My desire for salvation constrains me from significant commentary at this time.
Accompanying Letter to Bishops: HERE (Italian, English, Spanish)
Motu Proprio: HERE (Italian, English, Spanish)
Accompanying Letter:
Rome, 16 July 2021
Dear Brothers in the Episcopate,
Just as my Predecessor Benedict XVI did with Summorum Pontificum, I wish to accompany the Motu proprio Traditionis custodes with a letter explaining the motives that prompted my decision. I turn to you with trust and parresia, in the name of that shared “solicitude for the whole Church, that contributes supremely to the good of the Universal Church” as Vatican Council II reminds us.[1]
Most people understand the motives that prompted St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI to allow the use of the Roman Missal, promulgated by St. Pius V and edited by St. John XXIII in 1962, for the Eucharistic Sacrifice. The faculty — granted by the indult of the Congregation for Divine Worship in 1984[2] and confirmed by St. John Paul II in the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei in 1988[3] — was above all motivated by the desire to foster the healing of the schism with the movement of Mons. Lefebvre. With the ecclesial intention of restoring the unity of the Church, the Bishops were thus asked to accept with generosity the “just aspirations” of the faithful who requested the use of that Missal.
Many in the Church came to regard this faculty as an opportunity to adopt freely the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and use it in a manner parallel to the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Paul VI. In order to regulate this situation at the distance of many years, Benedict XVI intervened to address this state of affairs in the Church. Many priests and communities had “used with gratitude the possibility offered by the Motu proprio” of St. John Paul II. Underscoring that this development was not foreseeable in 1988, the Motu proprio Summorum Pontificum of 2007 intended to introduce “a clearer juridical regulation” in this area.[4] In order to allow access to those, including young people, who when “they discover this liturgical form, feel attracted to it and find in it a form, particularly suited to them, to encounter the mystery of the most holy Eucharist”,[5] Benedict XVI declared “the Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and newly edited by Blessed John XXIII, as a extraordinary expression of the same lex orandi”, granting a “more ample possibility for the use of the 1962 Missal”.[6]
In making their decision they were confident that such a provision would not place in doubt one of the key measures of Vatican Council II or minimize in this way its authority: the Motu proprio recognized that, in its own right, “the Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the lex orandi of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite”.[7] The recognition of the Missal promulgated by St. Pius V “as an extraordinary expression of the same lex orandi” did not in any way underrate the liturgical reform, but was decreed with the desire to acknowledge the “insistent prayers of these faithful,” allowing them “to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass according to the editio typica of the Roman Missal promulgated by Blessed John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as the extraordinary form of the Liturgy of the Church”.[8] It comforted Benedict XVI in his discernment that many desired “to find the form of the sacred Liturgy dear to them,” “clearly accepted the binding character of Vatican Council II and were faithful to the Pope and to the Bishops”.[9] What is more, he declared to be unfounded the fear of division in parish communities, because “the two forms of the use of the Roman Rite would enrich one another”.[10] Thus, he invited the Bishops to set aside their doubts and fears, and to welcome the norms, “attentive that everything would proceed in peace and serenity,” with the promise that “it would be possible to find resolutions” in the event that “serious difficulties came to light” in the implementation of the norms “once the Motu proprio came into effect”.[11]
With the passage of thirteen years, I instructed the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to circulate a questionnaire to the Bishops regarding the implementation of the Motu proprio Summorum Pontificum. The responses reveal a situation that preoccupies and saddens me, and persuades me of the need to intervene. Regrettably, the pastoral objective of my Predecessors, who had intended “to do everything possible to ensure that all those who truly possessed the desire for unity would find it possible to remain in this unity or to rediscover it anew”,[12] has often been seriously disregarded. An opportunity offered by St. John Paul II and, with even greater magnanimity, by Benedict XVI, intended to recover the unity of an ecclesial body with diverse liturgical sensibilities, was exploited to widen the gaps, reinforce the divergences, and encourage disagreements that injure the Church, block her path, and expose her to the peril of division.
