Wars and rumors of wars. Is there a “document” in the works to undermine Summorum Pontificum”?

On this day in particular, I had wanted to put aside highly negative news.

However, to paraphrase Trotsky, we might not be interested in war, but war is interested in us.

My mail box is filling with notes from people about the rumor that some document is forthcoming from Francis or some office of the Curia which would, in effect, return the state of use of the Traditional Roman Rite back to Ecclesia Dei days, that is, that diocesan priests would need some sort of additional permission to use the Traditional Roman Rite, either from Rome or from the local bishop.

Such a document would be a huge mistake.

Attacks and even rumors of attacks on Summorum Pontificum underscore what I have said ever since it was released: it was perhaps the single most important thing that came out of Benedict XVI’s pontificate (other than his resignation) and it was a monumentally important gift for the whole Church.   The Enemy knows this.   The critical importance of Summorum for the renewal of the Church is confirmed by attacks on it.

Here is a brief explanation of what is up.

Pais Liturgiques (original in French, not my translation):

For some time now, the warning signs about Summorum Pontificum have multiplied: the majority of Italian bishops and the heavyweights of the Curia, in particular at the Secretariat of State, have convinced the Pope that the liturgical traditionalization of the young clergy was “Worrying” and that the “right to the traditional mass”, instituted by the motu proprio of Benedict XVI, was an attack on Vatican II.

On Pentecost Monday, opening in Rome the meeting of the Conference of Italian Bishops, the CEI, the Pope first washed the heads [I sense an idiom here: he gave them a beating] of the Italian bishops, who are dragging their feet to put the Italian Church in a generalized state of synod because they consider it an expensive idea and totally unnecessary. Old man’s mania, some even say.

Then, once the journalists had left the debating hall, the Pope addressed a theme that unites many bishops on the Peninsula: the execration of Summorum Pontificum. Francis confirmed the upcoming publication of a document that he was urged to write, intended to “reinterpret” the motu proprio of Benedict XVI. The publication was indeed delayed, because the document seems to have provoked objections and brakes, especially on the part of Cardinal Ladaria and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, who argued that it would provoke worldwide unrest of uncontrollable oppositions. Despite everything, the Secretariat of State would push for the publication of the text, the essential provisions of which would be as follows:

– communities [e.g., FSSP, ICK, etc.] celebrating in the ancient form could continue to do so;

– on the other hand, diocesan priests should now obtain specific permission.

It is obvious that this document, inapplicable in many countries including France, will have above all a symbolic significance: to make the celebration of the traditional Mass no longer a right, but a tolerated exception.  [What rich irony… remember when Kasper talked about Communion for adulterers as “tolerated but not accepted”?]

The traditional anti-mass pressure group, at Saint-Anselme University, at the Curia and at the CEI, thus leads the Pope towards a major political error: the latent discontent of a whole section of Catholics in the face of doctrinal approximations, weaknesses in the face of German excesses, the multiplication of disconcerting statements to say the least, risks turning into a real “fed up” [ras-le-bol – a state of being completely fed-up, of having had enough]. Instead of striving to feel what a very living part of the Christian people thinks and aspires to, they would be driven to despair and exasperation.

The peace of the Church, especially the liturgical peace, to which Benedict XVI had contributed a lot with his wise liberating text, is deliberately torn: a return to the worst years of the post-Council period is coming.

A gloomy outlook.  Alas, trads tend to be a little gloomy.   On the other hand, open war on tradition might result in something that those in charge really don’t want.  “¡Hagan lío!”, after all.

However, one can understand some people will be frightened by these rumors.  However, even though there seems to be some concrete data points, they are still just rumors.

At this point there is no such document.

CONSIDER THIS: This could be a campaign of disinformation.   Italians are really good at this game.  Put out some rumors that are sure to rile up a certain sector and then stand back and watch their behavior.   When they react negatively, you can say, “See!  It would be right to get rid of these people!  Look at how they are behaving!”

But let’s game this out in our heads.

Firstly, it is important not to run around with out hair on fire.

Next, because situational awareness is important in every sphere of life, we should consider, calmly, what might be coming down the pike.

Just to riff on that Kasperite Proposal I mentioned, above, remember that that came from a synodal (“walking together”) process that lead to a post-synodal (“walking together”) document that did not explicitly permit Communion for manifest adulterers, but strongly hinted at it in a footnote, the infamous n. 351.   It could be that whatever comes out about the Traditional Roman Rite and Summorum Pontificum will not be clear and explicit, but will rather be a kind of dog whistle, a message to bishops and other ideologues that open war on traditional Catholics will be… how to put it… “tolerated but not accepted”.

