1 The general norm for the proper place for the Eucharistic celebration is a sacred place, i.e., a church, oratory, or chapel, upon a dedicated or blessed altar (canon 932 §§1-2).

    6.2 The private celebration of Mass according to the extraordinary form is to take place at an altar in a sacred place. In case of necessity it may be celebrated in another decent place in accord with the norm of law (canon 932 §§1-2). However, celebration of a private Mass according to the extraordinary form to which some of the faithful have asked to be admitted should generally be limited to a sacred place.

    6.3 The request for the celebration of Sunday Mass according to the extraordinary form is presumed for the two stable groups [Look how suddenly the use of that bad translation is now being applied to two groups of people, as if they set a standard.  Interesting and … sly.] of the faithful adhering to the earlier liturgical tradition who have participated in the celebration of Sunday Mass according to the 1962 Missal at Saint Ann Church, Erie, and St. Bernadette Church, Saegertown, since the July 2, 1988 motu proprio letter Ecclesia Dei of John Paul II. The previously favorable response to their request shall continue so long as these stable groups remain, with due regard for norm 5.6 of these diocesan norms.  [Never mind the Motu Proprio, which just provided suggestions for these overriding norms.]

    6.4 The rubrics of the 1962 Missal assume the availability of a sacred place that is suitable for the celebration of the Mass according to the extraordinary form. Whenever a church, oratory or chapel does not adequately provide for public liturgical celebrations according to the extraordinary form, the pastor responsible for responding to the request of a stable group [There it is again.] shall, "under the guidance of the Diocesan Bishop in accordance with canon 392," take measures to provide for the use of another [!] sacred place (Summorum Pontificum, Art. 5 §1).  [Okay… see what is going on here?  The pastor might decide to say… "Sorry, no Communion rail.  Therefore it is ‘not suitable’.  Go down the road to St. Ipsidipsy.  Maybe they can help you.  This hijinkx can go on for a long time.  What is really necessary?  An altar and a priest.  Sure, it is nice if there is more.  However, this again reveals the attitude that people are mostly into the externals and not the heart of the rite itself.  Latin and the enviroment are important.. sure.  However, there is far more at stake.]

    6.5 In order to provide for the necessary liturgical books for the extraordinary form, e.g., sacramentary, lectionary, [opps] etc, as well as catechetical aids for the correct and dignified celebration of the Mass according to the 1962 Missal, authorized editions may be
    obtained from the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, Elmhurst, Pennsylvania, but not from any institute or organization that is not in full communion with the Church.

    7. The Proper Authority for Questions Concerning the Use of the Extraordinary

    7.1 In any instance where the pastor (in the case of requests for public celebrations for a stable group) [again] or an individual priest (in the case of private celebrations) has any questions regarding the use of the extraordinary form, the Diocesan Bishop is to be consulted.  [All of you readers.  Never forget that while in many ways it is good to have recourse upward through the bishop, every Catholic, lay or clergy, have the RIGHT to recourse directly to the competent dicastery in Rome.  In this case the Pontifical Commission is the competent dicastery.  Every person can decide to write directly to Rome.  This is a right affirmed in the last couple paragraphs of Redemptionis Sacramentum. Again, it is good to consult first the pastor, then the bishop.  That just makes sense.  In fact, in some ways some of the norms here "make sense". However, even though they make sense, people still have rights.  Sometimes we are bullied or bamboozled into thinking can’t do certain things that are perfectly within our rights.] (Summorum Pontificum, Art. 7).

    7.2. Any of the faithful who are part of a stable group [again] as mentioned in Summorum Pontificum, Art. 5 §1, who have any questions or concerns about the response given by the pastor to their requests concerning the use of the extraordinary form "should inform the diocesan bishop" (Summorum Pontificum, Art. 7). [A good idea, unless they want to write to Rome instead.]

    7.3 If questions or concerns remain that are not able to be addressed at the diocesan level, the Diocesan Bishop will refer the matter to the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei (Summorum Pontificum, Art. 7-8).  [This makes it sound as if he will decide what goes to Rome.  Remember: you have the right to go to Rome on your own initiative.  It is good to go through the bishop, when possible and reasonable. However, even if it is perfectly easy and reasonbale, you can still write to Rome first, if you want.]

