The lawless, heartless St. Peter’s Mass Suppression Stunt – more

I’ve received a couple of photos today of men saying Masses at side altars of St. Peter’s Basilica.  Soon to be a memory.  As of tomorrow, these individual Masses are suppressed.  Priests who want to say Mass will be forced to concelebrate.  The TLM is banished to the crypt, where there will also be competition from priests who say the Novus Ordo to get on the schedule to reserve the chapel.

There is nothing to this that cannot be walked back with the flick of a pen.

On EWTN, Card. Gerhard Müller called the decree “very strange”.  He said “nobody is obliged to obey it.”  I’m not sure how that would work, exactly.  I’d like to see what would happen.

As far as concerns the virtual suppression of the TLM, by making it so hard to find and in such restrictive conditions, I saw this tweet today.  Think about it.  1985 in the Archd. of Milwaukee.  This was after the initial 1984 “Indult” (which we now know was unnecessary because Benedict XVI that the TLM was never abolished).

Is it hard to imagine that, today, sheer hatred and lawlessness will not be attempted in other places because of the heartless, lawless San Pietro Suppression (SPS)?

Another person informed us in the combox here that Beans was interviewed for the Jesuit publication Amerika about the TLM and the SPS.   He came up with some pretty crazy stuff, which he must know is nuts (e.g. praying in Latin is contrary to the texts of Vatican II… there are no Old Testament readings in the TLM, etc.).  If he really believes it, he is way out of touch and should never, ever opine about anything having to do with traditional worship again.  If he doesn’t believe it, then he is purposely spreading falsehoods.  Part of his gleeful line about the SPS is that it emphasizes the theology of Vatican II, which he virtually admits is in complete discontinuity with theology before Vatican II.

He goes on to say all sorts of absurd things about the TLM, some are just twistings, others are plain false.  He doesn’t know what he was talking about.  I actually laughed a couple of times.

Let’s just say that his arguments were in a certain way… “a posteriori“.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Liberals, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, Save The Liturgy - Save The World and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. iPadre says:

    All priests should invest in reversible traveling Mass vestments, a traveling Missal, altar cards and the works. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is just as efficacious on a table in a hotel room as it is in a grand basilica. Maybe even more so doing a persecution.

  2. Michael Haz says:

    This ‘permission slip’ was issued by then Archbishop Rembert Weakland. I won’t post links here but please do spend a bit of time searching that name on your preferred search engine.

    He made an utter mess of the Milwaukee Archdiocese for all the reasons you can imagine, and a few that may have passed out of your field of vision.

  3. So, how crazy is it after all to fear the attempted reversal or suppression of Summorum Pontificum?

  4. Adelle Cecilia says:

    Cdl Burke also seemed to say the so-called order needn’t be obeyed, according to the website of his name.

  5. Cameron466 says:

    I’m having a hard time understanding why the order wouldn’t be obeyed. It’s obviously a bad decision, but we do have to obey our lawful superiors in all that is not sinful, right?

    Is the reason that the person issuing the order doesn’t actually have the authority to command something like this?

  6. ex seaxe says:

    I’m wondering what the underlined wording in that permit actually means by
    “1962 Revised Typical Edition of the Roman Missal”,
    is that the wording PCED chose? It seems to me that ‘1962 Typical Edition of the Roman Missal’ would be clear, while the wording used is ambiguous, it could mean the Missal as revised in 1962, or it could mean the 1962 Missal as revised by later instructions. The indult issued by Paul VI to Cardinal Heenan for England&Wales was clear that the final version issued in 1967 (8?) with all its amended rubrics was the permitted text.

  7. Gab says:

    The Catholic Traveller filmed the first day of the suppression order because, I think, he was hoping it was not true. Sadly, the place was empty except for the ”concelebration” taking place in the Choir Chapel. Very sad day indeed.
    Video 4 mins

  8. Liz says:

    I am so grateful for all of the priests willing to suffer in their priesthood for love of Holy Mother church. You mean everything to us and to the Church. Thank you! God bless and keep you always.

  9. Gaetano says:

    The Leftists ignore far more authoritative pronouncements than this with impunity. See Communion in the Hand or the latest Paulist denouncements from the pulpit of the Dubia response on blessing same-sex couples.

    So what would happen if a priest showed up and started celebrating Mass?

  10. Michael Haz says:

    * So what would happen if a priest showed up and started celebrating Mass?*

    Sir, you cannot celebrate a Mass here! This is St. Pater’s Basilica!!

  11. Uxixu says:

    Disobedience would ostensibly only be to the archpriest. I suspect the sacristans wouldn’t assist any more? I like the idea of three priests showing up and doing a Solemn Mass instead.

  12. Cameron466 says: I’m having a hard time understanding why the order wouldn’t be obeyed. It’s obviously a bad decision, but we do have to obey our lawful superiors in all that is not sinful, right?

    What never gets mentioned in these discussions is the reciprocal obligations of lawful superiors. These include the duties to rule us well, to act in accordance with charity, to protect the common good, to not abuse powers, to not exceed authority, and to always act in accordance with the purpose for which authority was given in the first place — in this case, the salvation of souls. After decades of weaponized “obedience,” we have been conditioned to think that obligations run in only one direction. They don’t.

    What to do about unlawful orders may be a matter of prudential judgment, depending on the situation; but in order to judge wisely, we really need to re-learn the parameters of legitimate obedience.

  13. Semper Gumby says:

    Evidence the Vatican hierarchy is Catholic continues to diminish.

  14. Semper Gumby says:

    Michael Haz: Good one.

  15. Rod Halvorsen says:

    Nothing in the Church today is more frustrating to me than hearing Cdl’s Mueller and Burke tell us the rule need not be obeyed and isn’t even legal, yet they obey it and treat it as if it is.

    RIGHT THERE sums up the culture that has contributed mightily to the crisis in which we find ourselves today. Treating every bureaucrat’s ink dump like a dogmatic utterance of the Pope…lest one find oneself in “schism”.

    We are led by men who evidently were formed to spend their lives committed to the principle that every good deed in the Church that meets resistance is to be treated as something that must not be done.

  16. The Cobbler says:

    “Papers, please!” Smells communist.

    Also… a posteriori… Thank you, Father, I needed that!

  17. Cameron466 says:

    Anita and Adelle, thanks for your replies. The question of where obedience fits in when the authority does not intend your good with the decisions he makes is a tricky one, but that aside, Cdl. Burke’s argument that the guy who issued this order lacked authority to do so is a strong one.

  18. Uxixu says:

    The whole thing sounds extremely strange. The wrong dicastery, no protocol, etc. Possibly another round of internal fighting like what just got Becciu?

Comments are closed.