There could be just enough of a message, shrouded in deniability – “Oh, heavens no!  We love our traditional Catholics!  We would never allow them to be mistreated!” – that hostile or ambitious bishops will have cover to get out their long knives and take out their traditional leaning priests.  After all, just look around now.   We can name names.

Furthermore, that point made by Paix Liturgiques at the end must be and, hopefully, will be weighed: how much more abuse will people take?   Especially in light of all the other garbage that is being allowed, nay rather, fostered in the Church, how much more marginalization and mistreatment will tradition-leaning Catholics take before something snaps?

One hopes that if there is such a document, or – who knows what it is – voices such as Card. Ladaria’s will have a strong say in the matter.

Such a document, as rumored, would be a real mistake.

It is too early to tell what the effects of COVID Theater will have on Mass attendance as we move forward.  My suspicion is that, after a brief spike, the numbers at Masses will plummet in those places that go back to the old “normal”.   

However, over the last year or so, many priests have learned to say the TLM and have quietly implemented it in their parishes in a peaceful way according to Summorum Pontificum.  The number of people who attend the TLM now is growing.  And those people tend to be more supportive financially of the Church than Novus Ordo attendees.   These “strong-identity” Catholics, or also “strengthening identity”, will not want to lose what they have found.

I suspect that the “powers that be” who hate and fear the TLM are so ideologically blinkered that they would not care of the post-COVID renewal of the Church was shattered.

The TLM is a rebuke of effeminacy.  It is a “no” to the world St. Paul warns of.  It is a bulwark against Modernism. It has to be crushed so that Modernism can continue its infection, the world can subsume more and more of the Church’s ethos, and effeminacy and perversion can force itself into every crevice.

Pace Tacitus, these powerful ideologues would rather create a wasteland and then call it ‘peace’, rather than allow the organic renewal of the Church to take place through the natural process of people freely being able to vote with their feet.

If people want the Novus Ordo, fine, they can have it.  If people want the TLM, fine, they should be able to have it.  The whole thing will in time sort itself out.    I have a strong idea of what it will look like if allowed to proceed.  So do the powers that be.  Hence, the lawless, heartless St. Peter’s Mass Suppression Stunt.

Ideologues fear freedom.   In their view, people have to be controlled.  The only freedom people are allowed by ideologues to have is the freedom to agree with their ideology.

In effect, it comes down to bullying.

In the meantime, in the absence of a document that can be read, rather than rumored, keep moving forward.  Do not let up.  Do not slow down.   Keep encouraging and helping priests to learn the TLM.   Even if such a document were to come out, there would be all the more reason for priests to learn the TLM!

Keep going.  Keep building.  Relentlessly and joyfully.

¡Hagan lío!

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Fr. Charles A. F. says:

    Once again, thanks for the encouraging words, Fr. Z!
    As one of my friends remarked upon hearing of this rumor, “if they want to make the TLM an exception the way communion on the hand is an exception, then I’m all for it!”

  2. The reality is that in some dioceses priests are already forced to get “special permission” from their bishops to celebrate the TLM. Yes, priests have the legal right under Summorum Pontificum to celebrate the Mass of Tradition without special permission, but we pretty obviously live in a time when the only thing that matters is power. People have been held in Casablanca in spite of their legal rights.

  3. WVC says:

    If I could ask Pope Benedict one question it would be, “Why on earth did you not give the FSSP and the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest their own bishops. WHY!?!?

  4. Uxixu says:

    WVC, the shortest answer is they don’t really need one.

    SSPX had and still has elements that while they officially profess to recognize the validity of the Pauline Orders, some have significant reservations about that. The other concern Abp. Lefebvre feared was that Rome could at some point in the future refuse to offer ordinations, etc or attach strings to providing Sacraments (concelebrate the novus ordo and/or the chrism Mass, etc). The May 1988 Protocol says: ” for practical and psychological reasons, the consecration of a member of the Society as a bishop appears useful.” Note the bishop was explicitly NOT to be the Superior General (most likely for fear of conflating jurisdiction).

    I had it on very good authority that shortly after his reign began, Benedict XVI did offer the FSSP a bishop per the terms of the May 1988 Protocol. The individual offered was… let’s say jubilant about it but humbly declined for a few reasons:
    1) The FSSP have had no shortage of Ordinaries willing to provide the Sacraments
    2) They don’t have any doubt to the validity or efficacy of the Pauline rite of episcopal consecration
    3) Why him? It’s not his personal Fraternity in the same way Abp. Lefebvre towered over the SSPX. No one priest is preeminent over the others.