    7.4 All legislation concerning the use of the extraordinary form following the Second Vatican Council is abrogated by the promulgation of the apostolic letter Summorum Pontificum of Pope Benedict XVI. Summorum Pontificum and the accompanying letter of Pope Benedict XVI to the Bishops are normative for the correct understanding and use of the extraordinary form. (See Appendix for English translations of these two letters.)  [Oh, the irony.]

7.5 With due regard for the responsibility of the Diocesan Bishop, pastors, and individual priests for the implementation of the directives in the apostolic letter Summorum Pontificum of Pope Benedict XVI, the title "Traditional Latin Mass Apostolate," and the corresponding title of "Coordinator" for the "Traditional Latin Mass Apostolate" are hereby abrogated and will no longer appear in any diocesan  directories or communications. Pastoral care for those persons who adhere to the earlier liturgical tradition according to the 1962 Missal will be provided for according to the norms of Summorum Pontificum and these diocesan norms.

His Excellency Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith, Secretary of the CDWDS, recently said in a speech in the Netherlands:

“The motu proprio Summorum Pontificum on the Latin Liturgy of July 7th 2007 is the fruit of a deep reflection by our Pope on the mission of the Church. It is not up to us, who wear ecclesiastical purple and red, to draw this into question, to be disobedient and make the motu proprio void by our own little, tittle rules. Even not if they were made by a bishops conference. Even bishops do not have this right. What the Holy Fathers says, has to be obeyed in the Church. If we do not follow this principle, we will allow ourselves to be used as instruments of the devil, and nobody else. This will lead to discord in the Church, and slows down her mission. We do not have the time to waste on this. Else we behave like emperor Nero, fiddling on his violin while Rome was burning. The churches are emptying, there are no vocations, the seminaries are empty. Priests become older and older, and young priests are scarce.” 

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA, SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM. Bookmark the permalink.

48 Responses to Bp. Trautman issues his own norms for the older form of Mass

  1. Ad Orientem says:

    Sigh. Thank God I am Orthodox. You have my deepest sympathies.

    ICXC
    John

  2. Andrea Brown says:

    I just happened to choose to eat some jello while reading the Bishop’s
    dissertation. I don’t think that there has ever been jello sooooo thoroughly masticated due to the gritting and gnashing of my teeth!!
    Thank goodness he is on his way out as the Chairman of the Liturgy Committee of the USCCB. Thank you Father for posting this and as usual your sterling comments. I will say a special prayer for some of my in-laws who still reside in the Diocese of Erie.
    Andrea Brown

  3. RC says:

    7.2. Any of the faithful who are part of a stable group [again] as mentioned in Summorum Pontificum, Art. 5 §1, who have any questions or concerns about the response given by the pastor to their requests concerning the use of the extraordinary form “should inform the diocesan bishop”

    So if the bishop or the pastor decides you’re not part of a “stable group”, then you have no right to address the bishop?

  4. Seumas says:

    “I will say a special prayer for some of my in-laws who still reside in the Diocese of Erie.”

    Try saying one for Bishop Trautman, too. He probably needs them more.

  5. Federico says:

    Actually, I don’t think it’s right that Summorum Pontificum abrogates all prior legislation related to the extraordinary form. It only abrogates those matters which are completely reordered by it or that are in conflict with it. Canon 6 is the controlling parallel place (see canon 17) to examine when evaluating the effect of promulgation of new laws.

    Consequently, there is no reason why a diocesan bishop could not provide an indult to permit more than one Sunday or holy day of obligation celebration of the Mass according to the Missal of 1962.

    Finally, it is curious that I ordered some books from the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter and received books published by Angelus Press.

  6. Dismayed Again says:

    Questions and concerns to be directed to the Bishop???

    I’m sure that His Excellency Bishop Trautman, who had no problem or hesitation encouraging (inciting?) the now famous “John and Mary Catholic” to be vocal in expressing their dissatisfaction to the Holy See with the proposed new (read CORRECT) translation of the Ordinary Form of the Mass will have absolutely no problem with other members of the faithful doing an end-run around his office and appealing directly to the Ecclesia Dei Commission about this latest “Erie Manifesto”

  7. Ole Doc Farmer says:

    The “Decree of Promulgation.” The flouting of the clear language of the MP. The prior history of this creature and his penchant for infantile, passive-aggressive behavior.

    Worse than all these things is the breathtaking, Foley-grade pomposity of the tone. Awful.

    But hope springs eternal. At least homeboy is getting the hook at the BCL. And Bishop Serratelli is a remarkable replacement: he is actually of one mind with the Church.

