ZENIT: Bp. Rifan of the St. John Maria Vianney Personal Apostolic Administration in Brazil

This is an interesting piece from ZENIT.  My emphases and comments:

What’s Behind Liturgical Abuses?

Interview With Leader of Traditional Mass Community

By Alexandre Ribeiro

RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil, APRIL 9, 2008 (Zenit.org).- The bishop of a Brazilian community that celebrates the Mass according to the 1962 missal contends that abuses in the liturgy can be attributed to the lack of a serious spirituality.  [Right... if you take your Catholic seriously, you simply can't do certain things.]

Bishop Fernando Arêas Rifan, apostolic administrator of the St. John Maria Vianney Personal Apostolic Administration in Brazil, [What a great solution to so many problems!] spoke with ZENIT about the richness of the extraordinary form of the Mass. The use of that form was extended with Benedict XVI’s "Summorum Pontificum," released last July.

The St. John Maria Vianney group was founded by Bishop Licínio Rangel, who was ordained a bishop without papal approval in 1991 by bishops themselves illicitly ordained by Bishop Marcel Lefebvre, founder of the Society of St. Pius X.

Bishop Rangel later asked to return to full communion and expressed the necessary dispositions. He received a letter granting his wish from Pope John Paul II and returned to the Church in a ceremony in 2002, presided over by the Pontiff and Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos, president of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei.  [The actual mechanics of reconciliation are so easy once people express the right sentiments and aspirations.  It takes a few strokes of a pen.  But getting there...]

Today, the apostolic administration continues serving Catholics in Brazil devoted to the traditional Mass, and have full communion with the Catholic Church.

Q: In your apostolic administration, the ancient Roman Rite is celebrated, the one preceding the reform of 1970. What are the characteristics of this type of Mass?

Bishop Rifan: There are various motives for this love, [He immediately underscores the element of love.] for this preference and the conservation of the extraordinary form of the Roman liturgy. Then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, our current Pope, speaking with the Chilean bishops in Santiago, July 13, 1988, [fantastic address] summarized it this way: "Even though there are numerous motives that could have brought a great number of faithful to find refuge in the traditional liturgy, the most important is that they find preserved there the dignity of the sacred."

In fact, because of its richness, beauty, elevation, nobility and ceremonial solemnity, because of its sense of the sacred and reverential, because of its sense of mystery, its greater precision and rigor — thereby offering more security and protection against abuses, without leaving space for ambiguities, for the liberty, creativity, adaptations, reductions and manipulations, as Pope John Paul II lamented in the encyclical "Ecclesia de Eucharistia" — and being for us the best liturgical expression of the Eucharistic dogmas and solid spiritual nourishment, [as opposed to the mashed carrots one can often get elsewhere...] it is one of the treasures of Catholic liturgy, with which we express our love and our communion with the holy Church. And the Holy See recognizes this adhesion of ours as perfectly legitimate.

Q: Could the ancient form of the Mass be more promoted in the life of the Church, though as an extraordinary form, as is indicated and permitted by "Summorum Pontificum"? What benefits would this bring?

Bishop Rifan: This was already the desire of the Holy Father Pope John Paul II, when he affirmed in his [letter issued] "motu proprio" "Ecclesia Dei" on July 2, 1988. "To all those Catholic faithful who feel attached to some previous liturgical and disciplinary forms of the Latin tradition, I wish to manifest my will to facilitate their ecclesial communion by means of the necessary measures to guarantee respect for their rightful aspirations. […] Moreover, respect must everywhere be shown for the feelings of all those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition, by a wide and generous application of the directives already issued some time ago by the Apostolic See for the use of the Roman Missal according to the typical edition of 1962."

This desire has been reinforced and amplified to the entire world by Benedict XVI with the [letter issued] "motu proprio" "Summorum Pontificum."

The benefits of the reintroduction and the diffusion in the Church of this extraordinary form of the Roman Rite have been mentioned by the current Pope in his "motu proprio," when he says that in the celebration of the Mass according to the Missal of Paul VI, this sacredness that attracts many to the ancient tradition could be manifested in a more intense way. [This doesn't take anything away from those who attend the Novus Ordo mainly or exclusively.] This is exactly what has been emphasized by Cardinal [Francis] George of Chicago — "The Holy Father himself, a while ago, called our attention to the beauty and the depth of the St. Pius V Missal. […] The liturgy of 1962 is an authorized rite of the Catholic Church and a valuable font of liturgical understanding for all the other rites. This liturgy belongs to the entire Church as a vehicle of the Spirit that should radiate as well in the celebration of the third typical edition of the current Roman Missal" — in the Prologue of the 2002 Proceedings, "Liturgy and the Sacred," from the International Center for Liturgical Studies.