    All that said, given some of the bad blood that developed I do think it would be a nice gesture, if with the papal mandate, Bp. Fellay had consecrated say… Fr. Bisig with the papal mandate. But the other reasons to decline haven’t gone away if anything as the FSSP has grown, one wouldn’t have proven to be enough and you don’t want the sort of wagging tongues on “well he had the “traditional bishop” and so and so was stuck with the “novus ordo bishop” sort of thing going on, either.

    ICRSS is much smaller.

  5. Uxixu says:

    Oh the last and perhaps most important is that the FSSP parishes deliberately foster an attempt to integrate with the diocese and not just be a strange isolated enclave (which appears to be the purpose of attempts to restrict Summorum Pontificum by diocesan priests) that the bishops resent because it’s forced by papal legislation. They want to have an amicable relationship with the Ordinary and want to recognize his jurisdiction and want him to Confirm the faithful present and see that not all Catholics who love tradition are toxic and hostile. They want to spread the tradition and teach diocesan priests how to sing the traditional Mass and Divine Office.

  6. kurtmasur says:

    Hmmm…. didn’t the Vatican recently release a document confirming that priests cannot bless same-sex unions? And didn’t many in the German clergy announce that they were still gonna bless such couples anyway? And weren’t girl altar servers informally allowed even though the Church officially didn’t allow it?

    If Francis decides to go down this route in limiting Summorum Pontificum, or even down right cancelling it, I believe it would only be fair to simply ignore him and carry on with the TLM. The TLM isn’t going anywhere…..with or without Summorum Pontificum.

    Btw, not only is the TLM showing up in more and more places, it’s also growing in the places where it already exists. For example, the TLM community has grown so much at my church that there are now two TLM scheduled Sundays…both of them are sung masses. There used to be only one NO and one TLM on Sundays. Now it’s just one NO and two TLMs. I suspect we are not alone in this.

  7. kurtmasur says:

    Edit of my post: I meant to write that we now have two TLMs scheduled each Sunday.

  8. Archlaic says:

    And yet we can’t help but worry, we’re traddies! As such, I say “thank you, dear and reverend Father, for the sane and incisive analysis!” And a shame, too, that you should have to be dealing with this nonsense on a glorious anniversary! Ad multos annos!

    While this potential act would undoubtedly gratify the Grillos and (Piero) Marinis of the world, it would surely have a number of negative effects beyond the removal of a positive good (the rights acknowledged in SP) and of course cheesing-off the traddies! Once again Holy Mother Church would be made to look ridiculous and inconstant, as has happened so often during the Franciscan papacy; and the pope himself made to look(!) petty and vindictive, a la J. R. Biden’s attempts to nullify every possible action of his predecessor. Not exactly what the Church needs for an image in the world, no matter what one’s disposition is toward the TLM

  9. I have asked the question at Paix Liturgique but perhaps someone here knows the answer; maybe it is something obvious that I’m just missing. Why would the potential document ‘be inapplicable in France and in many other countries’?

    I don’t think that at Paix Liturgique they are particularly gloomy; they are realistic.

  10. jaykay says:

    How extraordinarily graceless, in many senses, such a move would be given that Benedict XVI is still (happily) with us.

    Anyway: “Keep going. Keep building. Relentlessly and joyfully”. Yes to both of those imperatives, and especially to the adverbs!

  11. James C says:

    Marc in Eugene,

    Perhaps they’re referring to the fact that the SSPX offers mass in several hundred locations across France. The French bishops know this. Restricting or refusing permission for diocesan masses will simply drive those faithful to a nearby SSPX church—and there is usually one nearby….

  12. James C says:

    In Italy the SSPX is fairly thin on the ground, and the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate (who used to offer many of the TLMs in Italy) got hammered, so spiteful modernist Italian bishops can easily make life very hard for traditional Italian Catholics.

  13. Patrick-K says:

    Marc, I was wondering that too. I thought maybe in the original French it was something like “unworkable,” but the original is “inapplicable.” My French is poor to terrible but I’m pretty sure that means “inapplicable.” ;)

  14. Chrisc says:

    I concur with James C, although it may mean inapplicable in the sense that there aren’t very many diocesan TLMs at all in France because they have so many Traditionalist communities. Thus any move to address S.P. would be moot.