  8. benedict ambrose says:

    Good grief – what more could he do to restrict the celebration of the old Mass if he tried?

    “5.4 The faithful who ask of their own free will to be admitted may attend a private Mass celebrated according to the extraordinary form (Summorum Pontificum, Art. 4). With due regard for the norm of canon 906, a priest should not enlist the faithful to attend a private Mass celebrated according to the extraordinary form, otherwise the Mass is not in fact private, but has been announced and thereby is governed by Norm 5.5.”

    So how on earth are the faithful even to know of such celebrations that they might choose to assist at them? Bugging the presbytery phone? Chinese whispers in the sacristy? Why should any celebration of the rite be a secret? That is not what “private” means in “Missa Privata”.

    “5.6 Individuals or groups seeking the celebration of the Mass according to the extraordinary form on an occasional basis lack the required stability for requesting its public celebration”

    Why? Says who? What’s an “occasional” basis? Once a month? On certain feastdays? Thus the faithful may not require an occasional celebration of this form so that they may begin to deepen their attachment to it as circumstances in what may be a busy parish may permit. How then are they to taste and see how sweet the older form is? In fact, surely this should prompt those faithful requiring celebrations of this form to push for regularly scheduled frequent (at least weekly) celebrations – even if they would initially have been satisfied with only occasional celebrations. Might prove conterproductive to his desires if the bishop’s intention here is to nip demand in the bud.

    “5.8 When the services of a qualified priest are available, and when the pastor has approved a request for Mass to be celebrated for a stable group of the faithful in that parish using the extraordinary form, the liturgical celebration may never be the exclusive way in which the Mass is celebrated on Sundays, holy days of obligation, or a weekday.”

    “… or a weekday”?! That seems to cover all the bases. So there may never be a day when a parish has a only one celebration of the rite and that the extraordinary one? Where does SP stipulate that? This seems to me monstrously restrictive and inimical to the spirit of the motu proprio.

  9. jacobus says:

    Well, as you suggested Father… mega biblion, mega kakon.

  10. paul says:

    I have been following the responses of our Bishops and am really starting to see
    the total disregard and obedience to our Pope.

    I ask this in all seriousness, is there somewhere with in the vatican we can send
    these responses? Will these bishops be disciplined?

    I am not trying to be a wise guy. I truly would like to know as this needs to
    stop (duh). I want to trust and obey our bishops but if this is not proof of
    something sinister, I dont know what is.

  11. Jason W says:

    ugh….

    I am a resident of the Diocese of Erie, and this is quite grim. I attended university in Pittsburgh, and so had the amazing blessing of being a sheep in Fr Kenneth Myers’ flock. Now that I have finished school and am back working in (not for) the Erie Diocese, we get this wrench thrown into the works. My parish priest is a very good and sensible man, and rather sympathetic, but I am certain that, despite any personal views on the matter, he would not be disobedient to the Bishop, and I certainly wouldn’t ask him to be (although I wouldn’t report him if he were, in certain ways, haha).

    In like mind with Paul (above, not the Apostle), what can be done about this? I am certain that contacted with the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei is in order, but what needs to be said? I feel that simply including this “Decree of Promulgation” would speak volumes, but of course some cover letter is required. How much of what His Excellency is doing is he actually permitted, by his office, to do? This is surely undermining the directives of the Supreme Pontiff, and thus cannot be considered the liturgical “moderation” proper to a bishop.

  12. David says:

    Quick Father Z…send him Archbishop Ranjith’s address!

  13. John V says:

    Andrea: Be thankful the jello didn’t come through your nose. That’s never pleasant.

    Re section 1.3: Does this mean no more Prayer of the Faithful consisting of intentions in multiple languages followed by the response “Lord, hear our prayer; Deus, exaudi nos; Senor, escuchanos.” ?

    I couldn’t read past section 1.4 in one sitting. Must have ADD. I’ll try again later.

  14. Henry Edwards says:

    We do not have the time to waste on this.

    Perhaps the one who most needs our sympathy (if not our prayers) is the Erie chancery person who labored such evidently long and painful hours perfecting this turgid document, which I assume Ab. Ranijth (and/or Card. Castrillon) will brush aside (i.e. abrogate and otherwise trash) without delay when it hits his desk — as I hope it does, and soon, since it so richly deserves his prompt attention.