When I participated in August 2007 in the Oxford Congress, a gathering to teach the celebration of the Mass in the extraordinary form to more that 60 diocesan priests from the United Kingdom there present, Archbishop Vincent Nichols of Birmingham said in the solemn opening Mass to the priests participating that, after having learned the Mass in the ancient form, even if in their parishes they would celebrate Mass in the current rite of Paul VI, they would anyway celebrate it better. [Sound familiar?  I think he is right on target.  The older form of Mass will exert its "gravitational pull" on the newer form especially because younger priests will discover things in the older form they never knew about Mass and also learn about themselves as priests.]  I think that is a benefit backed by the Pope in his "motu proprio" "Summorum Pontificum."

Q: What indications do you give for avoiding scarce attention and respect for the liturgy?

Bishop Rifan: Speaking of the abuses following the liturgical reform, the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger lamented that the liturgy degenerated into a show, in which they seek to make religion interesting with the help of stylish elements, with momentary successes in the group of the liturgical "manufacturers" [in the] introduction to the book "La Réforme Liturgique" by Monsignor Klaus Gamber, page 6 and 8.

Cardinal Edouard Gagnon was of the same opinion. "It cannot be ignored that the [liturgical] reform has given rise to many abuses and have led in a certain degree to the disappearance of respect for the sacred. This fact should be unfortunately admitted and it excuses a good number of those people who have distanced themselves from our Church and their former parish communities [in] "Fundamentalism and Conservatism," interview with Cardinal Gagnon, "Zitung — Römisches," November-December 1993, page 35.

I think that the central point of the abuses was indicated by Cardinal Ratzinger himself: the door left open to a false creativity on the part of the celebrants [in an] interview in "L’homme Nouveau," October 2001.

Behind this is the lack of a serious spirituality, [the idea that] to attract the people, novelties should be invented. Holy Mass is attractive in itself, because of its sacredness and mystery. Deep down, we’re dealing with the diminishment of faith in the Eucharistic mysteries and an attempt to replace it with novelties and creativity. When the celebrant wants to become the protagonist of the liturgical action, abuses begin. It is forgotten that the center of the Mass is Jesus Christ.

The current secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship, Bishop Albert Malcolm Ranjith, laments: "Holy Mass is a sacrifice, gift, mystery, independently of the priest who celebrates it. It is important, I would say fundamental, that the priest draws back: The protagonist of the Mass is Christ. I don’t understand, therefore, the Eucharistic celebrations transformed into shows with dances, songs or applause, as lamentably happens many times with the Novus Ordo."

The solution to the abuse is in the norms given by the Magisterium, above all in the document "Redemptionis Sacramentum" of March 25, 2004, which asks that "everyone do all that is in their power to ensure that the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist will be protected from any and every irreverence or distortion and that all abuses be thoroughly corrected. This is a most serious duty incumbent upon each and every one, and all are bound to carry it out without any favoritism" — No. 183.

But, as Bishop Ranjith says, "there are a lot of documents [against these abuses] that unfortunately have remained a dead letter, forgotten in libraries full of dust, or even worse, thrown into the waste basket."

 

And WDTPRS won’t let those documents be forgotten either! 

The Catholic blogosphere is a powerful force in this huge "Marshall Plan". 

All our Catholic blogs should do their part, support each other, and help to make Christ known and loved in all spheres of life. 

I think that liturgy is the "tip of the spear", and so that get the most attention on WDTPRS.  But there are many other points of focus as well.

WDTPRS kudos to Bp. Rifan!

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

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

23 Responses to ZENIT: Bp. Rifan of the St. John Maria Vianney Personal Apostolic Administration in Brazil

  1. Tom says:

    “Bishop Rangel later asked to return to full communion and expressed the necessary dispositions. He received a letter granting his wish from Pope John Paul II and returned to the Church in a ceremony in 2002, presided over by the Pontiff and Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos, president of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei. [The actual mechanics of reconciliation are so easy once people express the right sentiments and aspirations. It takes a few strokes of a pen. But getting there…]”

    The remarkable thing is that holy men such as Bishop Rangel was required to “return to full communion and expressed the necessary dispositions.”