  15. Fr. Reader says:

    Some are in a hurry, because of the demographic solution. They realize they have 10 or 15 years before the tide changes, and least in some places.
    In my diocese, which is not very traditional or very liberal, but a bit of everything, there is Holy Mass in the Extraordinary Form few times a week. Seminarians (we have very few) are showing interest to learn it, which was unthinkable 10 years ago.

    @James C
    ”Restricting or refusing permission for diocesan masses will simply drive those faithful to a nearby SSPX church—and there is usually one nearby….“
    Very interesting. I hope they realize this.

  16. Fr. Reader says:

    Some are in a hurry, because of the demographic solution. They realize they have 10 or 15 years before the tide changes, and least in some places.
    In my diocese, which is not very traditional or very liberal, but a bit of everything, there is Holy Mass in the Extraordinary Form few times a week. Seminarians (we have very few) are showing interest to learn it, which was unthinkable 10 years ago.

    @James C
    ”Restricting or refusing permission for diocesan masses will simply drive those faithful to a nearby SSPX church—and there is usually one nearby….“
    Very interesting. I hope they realize this.

  17. I don’t think a rollback of Summorum Pontificum will happen now. There are too many bishops and even cardinals who are supporting the extraordinary form. It would simply result in people moving to more traditional dioceses and parishes, which might have the opposite effect of what was intended. At this point, they can slow it down, they can make life miserable for traditionalists in the short term, but in the long run the extraordinary form is a juggernaut that won’t be stopped.

  18. WVC says:


    Thank you for your response. I understand the wisdom and thoughtfulness behind the positions those involved took at the time regarding bishops in the FSSP, but I also believe that church politics sometimes require an understanding of how the game is played and a willingness to play the game to win. When the opportunity presents itself to turn a pawn into a queen, it could be considered imprudent, given the rules of the game and considering what pieces the opponent has, to decline that exchange.

  19. jflare29 says:

    I keep seeing these notes about how the traditional Mass has been growing. Curious to know where that might be?
    One reason why I moved to this parish, administered by FSSP, was a notable lack of effort by the local archdiocese to promote or recognize the traditional Mass. ..or most any traditional norms, for that matter. I had thought initially it might simply be a case of too few people; this IS a relatively rural state after all. Even so, …one can find Catholic churches all over, especially in this city, and the next 3 largest in the state. Even a town of 20,000 manages two parishes and a third “mini-parish” in association with a Catholic high school there. ..Come to think of it, a fifth also sustains two separate parishes. We even have a 22-year-old Catholic radio station here.
    Yet we have…two offerings of Mass in the extraordinary form in this state, both by FSSP.
    …OK, technically, CMRI has a parish here too, yet I’ve seen no evidence that they or the (arch)bishop or Rome recognize each other. So, we effectively have two traditional parishes in the entire state that’re legitimate.
    When I spoke with a brother Knight about that a few years ago, he commented on how there’s little interest here in the state for the traditional Mass. ..Well, As I recall, I didn’t pursue traditional Mass either until I learned about…my current parish. I can pretty well guarantee there will be very little interest if the bishops have little care. Grrrrr!!!!
    It’s nice to hear that the Extraordinary Form has grown someplace. It’d be nice to see it more here too.

    [Get to work.]

  20. BrionyB says:

    I wonder if “driving” those who are attached to the traditional Mass to SSPX chapels would be part of the purpose of such a move. The advantage, for those who wish to limit the spread of the TLM, would be to get it out of ordinary parish churches, where parishioners who haven’t experienced it before might casually come along out of curiosity or just because it happens to be at a convenient time for them – of course some may dislike it and never go again, but others, well, I’ve known people discover the TLM in this way who would otherwise never have heard of it.

    The SSPX is fairly widespread these days, but still it’s a difficult thing to just stumble across by chance unless you already take an interest in such matters. The same (to a lesser extent) is true of the “mainstream” traditional parishes like the FSSP ones. It’s been a very positive thing, I think, to have the TLM as part of the ordinary everyday life of a parish, would be a great shame to have that suppressed or reversed.

  21. Fr. Charles A. F. says:

    @ Marc in Eugene and Patrick-K:

    I’d say “inapplicable” in French is best translated “unenforceable” in English. I think the reasoning is something like this: in large dioceses in France (but also in the USA), there are many weekly or even daily TLM congregations which rely on a rota of diocesan priests to function. If a permit is required, they’re not simply going to tell people “Sorry folks, no Mass today, come back when I get my permit”. So either they quickly issue blanket permits to everyone, or the requirements will be flouted.