  15. Jim says:

    Well at least Bishop Trautman recognizes the possibility that someone in his diocese might be interested in celebrating the TLM. My bishop simply issued a statement that only one priest in the entire diocese was interested, and that little or no interest had been demonstrated among the laity. I submit that my bishop’s statement was a more effective deterrant than Trautman’s lengthy “instruction.” And it is less likely to get on the Vatican’s radar screen. But life will go on, and at least there is an Eastern Rite church down the road.

  16. Marcin says:

    Megan Biblion (odiosum vere)

    Strangely enough, the bishop sets high standards of Latin literacy for the extraordinary use celebrants (par. 3.5.), yet they do not apply to the ordinary use in Latin (so much more preferred by him over TLM).

    Andrea: right on target! That’s inadvertent and truly positive aspect of the proscript. (I read everything in one sitting. I must be an extraordinary calm person, or it’ just a habituation after reading so many others. Not without an itch, though)

  17. Jason W says:

    “Perhaps the one who most needs our sympathy (if not our prayers) is the Erie chancery person who labored such evidently long and painful hours perfecting this turgid document”

    Fr Lohse, the (newly appointed) Chancellor and cosignatory of this document is, from my past experience with him, a very good priest and a good man. He was the liaison between the diocese and the Traditional Latin Mass communities, as well as the diocesan vocations director. He offers his private Masses in Latin, ad orientem, etc… He was very helpful in regularizing the situations of some members of a sedevacantist chapel here in my deanery (that’s right, we have a sedevacantist anti-pope right here in our diocese, and yet His Excellency doesn’t believe that the “traditionalist question” is one of pertinence for his domain), even going so far as assisting one of them in discerning a vocation to a Traditional Order of priests. He assisted me as well in my discernment, and was very influential in in my acceptance of my vocation, and doing so (hopefully soon) with a Traditional Order as well.

  18. Henry Edwards says:

    Jason,

    Your testimony on behalf of Fr. Lohse is not only informative but powerful. He clearly deserves both our appreciation and our prayers for his work under what must be very difficult circumstances. Let me take this opportunity to offer my prayers and wishes for your own vocation.

  19. AnAnonymousSeminarian says:

    I can only echo Jason’s excellent testimony on behalf of Fr. Lohse, as well as add one thing: his presence at St. Mark Seminary in Erie is also very beneficial for the formation of the seminarians there.

    Please pray for him, for the seminarians at St. Mark’s, and for Bishop Trautman.

  20. Jason W says:

    Anononymous Seminarian,

    If you are at St Mark’s, or were and are now at major seminary, and you are a visitor of this blog, I am dumbfounded. Please feel free to get in touch with me at jejwood [at] gmail [dot] com. I am more than curious to hear from a sympathetic insider how things are going at St Mark’s these days and what the mindset of the seminarians there is. There’s a good chance that we’ve met, I suppose, if you’re not too new there.

    Mr Edwards,

    Thank you so much for the prayers.

  21. BK says:

    Dear Fr. Z.,
    In a previous thread, regarding the discrepancy in Latin between continenter and stabiliter, you stated,

    “This is not a conspiracy to undermine the implementation of Summorum Pontificum.”

    I’m sorry, but Trautman’s obsession over the “stable group” language loophole sure seems conspiratorial — and premeditated, and downright malicious.

    Care to qualify your previous statement?

  22. Geri says:

    A minor point.
    What disturbs me, in a Decree of Promulgation (yeah, I have to agree, that’s a pretty pretentious term for a middle management memo,) which deals with, of all things, fluency in language is THIS sentence:
    “ANY layPERSON assisting as an altar server at Masses and celebrations of the sacraments using the extraordinary form must be properly trained to recite the proper responses and to carry out THEIR function according to the rubrics of the 1962 Missal” [emphasis mine]

    First, I don’t care what sloppy current usage deems acceptable, i.e. the use of the plural pronoun to agree with a singular noun, in order to never, ever, ever, give offense to a person of the feminine gender who might have her feelings hurt by seeing masculine pronouns, and feeling herself excluded by same.
    I don’t care what linguistic contortions some might feel themselves constrained to in order to keep transgendered or ambigendered persons from feeling excluded.
    (I admit I may be guilty of them from time to time myself, I hope I never am in any of my more formal utterances, on which I have spent some time, say…. my decrees of promulgation.)

    All that is beside the point!