    We live during a time when bishops, priests, theologians, religious and laymen in “full communion” with the Church have ransacked the Mass and Faith.

    However, holy men (such as Bishop Rifan) attached to the TLM and who kept the TLM and Faith alive and well in the hearts of many Catholics are required to seek “full communion” with the Church.

    In 1988, then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s (our Holy Father) addressed the Bishops of Chile. Let us recall the then-Cardinal’s following words regarding priests who were in “full communion” with the Church…and let’s us recall that while priests in “full communion” with the Church had “despoiled the churches”, such holy men as Bishop Rifan, who supposedly was not then in “full communion” with the Church, actually kept the TLM and Faith alive in the hearts and minds of many Catholics:

    “After the Council there were many priests who deliberately raised ‘desacralization’ to the level of a program…they put aside the sacred vestments; they have despoiled the churches as much as they could of that splendor which brings to mind the sacred; and they have reduced the liturgy to the language and the gestures of ordinary life, by means of greetings, common signs of friendship, and such things. ”

    Again…then-Cardinal Ratzinger spoke of priests who were in “full communion” with the Church.

    Incredibly, priests in “full communion” with the Church were permitted to “desacralize” the Mass and “despoil” the churches.

    Conversely, Bishop Rifan, a holy priest, then and now, was “asked to return to full communion” with the Church.

    That is mind-boggling…simply incredible.

  2. Prof. Basto says:

    Redemptionis Sacramentum indeed must be implemented, it is a document of nuclear importance and cannot remain dead letter.

    It is interesting to note that Bishop Rifan, an Extraordinary Rite Bishop, mentions Redemptionis Sacramentum as a central document in the fight against abuses, given that Redemptionis Sacramentum is meant mainly as an instrument for correcting abuses arisen in the Reformed Latin Liturgy (the Novus Ordo). In underscoring the importance of Redemptionis Sacramentum, Bishop Rifan shows his solicitude for the entire Church, proper of his apostolic office.

    Indeed, even if one attends a TLM, one must still fight the abuses that happen in the Novus Ordo, abuses that do such a harm to Catholic Communities and that distort the dignity of the Liturgy offered to the Lord our God.

    And there can be no “reform of the reform”, no effective improvement in the way the Novus Ordo is celebrated, unless the first measure be the repression of abuses. We all can think of things that should change (Liturgy should be ad orientem only; there should be no altar girls, no Communion in the hand, vestments should be of better quality, Altar Rails should be mandatory, only the first euchatristic prayer should be used, and the others should be removed from the Missal, etc). But, more important than any changes the legislator might introduce is the reverent observance of the rules already in place, and the supression of all unauthorized creativity that only serves to water down the faith in the Eucharistic mystery.

  3. JPG says:

    The proper phrase is he hit the nail on the head. All of the recent documents aimed at correcting the abuses have been in this diocese ignored by the clergy. When one uses the term abuse which is what these practices and infractions are it raises the spectre that those who practice these abuses are innately evil jerks. It is unfortunatly the case that they are in many respects fine priests. The fault here I believe lies with poor episcopal leadership and poor priestly formation. When trying to suppress my profound irritation I remind myself of the rules of engagement. In the past year I have listened to otherwise orthodox priests feel the need to make the text inclusive. I still see glass/crystal sacred vessels. One priest well known for his sermons and rightly sought after for his retreats omits routinely praying for the bishop and the Holy Father. When the directive to change for all to for many finally is issued, I wonder how or if it will be received. The sad thing is that many are well intentioned but in their formation they have failed to grasp that Christ reveals Himself not only in the Word but in the sacraments and in the living Tradition of the Church. Appropriating the Tradition does not mean remaking it in ones image but remaking oneself in its image.I believe these men do not realize the treasure and the gift they have been given. They do not appreciate it. They view the trappings and the authority as mere power plays. It is small wonder that vocations have dried up. One knows that this will change . One hopes only to live long eough to see it return in full flower. The Church has been through far worse. When one sees better formation then one sees better catechesis of the faithful. This current situation will change.. Remember the Gates of Hell will NOT prevail!
    JPG

  4. John Collorafi says:

    Fr. Z mentioned the blogosphere. It would be interesting to have more reporting about the impact SSJV and IBP are having in Latin America, particularly in influencing other priests to return to the TLM.