At the same time, I am saddened by abuses in the celebration of the liturgy on all sides. In common with Benedict XVI, I deplore the fact that “in many places the prescriptions of the new Missal are not observed in celebration, but indeed come to be interpreted as an authorization for or even a requirement of creativity, which leads to almost unbearable distortions”.[13] But I am nonetheless saddened that the instrumental use of Missale Romanum of 1962 is often characterized by a rejection not only of the liturgical reform, but of the Vatican Council II itself, claiming, with unfounded and unsustainable assertions, that it betrayed the Tradition and the “true Church”. The path of the Church must be seen within the dynamic of Tradition “which originates from the Apostles and progresses in the Church with the assistance of the Holy Spirit” (DV 8). A recent stage of this dynamic was constituted by Vatican Council II where the Catholic episcopate came together to listen and to discern the path for the Church indicated by the Holy Spirit. To doubt the Council is to doubt the intentions of those very Fathers who exercised their collegial power in a solemn manner cum Petro et sub Petro in an ecumenical council,[14] and, in the final analysis, to doubt the Holy Spirit himself who guides the Church.
The objective of the modification of the permission granted by my Predecessors is highlighted by the Second Vatican Council itself. From the vota submitted by the Bishops there emerged a great insistence on the full, conscious and active participation of the whole People of God in the liturgy,[15] along lines already indicated by Pius XII in the encyclical Mediator Dei on the renewal of the liturgy.[16] The constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium confirmed this appeal, by seeking “the renewal and advancement of the liturgy”,[17] and by indicating the principles that should guide the reform.[18] In particular, it established that these principles concerned the Roman Rite, and other legitimate rites where applicable, and asked that “the rites be revised carefully in the light of sound tradition, and that they be given new vigor to meet present-day circumstances and needs”.[19] On the basis of these principles a reform of the liturgy was undertaken, with its highest expression in the Roman Missal, published in editio typica by St. Paul VI[20] and revised by St. John Paul II.[21] It must therefore be maintained that the Roman Rite, adapted many times over the course of the centuries according to the needs of the day, not only be preserved but renewed “in faithful observance of the Tradition”.[22] Whoever wishes to celebrate with devotion according to earlier forms of the liturgy can find in the reformed Roman Missal according to Vatican Council II all the elements of the Roman Rite, in particular the Roman Canon which constitutes one of its more distinctive elements.
A final reason for my decision is this: ever more plain in the words and attitudes of many is the close connection between the choice of celebrations according to the liturgical books prior to Vatican Council II and the rejection of the Church and her institutions in the name of what is called the “true Church.” One is dealing here with comportment that contradicts communion and nurtures the divisive tendency — “I belong to Paul; I belong instead to Apollo; I belong to Cephas; I belong to Christ” — against which the Apostle Paul so vigorously reacted.[23] In defense of the unity of the Body of Christ, I am constrained to revoke the faculty granted by my Predecessors. The distorted use that has been made of this faculty is contrary to the intentions that led to granting the freedom to celebrate the Mass with the Missale Romanum of 1962. Because “liturgical celebrations are not private actions, but celebrations of the Church, which is the sacrament of unity”,[24] they must be carried out in communion with the Church. Vatican Council II, while it reaffirmed the external bonds of incorporation in the Church — the profession of faith, the sacraments, of communion — affirmed with St. Augustine that to remain in the Church not only “with the body” but also “with the heart” is a condition for salvation.[25]
Dear brothers in the Episcopate, Sacrosanctum Concilium explained that the Church, the “sacrament of unity,” is such because it is “the holy People gathered and governed under the authority of the Bishops”.[26] Lumen gentium, while recalling that the Bishop of Rome is “the permanent and visible principle and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the multitude of the faithful,” states that you the Bishops are “the visible principle and foundation of the unity of your local Churches, in which and through which exists the one and only Catholic Church”.[27]
Responding to your requests, I take the firm decision to abrogate all the norms, instructions, permissions and customs that precede the present Motu proprio, and declare that the liturgical books promulgated by the saintly Pontiffs Paul VI and John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II, constitute the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite. I take comfort in this decision from the fact that, after the Council of Trent, St. Pius V also abrogated all the rites that could not claim a proven antiquity, establishing for the whole Latin Church a single Missale Romanum. For four centuries this Missale Romanum, promulgated by St. Pius V was thus the principal expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite, and functioned to maintain the unity of the Church. Without denying the dignity and grandeur of this Rite, the Bishops gathered in ecumenical council asked that it be reformed; their intention was that “the faithful would not assist as strangers and silent spectators in the mystery of faith, but, with a full understanding of the rites and prayers, would participate in the sacred action consciously, piously, and actively”.[28] St. Paul VI, recalling that the work of adaptation of the Roman Missal had already been initiated by Pius XII, declared that the revision of the Roman Missal, carried out in the light of ancient liturgical sources, had the goal of permitting the Church to raise up, in the variety of languages, “a single and identical prayer,” that expressed her unity.[29] This unity I intend to re-establish throughout the Church of the Roman Rite.