    Because surely, in this one instance, (of all such instances of legalese or Catholish,) we can all agree that anyone, absolutely ANYONE to whom the pronoun in question might apply will have XY chromosomes? Will be a man or a boy? and thus be charged to carry out HIS functions?

  23. Sid Cundiff says:

    I curiously cheery these days. This Decree of Promulgation serves the useful purpose of letting one side of the debate know beforehand almost all the arguments of the other. Also, such announcements let Holy Father know where individual bishops stand.

  24. BK: Care to qualify your previous statement?

    No. I am right. And when you are right you can’t be wrong.

  25. catholiclady says:

    I was married in this diocese. All my children were baptized in this diocese. Of course that was pre-Trautperson and pre-1962. So glad I no longer live in Pa.

    But it was no better in this Diocese until a few years ago when Bishop Olmstead became our Bishop. So don’t give up hope, you folks in Erie Diocese, a new Bishop eventually will replace him and in the meantime, pray for this misguided Bishop to submit to the will of the church.

  26. Cory says:

    My question is–since this attempts to make law where there is no power to do so, is it even a valid promulgation? Could a priest simply wake up in the morning and decide not to adhere to these regulations since they were made by an authority not competent to legislate on the matter? I.e. if the Legislature of North Carolina decided to bind the Commonwealth of Virginia on some matter, Virginia could rest easily knowing that NC had no power to do so–so do not the legal ramifications of the Motu Proprio basically render this statement null and void?

  27. Mike says:

    Here is a document I found from the website of the diocese of Erie. It explains a lot about their attitude to the liturgy in Latin. (They’re against it.) Fr. Z has probably noted this before (It’s about not slavishly translating the liturgy from Latin), but here it is:

    http://www.eriercd.org/pdf/translations.pdf

  28. RBrown says:

    The next few years will be very interesting.

    As I said before, Rome always has the option of appointing a co-adjutor and giving him equal–or more than equal–authority.

  29. Mike says:

    And here is the “Music and Liturgy Newsletter” from the Erie Diocese. It seems a little heavy on music (and self-congratulation), but a little light on liturgy.
    It’s rich. Read it. Do.

    http://www.eriercd.org/pdf/music.pdf

  30. TJM says:

    I guess Bishop Trautman is the “Leona Helmsley” of the
    Catholic Church, the “rules are for the little people”
    not me, the big important liturgist. Tom

  31. Fr. Vasquez says:

    It is time for prelates like Bishop Trautman to just retire and go away! Enough is enough! We are really tired of the Bishops, priests, and religious sisters stuck in the past (the 60’s are gone!) GET WITH IT!

  32. I am shocked — shocked — that you people are so inconsiderate as to refer to the bishop under discussion in such an insensitive and clearly sexist manner, particularly in using the male personal pronoun repeatedly where it is unnecessary. Bishop Trautperson must be very upset to read such things! We should address One’s Adequacy (there’s no need for such sexist and “vertical” language here as “His Excellency” since we’re all one People of God!) in the manner which he continually states is necessary in language to be properly understood and inoffensive. Surely that is only proper.

  33. Bob says:

    Quote: “Sigh. Thank God I am Orthodox. You have my deepest sympathies.

    ICXC
    John”

    Same hear!. This Bishop seems very Protestant!

  34. Bob says:

    Quote: “Sigh. Thank God I am Orthodox. You have my deepest sympathies.

    ICXC
    John”

    Same here!. This Bishop seems very Protestant!

  35. RBrown says:

    The Apostolic Letter of Pope Benedict XVI is about 1800 words.

    The DECREE OF PROMULGATION of Pope Donald I is about 3300 words.

  36. Ole Doc Farmer says:

    I linked over to the Eerie music and liturgy newsletter. Not for the squeamish, yo!

    Bet there ain’t been a more motley collection of deconverted nuns since the last general chapter of the Notre Dame de Namur sistron.