  5. James M says:

    The liturgy surely is the ‘tip of the spear’, because right at the ‘tip of the tip’ is the Blessed Sacrament, Jesus Christ. Everything centres on Jesus Christ.

    Thank God for our Pope and for other genius and holy priests who have explained this to us the laity.

  6. Tom says:

    The problem with the collapse of the Roman Liturgy goes far beyond liturgical abuses.

    The Novus Ordo may be offered free of liturgical abuses, but versus populum with EP II, Communion in the hand, altar girls, piano music, watered-down prayers, EMs…etc.

    Everything that I just mentioned is approved by Rome.

    Such a Mass, while free of liturgical abuses, is found at “conservative” parishes.

    Regarding the Pope’s upcoming Masses in the United States, that “female altar servers will be involved in some of the liturgies…just as at the Vatican, men and women will alternate reading the Scriptures and the prayers of the faithful.”

    Early in the planning process for a papal trip, the monsignor said, his office sends the local church a set of guidelines, which is “substantially the same” as the set developed during the pontificate of Pope John Paul II.

    “A few small things were modified to reflect the liturgical attitudes of Pope Benedict,” he said; they include a request that a crucifix be placed on the altar for eucharistic celebrations, that concelebrating priests be as close to the altar as possible and that the offertory gifts be limited to the bread, wine and charitable gifts.

    Monsignor Marini stated that “there will be Gregorian chant, polyphony and some hymns that are more popular in the American repertoire. “I really like this variety of styles that has been prepared for the celebrations,” he said.”

    Beautiful vestments and a bit of Latin can be worked into the Novus Ordo. However, the reality is that the Novus Ordo is the Novus Ordo.

    Watered-down prayers, altar girls, Communion in the hand, EMs, pianos, Gospel music, versus populum…on and on…it’s still the Novus Ordo.

    It is obvious to me that despite the Pope’s supposed “Marshall Plan,” Rome, our dioceses and parishes are not remotely close to addressing the real problem…not liturgical abuses…but the Novus Ordo Mass itself.

    Our Churchmen simply aren’t ready to address the post-Vatican II liturgical disaster.

    Someday…quite possibly 100 or more years must pass…Rome will return to the TLM…but Rome is simply not ready to address liturgical reality.

    Bishop Rifan is on the right path in many ways, but to repeat…the collapse of the Roman Liturgy extends far beyond liturgical abuses.

  7. B. says:

    The article says
    The St. John Maria Vianney group was founded by Bishop Licínio Rangel, who was ordained a bishop without papal approval in 1991
    It should be noted that this is not entirely correct.
    The group was founded by Bishop de Castro Meyer, who had continued to run his diocese traditionally and allowed the priests to use the old mass until his retirement in 1981. His replacement sought to radically “implement the Council” immediately and had all priests who continued to say the old mass (including Father Rifan) removed from their parishes by the police against the protests of the faithful. Only when those priests and the faithful went to bishop de Castro Meyer in their desperation was this group formed – long before bishop Rangel was ordained after the death of bishop de Castro Meyer.

  8. When will the beautiful encyclical of Blessed John XXII, Veterum Sapientia be brought back from the dust bin? This was issued during the Council. Do we ever hear a word about it?

    William A. Torchia, Esq.

  9. RBrown says:

    When will the beautiful encyclical of Blessed John XXII, Veterum Sapientia be brought back from the dust bin? This was issued during the Council. Do we ever hear a word about it?
    William A. Torchia, Esq.

    Actually, it was promulgated before the Council, as a vaccination against the anti-Latin virus.

    I think it will be very important when it is finally mentioned in a Vatican document. But Rome usually doesn’t like to go too fast in these matters: First, get Latin liturgy out there as an option, then make it known as a preferred option, in which case VS will be referenced.

  10. Brian C. says:

    Fr. Z. wrote:

    The older form of Mass will exert its “gravitational pull” on the newer form especially because younger priests will discover things in the older form they never knew about Mass[...]

    …as will the laity. :)

    This past Tuesday was an object lesson of that, for me. I’ve very recently learned to serve Low Mass (extraordinary form), and it allowed me to fill in a “gap” within my liturgical knowledge. In the past, during NO Masses, the choir has often been confused about when to start singing the Gloria (i.e. after the Confiteor, or after the “May Almighty God have mercy…”, or after the Kyrie)–probably because several priests in their time have muffed the right order. The only way *I* knew the order was to look at the rubrics (in the Missal, or whatever); I could never keep them straight… until last Tuesday, when the realization made it through my thick skull: the Confiteor and the Misereatur vestri are part of the prayers at the foot of the altar–before the priest ascends to the altar–and the Kyrie is after that, after the Introit! It carried over to the NO Mass (when it’s done according to the rubrics–as our priest is faithful to do).