Vatican Council II, when it described the catholicity of the People of God, recalled that “within the ecclesial communion” there exist the particular Churches which enjoy their proper traditions, without prejudice to the primacy of the Chair of Peter who presides over the universal communion of charity, guarantees the legitimate diversity and together ensures that the particular not only does not injure the universal but above all serves it”.[30] While, in the exercise of my ministry in service of unity, I take the decision to suspend the faculty granted by my Predecessors, I ask you to share with me this burden as a form of participation in the solicitude for the whole Church proper to the Bishops. In the Motu proprio I have desired to affirm that it is up to the Bishop, as moderator, promoter, and guardian of the liturgical life of the Church of which he is the principle of unity, to regulate the liturgical celebrations. It is up to you to authorize in your Churches, as local Ordinaries, the use of the Missale Romanum of 1962, applying the norms of the present Motu proprio. It is up to you to proceed in such a way as to return to a unitary form of celebration, and to determine case by case the reality of the groups which celebrate with this Missale Romanum.
Indications about how to proceed in your dioceses are chiefly dictated by two principles: on the one hand, to provide for the good of those who are rooted in the previous form of celebration and need to return in due time to the Roman Rite promulgated by Saints Paul VI and John Paul II, and, on the other hand, to discontinue the erection of new personal parishes tied more to the desire and wishes of individual priests than to the real need of the “holy People of God.” At the same time, I ask you to be vigilant in ensuring that every liturgy be celebrated with decorum and fidelity to the liturgical books promulgated after Vatican Council II, without the eccentricities that can easily degenerate into abuses. Seminarians and new priests should be formed in the faithful observance of the prescriptions of the Missal and liturgical books, in which is reflected the liturgical reform willed by Vatican Council II.
Upon you I invoke the Spirit of the risen Lord, that he may make you strong and firm in your service to the People of God entrusted to you by the Lord, so that your care and vigilance express communion even in the unity of one, single Rite, in which is preserved the great richness of the Roman liturgical tradition. I pray for you. You pray for me.
FRANCIS
__________________
[1] Cfr. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church “Lumen Gentium”, 21 november 1964, n. 23 AAS 57 (1965) 27.
[2] Cfr. Congregation for Divine Worship, Letter to the Presidents of the Conferences of Bishops “Quattuor abhinc annos”, 3 october 1984: AAS 76 (1984) 1088-1089.
[3] John Paul II, Apostolic Letter given Motu proprio “Ecclesia Dei”, 2 july 1988: AAS 80 (1998) 1495-1498.
[4] Benedict XVI, Letter to the Bishops on the occasion of the publication of the Apostolic Letter “Motu proprio data” Summorum Pontificum on the use of the Roman Liturgy prior to the reform of 1970, 7 july 2007: AAS 99 (2007) 796.
[5] Benedict XVI, Letter to the Bishops on the occasion of the publication of the Apostolic Letter “Motu proprio data” Summorum Pontificum on the use of the Roman Liturgy prior to the reform of 1970, 7 july 2007: AAS 99 (2007) 796.
[6] Benedict XVI, Letter to the Bishops on the occasion of the publication of the Apostolic Letter “Motu proprio data” Summorum Pontificum on the use of the Roman Liturgy prior to the reform of 1970, 7 july 2007: AAS 99 (2007) 797.
[7] Benedict XVI, Apostolic Letter given Motu proprio “Summorum Pontificum”, 7 july 2007: AAS 99 (2007) 779.
[8] Benedict XVI, Apostolic Letter given Motu proprio “Summorum Pontificum”, 7 july 2007: AAS 99 (2007) 779.