  37. David Kubiak says:

    I remember well as a boy the great Archbishop/Bishop of Erie John Gannon, who was, I believe, ordained in 1901 and was the Ordinary of the diocese for some forty years. His instincts were the grandest, even if sometimes contrary to the ritual rubrics, e.g., I have a distinct memory of him appearing in cappa with boys dressed up in velvet knee-britches as trainbearers. So the irony of watching Bishop Trautman in Erie over the years has been for me great. But having said that, this document is, I think, not so bad. Giving him credit for a sense of sarcasm, the tone and length of his encyclical is rather funny — ‘You want the old style, you’ll get the old style.’ Of course he gets the stable group business wrong, but that is virtually a universal error at this point. And truth to tell, I cannot object to bishops insisting on linguistic competence, assuming they are not being disingenuous. Visitators in the Middle Ages used to travel around in Europe making sure that priests were actually celebrating validly some of them had such poor Latin. And there is a certain kind of younger cleric who might decide to launch himself ‘ad altare Dei’ prematurely. This small attempt at defending the bishop comes in part from not wanting to gloat over defeated enemies. The ideology he represents is so clearly on the way out — the poor man must feel a little like the last castrato in the Sistine Choir.

  38. von says:

    It’s going to sure be more than funny that ALL these so-called controlling Bishops are going to have to throw out ALL these terrible “norms” when the commision sends out their MP update. Do they really think they can get away with Disobedience such as this?

    Sooner or later (prob later) someone has to hold their feet to the fire…

    Father.. Are all these documents getting sent/faxed to the ED Commission?

    Where is Pius Xth when you need him to clean-up some of these Bishops..

    Pax..

  39. Timothy Clint says:

    In response to Jason W. I presume that you are refering to the Society of St Pius X Chapel of St Michael’s which is located in Erie. If not then I sincerely apologize for my comments. Perhaps you need to understand that the SSPX is not and never has been Sadevacantist. If that were the case then the SSPX would not be continuing the effort to rectify it’s situation with Rome. Remenmber that even Cardinal Hoyos calls the SSPX “my brother Bishop’s” and the situation of the SSPX “is and internal matter of the Roman Catholic Church”. Clearly these are not indications that the SSPX is anything but Catholic though thier Bishop’s are iregular. As for your asertion that the SSPX is anti-Pope simply shows how much you need to learn about the SSPX. Drive by St. Michael’s and read the sign where by we thank Pope Benedict for this Great Document Summorum Pontificum. No other church in the diocese dared to thank the Pope. Pope Benedict’s name is recited in every Canon of every Mass offered in Erie. I invite you to attend Mass at St. Michael’s or any other SSPX Chapel and see just how closely allied the SSPX is in working for the good of the whole church. Pray for the regularization or the SSPX because one day the the excommunications of the four bishops will be lifted. And I believe sooner than later.

  40. Woah!
    I really don’t know what else to say about the letter or his excellency
    without being uncharitable. I will certainly pray for those in the diocese of Erie.
    All I can ask is: when will he be stepping down from his post?

  41. Francis A. says:

    (Quote 1:) “Sigh. Thank God I am Orthodox. You have my deepest sympathies. ICXC John”
    (Quote 2:) “Same here!. Bob”

    (Response:) No, gentlemen. We Catholics cannot “thank God” for the fact that you are not in full union with the Vicar of Christ. Instead, we will pray that you will become Catholics one day soon. We can use your help, and you can use ours.

  42. Francis A. says:

    Responding to a demand of Bp. Trautman, Fr. Zuhlsdorf writes, “Are all the ‘ordinary’ celebrations without any question ‘valid, licit and reverent’ so that no comment need be made?”

    Answer: NO, they are not. Several years ago, I visited the Diocese of Erie twice (while making trips between Virginia and Ohio), and I attended Mass in two separate churches. In each, some liturgical improprieties were committed, and shabby (haugenish) music was used. I no longer recall what they were, but I recall being very disheartened, because (1) I had expected excellence in the diocese of America’s supposed “liturgical guru,” and (2) I had hoped to be able to attend Mass in the diocese many more time, while on additional trips.

    Sad to say, Bp. Trautman (a priest of Buffalo) is only 71. He was a “mistake” of John Paul the Great (made Auxiliary of Buffalo in 1985, at age 48).

    Potentially telling are the following facts:
    1. Bp. Trautman was ordained a priest at the young age of 25 in April of 1962, several months before the opening of Vatican II (where he was an alleged “peritus” [expert] in 1965).
    2. As a seminarian, he studied theology in Austria under the dissenter, Fr. Karl Rahner, before going on to post-ordination (biblical) studies in Washington and Rome. Being with Rahner may have polluted his mind, both theologically and by giving him a lack of respect for the Holy See.
    3. He was ordained in Innsbruck, Austria, for Buffalo.
    4. As a subdeacon, deacon, and priest, he used the 1962 Missal for several years.
    5. He was not highly trained to be a specialist in the liturgy.
    6. He hardly had any time as a parish priest, jumping quickly into teaching in a seminary [though not the liturgy], giving retreats to religious, and rising in the diocesan administrative ranks in Buffalo.