    I can only imagine that the TLM is having “gravitational” effects far more profound than that, elsewhere… but it’s evidence (to me) of the richness (and logical coherence) of our sacred liturgy when it’s properly done.

    In Christ,
    Brian

  11. Paul Haley says:

    “Bishop Rangel later asked to return to full communion and expressed the necessary dispositions“. What, pray tell, are those necessary dispositions? Presumably, all the priests that were formerly members of the SSPX who became “regularized” had to show those necessary dispositions. This question has been asked many times and in many forums but I have not seen a definitive answer. Is it also a stumbling block for the SSPX to be in full communion? Fr. Z, do you know?

  12. Paul H: What, pray tell, are those necessary dispositions?

    Let’s start with obedience to the Holy Father is his successors.

  13. Paul Haley says:

    Paul H: What, pray tell, are those necessary dispositions?

    Let’s start with obedience to the Holy Father is his successors.

    Isn’t that already part of the ordination/consecration rite, Father? I’m confused. In other words there is nothing specifically required relating to Vatican II, the new Mass or other subjects except holy obedience? If that is true, I wonder what the problem is?

  14. Patrick says:

    Paul,

    EWTN has it this way: http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2CAMPO.HTM

    “On 15 August last year (2000), Bishop Licinio Rangel, together with 25 priests of the Union of St John Mary Vianney Campos, Brazil, addressed a letter to the Holy Father in which he expressed his act of full submission to the Catholic Church asking to be absolved from the excommunication incurred on 28 July 1991, when he accepted ordination to the office of Bishop without papal mandate. On the Solemnity of Christmas 2001, the Holy Father sent an Autograph Letter to Bishop Rangel, absolving him from the excommunication and receiving him back into full Catholic communion. Subsequently, the Pope appointed him administrator of a new Apostolic Administration with headquarters in the Diocese of Campos for the pastoral care of the faithful who remain attached to the Tridentine Rite. The Papal Letter, at the request of the Holy Father, was presented to Bishop Rangel in the course of a celebration in the Cathedral of Campos on Friday 18 January, by Cardinal Dario Castrillón Hoyos, President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei. During this celebration, Bishop Rangel made his profession of faith and took the oath of fidelity to the Supreme Pontiff, declaring at the same time that he accepted all the teachings of the Second Vatican Council.”

  15. Mark M says:

    Does anyone have further information about the Apostolic Administration they’d like to share for the Traditional Vocations blog? So far, all I have to go on is a Wikipedia article, because I don’t read Portuguese.

  16. Paul Haley says:

    Patrick referred to an EWTN document which said in part: “During this celebration, Bishop Rangel made his profession of faith and took the oath of fidelity to the Supreme Pontiff, declaring at the same time that he accepted all the teachings of the Second Vatican Council.”
    Thanks, Patrick, that clears it up for me because the SSPX has declared they accept the teachings of Vatican II that are in line with Tradition and that, evidently, is the stumbling block. Maybe they yet will reach agreement with Rome on this matter.

  17. B. says:

    I don’t know what Bishop Rangel signed at the celebration, but I would take what EWTN writes with a grain of salt, because when they write
    asking to be absolved from the excommunication incurred on 28 July 1991
    this is not very accurate either.

    The full text of the letter can be read here (also in English a bit further down). Nowhere is the excommunication mentioned, recognized, or asked to be lifted. The relevant part says:

    Although we have always considered ourselves as belonging to the Catholic Church, from which we never ever had any intention of separating ourselves, nevertheless, due to the situation of the Church and the problems which have affected traditional Catholics; problems with which Your Holiness is acquainted and which we believe, fill your heart, as they do ours, with pain and anxiety, we were considered to be juridically out of the Church.
    This is our request: that we may be accepted and recognized as Catholics.

    Regarding the question of “what are those necessary dispositions?”, I think we are now a step further than we were during the reconciliation of the Apostolic Administration. The IBP has constructive criticism of Vatican II as one of their official tasks, and Padre Munoz, the founder of the Oasis Jesus Sacerdote was very adamant that he did not have to sign anything regarding Vatican II, and has stated that he will continue to “fight for Tradition and the Catholic State”.