[9] Benedict XVI, Letter to the Bishops on the occasion of the publication of the Apostolic Letter “Motu proprio data” Summorum Pontificum on the use of the Roman Liturgy prior to the reform of 1970, 7 july 2007: AAS 99 (2007) 796.
[10] Benedict XVI, Letter to the Bishops on the occasion of the publication of the Apostolic Letter “Motu proprio data” Summorum Pontificum on the use of the Roman Liturgy prior to the reform of 1970, 7 july 2007: AAS 99 (2007) 797.
[11] Benedict XVI, Letter to the Bishops on the occasion of the publication of the Apostolic Letter “Motu proprio data” Summorum Pontificum on the use of the Roman Liturgy prior to the reform of 1970, 7 july 2007: AAS 99 (2007) 798.
[12] Benedict XVI, Letter to the Bishops on the occasion of the publication of the Apostolic Letter “Motu proprio data” Summorum Pontificum on the use of the Roman Liturgy prior to the reform of 1970, 7 july 2007: AAS 99 (2007) 797-798.
[13] Benedict XVI, Letter to the Bishops on the occasion of the publication of the Apostolic Letter “Motu proprio data” Summorum Pontificum on the use of the Roman Liturgy prior to the reform of 1970, 7 july 2007: AAS 99 (2007) 796.
[14] Cfr. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church “Lumen Gentium”, 21 november 1964, n. 23: AAS 57 (1965) 27.
[15] Cfr. Acta et Documenta Concilio Oecumenico Vaticano II apparando, Series I, Volumen II, 1960.
[16] Pius XII, Encyclical on the sacred liturgy “Mediator Dei”, 20 november 1947: AAS 39 (1949) 521-595.
[17] Cfr. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Costitution on the sacred liturgy “Sacrosanctum Concilium”, 4 december 1963, nn. 1, 14: AAS 56 (1964) 97.104.
[18] Cfr. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Costitution on the sacred liturgy “Sacrosanctum Concilium”, 4 december 1963, n. 3: AAS 56 (1964) 98.
[19] Cfr. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Costitution on the sacred liturgy “Sacrosanctum Concilium”, 4 december 1963, n. 4: AAS 56 (1964) 98.
[20] Missale Romanum ex decreto Sacrosancti Oecumenici Concilii Vaticani II instauratum auctoritate Pauli PP. VI promulgatum, editio typica, 1970.
[21] Missale Romanum ex decreto Sacrosancti Oecumenici Concilii Vaticani II instauratum auctoritate Pauli PP. VI promulgatum Ioannis Pauli PP. II cura recognitum, editio typica altera, 1975; editio typica tertia, 2002; (reimpressio emendata 2008).
[22] Cfr. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Costitution on the sacred liturgy “Sacrosanctum Concilium”, 4 december 1963, n. 3: AAS 56 (1964) 98.
[23] 1 Cor 1,12-13.
[24] Cfr. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Costitution on the sacred liturgy “Sacrosanctum Concilium”, 4 december 1963, n. 26: AAS 56 (1964) 107.
[25] Cfr. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church “Lumen Gentium”, 21 november 1964, n. 14: AAS 57 (1965) 19.
[26] Cfr. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Costitution on the sacred liturgy “Sacrosanctum Concilium”, 4 december 1963, n. 6: AAS 56 (1964) 100.
[27] Cfr. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church “Lumen Gentium”, 21 november 1964, n. 23: AAS 57 (1965) 27.
[28] Cfr. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Costitution on the sacred liturgy “Sacrosanctum Concilium”, 4 december 1963, n. 48: AAS 56 (1964) 113.
[29] Paul VI, Apostolic Constitution “Missale Romanum” on new Roman Missal, 3 april 1969, AAS 61 (1969) 222.
[30] Cfr. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church “Lumen Gentium”, 21 november 1964, n. 13: AAS 57 (1965) 18.