    I have watched him speak many times in the televised (EWTN) sessions of the NCCB/USCC (now USCCB) meetings, and I have found his arrogance and constantly sour demeanor to be extremely obnoxious — though I could have swallowed those flaws if only he had been in the habit of making excellent decisions about the liturgy. Unfortunately, he has been an utter disaster in every way. Oremus.

  43. fxr2 says:

    David Kubiak said:

    “And truth to tell, I cannot object to bishops insisting on linguistic competence, assuming they are not being disingenuous.”

    As an exercise in charity I will allow his Excellency’s norms speak for him.

    1.4 In accord with the norms of the General Instruction on the Roman Missal, the “ordinary form” may be celebrated in the Latin language. This is not to be confused with the “extraordinary form” (see norm 2.1). The prayers of the ordinary form in Latin are according to the 3rd typical edition (2001) of the Roman Missal. The readings and homily are in English (or in another approved vernacular language if warranted according to pastoral need). Liturgical celebrations according to the “ordinary form” should not be celebrated in Latin unless the people are adequately prepared and therefore able to participate in the responses (canon 928). The possibility of celebrating the ordinary form in the Latin language is commended to all priests for consideration as an alternative to using the extraordinary form in satisfying the spiritual needs of the faithful who desire a “Latin” Mass.

    3.4 Priests may celebrate Mass and the sacraments according to the extraordinary form only if they give evidence of their ability with the Latin language as well as adequate knowledge of the rubrics for the proper celebration according to the 1962 Missal.

    It seems clear to me Latin is not his Excellency’s issue: Tradition is.

  44. Francis A. says:

    fxr2,
    PLEASE do not abuse the word, “Tradition.” If you would re-read Pope Benedict’s two documents, you would see that Tradition includes BOTH the Ordinary Form [OF] and Extraordinary Form [EF] of the Roman Rite of the Mass. The word “Tradition” is not limited to the older form; both forms (and other forms and other Rites) are part of the Catholic liturgical Tradition. Please find new and more precise terminology to use to explain what you believe is giving the bishop heartburn.

    I just realized that there is an irony here.
    ~~~ There are various people who are strongly attached to the EF and have been longing to have it back — and they don’t want to give it up, and many of them would prefer that everyone else revert to it, if possible.
    ~~~ Bishop Trautman, by contrast, is among a group of people who has become strongly attached to the OF — and not just the OF, but the current translation of the OF — and he doesn’t want to give it up, and he prefers that no one else give it up.

    That pretty much sums it up.

  45. fxr2 says:

    Francis A.
    Perhaps I was imprecise, but please do not confuse me with some one who does not regularly attend the NO or OF mass. I have been attending the OF almost exclusively for four years, since my children began attending our parish school. Prior to that I attended and indult misson. I do long for a more reverent celebration of the mass, better translations and perhaps the priest facing east. However, I am not the counterpoint to Bishop Trautman.

    I was merely pointing out the double standard in the document which requires “Priests may celebrate Mass and the sacraments according to the extraordinary form only if they give evidence of their ability with the Latin language etc”. While there is no such restriction placed on the OF and the OF in Latin is the suggested to appease any one who requests the EF. Perhaps I did not use the best word.

    I am thrilled that the Holy Father issued Summorum Pontificum so that my children may see the EF in our parish church offered by our parish priests.

    After reading your previous posts on this thread I am sure we have more in common than either of us has with Bishop Trautman.

  46. Michael Mary says:

    When I read His Excellency Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith words and learned that he is leaving I’m sad to hear that. Bishops disobeying the Pope, Priests disobeying their Bishops, Parishes disobeying the Priest. If its not the work of the Devil, try to remember a disobedient man, a proud woman and a tree.. with one humble woman look what God does. With All these disobedent men running around while His Church burns… the flames will consume them now or later but the Consuming Fire will not harm His Church or His Faithful.
    Agnus Dei Miserere Nobis
    Mater Dei Ora Por Nobis
    Yours in Christ
    Michael Mary Ramirez

  47. Jason W says:

    Timothy Clint,

    Apology accepted.