  18. Patrick says:

    B.,

    The preface is totally accurate.

    John Paul II wrote: “Thus with deep joy, in order to effect full communion, we declare the remission of the censure referred to in can. 1382 of the Code of Canon Law.”

    Canon 1382 reads as follows: “Can. 1382 A bishop who consecrates some one a bishop without a pontifical mandate and the person who receives the consecration from him incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.”

    So, yes, Bishop Rangel was excommunicated, and that censure was removed by Pope John Paul II.

  19. Prof. Basto says:

    B., that’s not the only relevant passage of the Letter. There is this one, which explicitly contains a request of forgiveness for any wrongdoing:

    “…And if, by chance, in the heat of our battle in defence of the Catholic truth, we have made any mistakes or caused Your Holiness any displeasure – although our intention has always been to serve the Holy Church – we humbly beg your paternal pardon.”

    And in his reply, the Pope explicitly granted the absolution. The dispositions (wish for unity with Peter), are mentioned both in the request and in the Papal Reply:

    “…Maximo cum gaudio recepimus vestras litteras, datas die XV mensis Augusti hoc anno, quibus universa Unio redintegravit suam fidei catholicae professionem, plenam cum Petri Cathedra significando communionem, agnoscendo “ipsius Primatum et regimen super universalem Ecclesiam, pastores et fideles”, declarando quoque “nullam prorsus ob rationem se velle separari a Petra, super quam Iesus Christus suam fundavit Ecclesiam…

    …His omnibus consideratis et prae oculis habentes gloriam Dei, bonum sanctae Ecclesiae necnon hanc legem supremam quae est salus animarum (cfr can. 1752 CIC), consentientes ex animo vestrae petitioni ut admitti possitis ad plenam communionem cum Ecclesia Catholica, canonice agnoscimus vos ad eam pertinere…

    …Maxima quidem laetitia, ut certa reddatur plena communio, declaramus remissionem censurae de qua agitur in can. 1382 CIC quoad te, Venerabilis Frater, simulque remissionem omnium censurarum atque veniam omnium irregularitatum in quas inciderunt alia membra istius Unionis…”

  20. B. says:

    Patrick (and Prof. Basto):
    So, yes, Bishop Rangel was excommunicated, and that censure was removed by Pope John Paul II.

    That is not the question. I never denied that.
    However, EWTN reported that Bishop Rangel asked for the lifting of the excommunication, and that is not true.

    I think this is a very important distinction to make, because the SSPX has painted itself into the corner of “we’ll never ask for the lifting of the excommunications, because we don’t recognize them”, but Rome wants a letter from them.

    The Campos example is a possible way out which allows both sides to save face. Note that “Although we have always considered ourselves as belonging to the Catholic Church” is at least implicitly expressing that the excommunication was not wholly recognized by the Campos group. Asking for foregiveness for ones wrongdoings is always a good thing, but does not imply the existence of an excommunication.

    My point was precisely that Rome was willing to lift the excommunication, even though Bishop Rangel had not explicitly recognized it or asked for its lifting.

  21. Flambeaux says:

    I always find it instructive to contrast Bishop Rifan’s comments with those of Bishop Fellay.

    A very salutary practice, in my experience.

  22. Somerset '76 says:

    Those with long memories in the SSPX milieu will recall a forceful statement of the Campos priests’ solidarity with Archbishop Lefebvre on the occasion of the latter’s 1988 consecrations at Ecône … a statement issued by none other than Padré Fernando Rifan. The story that has not been told, at least in my hearing, is how the late Bp. Rangel and his priests, including Fr. Rifan of course, came to their present orientations less than ten years after the SSPX bishops consecrated him in alliance with their cause. I would be most interested in the thought-process they undertook.

    If anyone knows where the story’s been told, please link it.

  23. I totally agree, lack of Faith plays a major role in these abuses…almost as if to say “The Mass isn’t good enough, I must add my own personality to it”

    My opinion is that the rubrics must be tightened for the NO, and Translations must be Faithful to the Latin. If Fr. Z’s Latin to English translations were used in the NO, I think there’d be less problems. Theologically, the NO isn’t perfect, those things can be addressed.

    As for Communion in the Hand, altar girls, slowly, but surly get rid of them. It would not be wise to just straight out ban both. Give he catechesis for both, then ban it. (As a bishop in Argentina has done)