[01015-EN.01] [Original text: Italian]
MOTU PROPRIO:
APOSTOLIC LETTER
ISSUED “MOTU PROPRIO”
BY THE SUPREME PONTIFF
FRANCIS
“TRADITIONIS CUSTODES”
ON THE USE OF THE ROMAN LITURGY PRIOR TO THE REFORM OF 1970
Guardians of the tradition, the bishops in communion with the Bishop of Rome constitute the visible principle and foundation of the unity of their particular Churches.[1] Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, through the proclamation of the Gospel and by means of the celebration of the Eucharist, they govern the particular Churches entrusted to them.[2]
In order to promote the concord and unity of the Church, with paternal solicitude towards those who in any region adhere to liturgical forms antecedent to the reform willed by the Vatican Council II, my Venerable Predecessors, Saint John Paul II and Benedict XVI, granted and regulated the faculty to use the Roman Missal edited by John XXIII in 1962.[3] In this way they intended “to facilitate the ecclesial communion of those Catholics who feel attached to some earlier liturgical forms” and not to others.[4]
In line with the initiative of my Venerable Predecessor Benedict XVI to invite the bishops to assess the application of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum three years after its publication, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith carried out a detailed consultation of the bishops in 2020. The results have been carefully considered in the light of experience that has matured during these years.
At this time, having considered the wishes expressed by the episcopate and having heard the opinion of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, I now desire, with this Apostolic Letter, to press on ever more in the constant search for ecclesial communion. Therefore, I have considered it appropriate to establish the following:
Art. 1. The liturgical books promulgated by Saint Paul VI and Saint John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II, are the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.
Art. 2. It belongs to the diocesan bishop, as moderator, promoter, and guardian of the whole liturgical life of the particular Church entrusted to him,[5] to regulate the liturgical celebrations of his diocese.[6] Therefore, it is his exclusive competence to authorize the use of the 1962 Roman Missal in his diocese, according to the guidelines of the Apostolic See.
Art. 3. The bishop of the diocese in which until now there exist one or more groups that celebrate according to the Missal antecedent to the reform of 1970:
§ 1. is to determine that these groups do not deny the validity and the legitimacy of the liturgical reform, dictated by Vatican Council II and the Magisterium of the Supreme Pontiffs;
§ 2. is to designate one or more locations where the faithful adherents of these groups may gather for the eucharistic celebration (not however in the parochial churches and without the erection of new personal parishes);
§ 3. to establish at the designated locations the days on which eucharistic celebrations are permitted using the Roman Missal promulgated by Saint John XXIII in 1962.[7] In these celebrations the readings are proclaimed in the vernacular language, using translations of the Sacred Scripture approved for liturgical use by the respective Episcopal Conferences;
§ 4. to appoint a priest who, as delegate of the bishop, is entrusted with these celebrations and with the pastoral care of these groups of the faithful. This priest should be suited for this responsibility, skilled in the use of the Missale Romanum antecedent to the reform of 1970, possess a knowledge of the Latin language sufficient for a thorough comprehension of the rubrics and liturgical texts, and be animated by a lively pastoral charity and by a sense of ecclesial communion. This priest should have at heart not only the correct celebration of the liturgy, but also the pastoral and spiritual care of the faithful;
§ 5. to proceed suitably to verify that the parishes canonically erected for the benefit of these faithful are effective for their spiritual growth, and to determine whether or not to retain them;
§ 6. to take care not to authorize the establishment of new groups.
Art. 4. Priests ordained after the publication of the present Motu Proprio, who wish to celebrate using the Missale Romanum of 1962, should submit a formal request to the diocesan Bishop who shall consult the Apostolic See before granting this authorization.
Art. 5. Priests who already celebrate according to the Missale Romanum of 1962 should request from the diocesan Bishop the authorization to continue to enjoy this faculty.
Art. 6. Institutes of consecrated life and Societies of apostolic life, erected by the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, fall under the competence of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies for Apostolic Life.
Art. 7. The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments and the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, for matters of their particular competence, exercise the authority of the Holy See with respect to the observance of these provisions.
Art. 8. Previous norms, instructions, permissions, and customs that do not conform to the provisions of the present Motu Proprio are abrogated.
Everything that I have declared in this Apostolic Letter in the form of Motu Proprio, I order to be observed in all its parts, anything else to the contrary notwithstanding, even if worthy of particular mention, and I establish that it be promulgated by way of publication in “L’Osservatore Romano”, entering immediately in force and, subsequently, that it be published in the official Commentary of the Holy See, Acta Apostolicae Sedis.