    Consequently, any rollback of SP would mainly affect places which don’t already have a robust TML culture; we’d see a discrepancy between “shall-issue” and “may-issue-but-won’t-in-practice” jurisdictions. This is the time to press our right to constitutionally carry the TLM!

    [That last part… YUT!]

  22. Semper Gumby says:

    “However, to paraphrase Trotsky, we might not be interested in war, but war is interested in us.”

    ‘Tis true. One reasonable perspective on this is: The belligerent Vatican of Jorge Bergoglio SJ and his collaborators have begun many unnecessary battles against Christians. A key indicator that something ain’t right.

    “However, even though there seems to be some concrete data points, they are still just rumors.”

    An excellent point. There is a track record of bad behavior these last few years, but time will tell.

    “If people want the Novus Ordo, fine, they can have it. If people want the TLM, fine, they should be able to have it. The whole thing will in time sort itself out.”

    Agreed. That said, the hyper-active hierarchy, more interested in Leftist politics and vengeance than the Gospel, and probably afraid of the growing interest in the TLM, appears to disagree. Though there are some bishops supportive of the TLM and are persevering in the vineyards of the Lord the best they can.

    “In effect, it comes down to bullying.”

    Yes, abundant evidence of that over the last few years. All sorts of offenses against God are tolerated or encouraged lately by many bishops, while faithful Catholics are frequently attacked. So, whatever document is produced by the Vatican ideology mill on this matter, if they produce one, it might not be read with “docility.”

    “Keep going. Keep building. Relentlessly and joyfully.

    “Hagan lío!”


    “This is the time to press our right to constitutionally carry the TLM!”

    Preach, Padre, preach.

    To paraphrase that Master of the Theologicks Gen. George S. Patton:

    “I want you to remember that no bast*rd ever entered the Kingdom of Heaven by dying for a footnote in an encyclical. You gain Eternal Life by dying for Jesus Christ.

    “Brethren and Sisteren, all this stuff you’ve heard about guitars and groovy tunes at the altar is a load of horse dung. All real Catholics love to Chant. Christians, traditionally, love Reverence. All real Catholics love the sting of Penance and Fasting.

    “We have the Eucharist, the finest Rosaries, Vestments and Veils, the best spirit, and the best men and women in the world.

    “Catholics don’t surrender. I don’t want to hear of any Catholic strumming a guitar while altar girls do the can-can. Now, out of charity, you can accompany your dear grandmother, who wants one more stroll down the 1960s memory lane, to the Engendering Groovy Faith Church. Even then, when people grab your hand and blurt out “Peace be with you” you can still say, “Pax.”

    “You men and women are Catholics or you wouldn’t be here. You are ready for what’s to come. A man must be alert at all times if he expects to stay alive to the Lord. If you’re not alert, some Soyboy or Soygirl from the Parish Council is going to sneak up behind you and beat you to death with a Pachamama idol.

    “This 2+2=5 stuff is a bunch of crap. The bilious bast*rds who wrote that for the Fishwrap know more about mental onanism than Christianity.

    “Now…one evening years from now, sitting around your fireside, when your grandkids ask you, “What did you do in the great Liturgy War?” at least you won’t have to say, “Well, I hung rainbow banners in the sanctuary of Clapping Faith Together Church.”

    “And you may thank God for that.

    “Why, by God, I actually pity those poor pagans we’re going up against. By God, I hope they repent. That is all.”

    In other words, if earthly princes and princesses want our TLMs: Molon Labe.

  23. Sid Cundiff in NC says:

    If there is to be a document, I wonder if it will say anything about the content of the Mass and the Liturgy of the Hours.

  24. Thanks for the suggestions about that ‘inapplicable’; Father Charles A.F.’s ‘unenforceable’ makes sense to me, although I’m not quite sure of the whys and wherefores of the putative unenforceability.

  25. Prayerful says:

    While Benedict is alive, this latest iteration of a clichéd rumour probably won’t amount to anything. After that, all bets might be off, but Francis doesn’t attack directly. I suspect he will allow his underlings to interpret his words as they want within limits. It seems a sort of Peronist thing as Henry Sire suggested, or a ‘working towards the leader.’ I reckon more nodding and winking at any local diocesan drive against it, and a futile attempt to postpone the inevitable death of the Novus Ordo Missae aka Boomer Mass.