Given at Rome, at Saint John Lateran, on 16 July 2021, the liturgical Memorial of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, in the ninth year of Our Pontificate.
FRANCIS
________________________
[1] Cfr Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church “Lumen Gentium”, 21 november 1964, n. 23 AAS 57 (1965) 27.
[2] Cfr Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church “Lumen Gentium”, 21 november 1964, n. 27: AAS 57 (1965) 32; Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Decree concerning the pastoral office of bishops in the Church “Christus Dominus”, 28 october 1965, n. 11: AAS 58 (1966) 677-678; Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 833.
[3] Cfr John Paul II, Apostolic Letter given Motu proprio “Ecclesia Dei”, 2 july 1988: AAS 80 (1988) 1495-1498; Benedict XVI, Apostolic Letter given Motu proprio “Summorum Pontificum”, 7 july 2007: AAS 99 (2007) 777-781; Apostolic Letter given Motu proprio “Ecclesiae unitatem”, 2 july 2009: AAS 101 (2009) 710-711.
[4] John Paul II, Apostolic Letter given Motu proprio “Ecclesia Dei”, 2 july 1988, n. 5: AAS 80 (1988) 1498.
[5] Cfr Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Costitution on the sacred liturgy “Sacrosanctum Concilium”, 4 december 1963, n. 41: AAS 56 (1964) 111; Caeremoniale Episcoporum, n. 9; Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacrament, Instruction on certain matters to be observed or to be avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist “Redemptionis Sacramentum”, 25 march 2004, nn. 19-25: AAS 96 (2004) 555-557.
[6] Cfr CIC, can. 375, § 1; can. 392.
[7] Cfr Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Decree “Quo magis” approving seven Eucharistic Prefaces for the forma extraordinaria of the Roman Rite, 22 february 2020, and Decree “Cum sanctissima” on the liturgical celebration in honour of Saints in the forma extraordinaria of the Roman Rite, 22 february 2020: L’Osservatore Romano, 26 march 2020, p. 6.
[01014-EN.01] [Original text: Italian]
Loading ...
I hope Benedict XVI responds and points out Francis’s errors. He cannot remain silent.
Well, phooey. I was already in a cranky, rotten, angry mood this morning, and now… Grr.
So much mercy!
Prayers for all involved, be careful today to avoid wrathfulness.
LibChurch is cornered by the demographics which prove its failure. This seems to be another lashing out. Even those in the highest leadership positions- control still slips from their fingers.
The tighter the grip, the faster the slip.
Our Lady of Mt. Carmel help us!
Our Lady of Mt. Carmel, pray for us!
For a minute or two until I recovered my equilibrium I was a convinced sedevecantist.
I thought: I was not angry since Bergoglio became Pontiff, until this instant.
And on the night in which the Bolsheviks bludgeoned the saintly Romanov children to death!
Keep calm and pray…
But quis custodiet traditionis custodes?
How much of this sort of mercy can we endure?
Is there some way we can apply to this the hermeneutic of William Jefferson Clinton, who when he said he wanted abortion to be “safe, legal, and rare” really meant he wanted no limitations at all put on it?
In any event, bring on the unifying South American pagan idols and the dancing girls!
In permitting this and temporarily removing things that have given us a sense of comfort and security, God is asking us “Do you trust me?”
Eastern Catholic Churches and Orthodox brothers, note this Motu Proprio well. Let it serve as a warning.
“A bad tree cannot produce good fruit”.
Four quick thoughts before I get down to my day job:
1.) This is nuts! More restrictive that the pre-SP days… actually “regressive” is a better term;
2.) What gall, to invoke Mediator Dei in this context;
3.) Perhaps the truest words in the letter: “a situation that preoccupies and saddens me” would seem to describe Francis’s attitude toward the TLM (and us!) since day one;
4.) There is no solicitude in any of this, but the anger and pique shine through. We need to seriously consider whether this is designed to provoke an enormous backlash, with a rich selection of intemperate quotes from those so provoked, which will allow Him to (sorrowfully and humbly) cite this “massive disobedience” as just cause to (attempt to) outlaw the TLM altogether…
It reads like a membership drive letter for the SSPX.
” I take comfort in this decision from the fact that, after the Council of Trent, St. Pius V also abrogated all the rites that could not claim a proven antiquity, establishing for the whole Latin Church a single Missale Romanum.”
Uh, Holy Father, you do know that the Venerable Roman Rite has a pedigree of more than 200 years, right?
So if you want to abrogate anything…
It is stronger than I thought it would be.
I wonder how it affects the recitation of the Breviary. It is not clear for me. Sometimes it talks about “liturgical books”, sometimes only about the “Roman Missal.” Any idea?
—
Art. 5. Priests who already celebrate according to the Missale Romanum of 1962 should request from the diocesan Bishop the authorization to continue to enjoy this faculty.
Ready to write the request.
Surprising to me that Francis promulgates this while his predecessor Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI is still alive! Stunning!
Really scary, horrifying. Evidence of the takeover of the Vatican by our enemies.
Note the use of the word “faculty” in the announcement.
Here’s where the demonic logic will apply: the Vatican knows it cannot truthfully abrogate the Tridentine Mass. The threat will be the removal of faculties to say that particular Mass. Bishops have this authority, however unjustly wielded that authority will be. [faculties do not only apply to confession and marriage, but also other specific faculties to preach, say Mass, say Mass publicly, dispense Sacraments, etc etc]
When St Athanasius, or Padre Pio, or any other obedient cleric had faculties removed, they obeyed. However unjustly, the hierarchy has that power.
Keep in mind that Jesus Christ Himself submitted to unjust authority. Obedient unto death. This is the same Christ that called the hierarchy whitewashed tombs. The same Christ submitted to the same God-ordained holy “chain of command”: to-wit: sending the cured lepers to show themselves to the High Priest and other instances.
Here now is our chance to follow meekly in Christ footsteps – much grace will be given to the obedient.
Pray for our bishops. Our help is in the Name of the Lord, Who made heaven and earth.
Other than that, I look forward to the explanation of what this all means in practice for ourselves, dioceses and groups.
…I am saddened by abuses in the celebration of the liturgy on all sides. In common with Benedict XVI, I deplore the fact that “in many places the prescriptions of the new Missal are not observed in celebration, but indeed come to be interpreted as an authorization for or even a requirement of creativity, which leads to almost unbearable distortions”….
I have a hard time believing the Holy Father is sincere when he himself held a Pachamama Mass.
I’ve seen some commentators trying to play games with the legalese, such as “it says should, not must,” but this is rather a cope in my view. The accompanying letter explains how this is all to be interpreted, and his clear stated goal is to let the TLM die out. “Those who are rooted in the previous form of celebration and need to return in due time to the Roman Rite promulgated by Saints Paul VI and John Paul II.”
Robin, he’s probably speaking of praying the our Father with the old translation. Smh.
The letter seems to indicate that since the lex morandi is only in the new liturgy then one cannot fulfill their obligations by praying the Latin mass or the hours. They are reduced to mere devotional practices to be tolerated, to greater or lesser degree.
What I don’t understand is the prohibition of celebrating the TLM in a parish church. Where is it then to be celebrated? A school gymnasium or auditorium?
@acardnal
There are many churches that are not parishes. Also, there are chapels in monasteries, schools or other institutions.
Pope St Pius V pray for us.
Harsh.
Fr. Reader: those locations are going to be constraints on the faithful. In my diocese now, the TLM is celebrated in perhaps a dozen parish churches! Where will the faithful go now? I foresee drive times/mileage increasing!
I don’t even have words to respond.
I don’t fully understand this document. Does it mean that the TLM is immediately barred in parish churches where it is currently celebrated? Does it mean that the FSSP cannot be admitted into any new dioceses?
mrjaype says:
‘In permitting this and temporarily removing things that have given us a sense of comfort and security, God is asking us “Do you trust me ?” ‘
You’re right, mrjaype.
Lord, I trust in you.
Another question: Does this meant that it is necessary to attend then new Mass in a parish on Sundays to fulfill the Sunday obligation?
I feel so accompanied!
Is this MP saying that the local bishop is to choose they locations where the TLM is celebrated but it can’t be in a parish church? Am I understanding that correctly?