  26. Michael Haz says:

    Sidebar question: Why ado we who follow the “traditional” forms of Catholicism allow others to apply a name to us?

    In reality, we are Catholic, and the others are non-traditionals.

  27. Nicholas says:

    I posted this on Facebook a couple days ago regarding these rumors. I hope I am right. I fear I am not.

    Prediction and hunch:

    I don’t think Summorum Pontificum will be overturned. That would be too out in the open and might be bad for funding, as trads of all stripes donate handsomely. It is also unpredictable, as there is a real possibility of an SSPX type situation occurring, though probably with different emphases.

    What I think might be the case is that these rumors are being intentionally floated so that bishops who wish to resist Traditional Liturgy can do so. These rumors also, if they truly show Pope Francis’s opinions which I have a particular reason to believe there is a chance they do not, then they show what Vatican leadership wants bishops to do and thus what to do if you want further promotions etc.

  28. Pingback: FRIDAY EDITION – Big Pulpit

  29. Pingback: PopeWatch: Father Z – The American Catholic

  30. Chris Garton-Zavesky says:

    Is there a principle, somewhere in canon law or in the proper understanding of tradition that that which is ambiguous must be read in the light most favorable to the accused (or persecuted)? Wouldn’t that allow the older form to persist anyway, since documents from Rome in the last 7 years have been examples of studied ambiguity?

  31. Semper Gumby says:

    Michael Haz: Good point.

    Let me say first there are reverent Novus Ordo Masses. But, Vatican II did not scrap Latin or Gregorian chant or ad orientem. So there’s that.

    Catholics are inherently traditional (e.g. 2 Thes 2:15). Meanwhile, those people who are opposed to Latin and the TLM may be non-traditional, but poor education and poor catechesis is a factor.

    There are reverent NO Masses (the TLM is growing but not readily available everywhere). Then there is whatever bacchanalia occurs in the mosh pit at the altar inside Bugnini Liturgy Outlet #287.

    Perhaps then: Catholic, low-traditional Catholic and anti-traditional Catholic (which may be an oxymoron).

  32. Sol says:

    @ Chris Garton-Zavesky

    “Is there a principle, somewhere in canon law or in the proper understanding of tradition that that which is ambiguous must be read in the light most favorable to the accused (or persecuted)?”

    Yes, there is. It’s an ancient legal principle from the Roman law – “in dubio pro reo” (when in doubt, in favour of the accused), which is also present in the Canon Law and in many other legal systems around the world.

  33. Joe in Canada says:

    When Rome was soliciting information a few years ago about the Traditional Mass, I warned my friends to be very careful in what they wrote. Above all, I said, do not go on about your rights. But that’s exactly what they did.

    I hope that whatever comes, the reaction will not include being shrill about rights. It might be true, but it doesn’t work. Be as clever as serpents and as harmless as doves.

  34. donato2 says:

    It is very hard for me to get my head around the idea that a Pope and bishops would take offense at people taking spiritual joy in the Church’s tradition and take action to squelch both the joy and the tradition. It is the sort of pathological cultural self-hatred that is characteristic of leftism — a Catholic version of the 1619 project in a way. And then they wonder why traditionalists seem angry. In reaction to this news/rumor I have decided to increase my level of giving to my FSSP parish and to consider donating to the FSSP as a whole. It is the only means of venting available to me.

  35. acardnal says:

    It’s worth remembering that Francis made several conciliatory moves toward the SSPX: 1) strong overtures toward unification, 2) validating their marriages, 3) validating the confessions they hear, etc. I would be surprised if he suddenly abrogated the TLM/EF Mass after all of that!

  36. Semper Gumby says:

    Joe in Canada: Your friends had their reasons- “shrill” is likely in the eye of the beholder here.

    acardnal: Good point, but the overall tone and trend from the Vatican the last eight years is anti-Catholic, restricting the TLM could be an effort to ghettoize it.

    donato2: “It is the sort of pathological cultural self-hatred that is characteristic of leftism — a Catholic version of the 1619 project in a way.” Good point. Vengeance and hatred of Christianity probably also figure into this.

    Given the growing anarchy in the Church and the Vatican’s continued interest in behaving as a Leftist NGO while ranting incoherently, even stupidly, about “rigidity,” kurtmasur’s “Hagan lio” suggestion is reasonable:

    “If Francis decides to go down this route in limiting Summorum Pontificum, or even down right cancelling it, I believe it would only be fair to simply ignore him and carry on with the TLM. “

Comments are closed.