That would mean the bishop has the authority to authorize the celebration of the TLM but not to authorize its celebration in a parish. The Pope recognizes the authority of a bishop over the liturgy in his own diocese – but only so far as it can’t be used to effectively support the TLM.
This alone will kill many TLM communities.
But I must be wrong in my interpretation.
I feel so accompanied!
Is this MP saying that the local bishop is to choose they locations where the TLM is celebrated but it can’t be in a parish church? Am I understanding that correctly?
That would mean the bishop has the authority to authorize the celebration of the TLM but not to authorize its celebration in a parish. The Pope recognizes the authority of a bishop over the liturgy in his own diocese – but only so far as it can’t be used to effectively support the TLM.
This alone will kill many TLM communities.
But I must be wrong in my interpretation.
@acardnal.
Of course. That’s the idea.
Is Francis our first non-Catholic Pope?
rwj = my sentiments entirely
“In these celebrations the readings are proclaimed in the vernacular language, using translations of the Sacred Scripture approved for liturgical use by the respective Episcopal Conferences;”
I ask myself: “is it now forbidden to use Latin in the readings?” And “is it not licit to celebrate even the entire Novus Ordo Mass in Latin, including all the readings?” As someone who is fluent in Latin, I find it incomprehensible that everyone should be compelled to use vernacular translations. Is Latin now a forbidden language in the Catholic Church?
Fr. Reader: Of course, that’s the idea.
“need to return in due time to the Roman Rite promulgated by Saints Paul VI and John Paul II”
The real goal as stated in Pope Francis’s letter to the bishops, to have only the new Mass.
acardnal, my guess (which is of such apparent worth that you can use it to purchase a $5 cup of overrated coffee-shop coffee for only $5) is that it means designated chapels, shrines, & oratories (or less-frequent special occurrences at parish churches) with the idea of reducing it as part of “regular parish life”.
I find myself wondering what it will mean to baptisms, weddings, letters of freedom, confirmations, etc… Channeling those through being registered in a regular parish?
1. If this whole thing is based on a survey, then obviously the survey results need to be transparently revealed.
2. The letter ignores young people’s needs entirely, and isn’t that convenient. The idea seems to be that everyone needs to be weaned off the EF, rather than enrichment of everyone together.
3. The entire Church on Earth has been annoyed and persecuted over the last few years, and various forms of morality and catechetics are in big trouble. But the real problem is people who really like going to church in Latin. And what we really need is more parishes and groups getting shut down forever.
4. St. Catherine of Siena, pray for us.
…pretty severe…
Father Z, I just want to say that one of your qualities that I most appreciate is how on stories of high significance you make a point to pause & read & re-read & reflect on what is actually being said (to borrow an expression) before jumping into the fray or off a cliff (as some websites seem determined to do).
5. Oh, yeah, and it’s amazing how bishops have all their power taken away in their own dioceses if they want to be nice and inclusive, but they are given all the power in the world to refuse and exclude.
I think some intercession by the canon-lawyer saints of the Church would be a good idea. St. Ivo, pray for us!
Since Vatican II, the Church has been declining in vast numbers, in terms of clergy, religious and laity alike. The only area showing growth – and especially the youth and young family demographics – has been the Traditional Latin Mass and THIS is what the Pope wants to curtail. What madness!
With a little reflection it seems to me this has to stop. I’m a father of five children and have to varying degrees put up with this spiritual butchery for two decades. On the one hand “to whom can we go?” on the other I will quite literally be damned if I remain passively neutered. The pastors of the Church need to pray and think carefully on that.
The Lord never promised us that we would always have saintly popes. Unfortunately, this particular one is a villain. It’s another in a long line of abuses perpetrated by our spiritual fathers upon their children. I would go so far, based on this Motu Proprio and his many past statements, the man is a bigot towards people who revere tradition.
7. Oh, and obviously the requirement that everybody has to send in paperwork to their bishop is a sort of “annoyance/fear drag.” Obviously someone in the Vatican hopes that a lot of priests will be afraid to send a letter asking to continue their saying Mass in the EF, or that they will not hear about it in time to say Mass, or that younger priests won’t have the guts to ask.
I think the remedy for this is to be straightforward. If everybody sends in paperwork in a very matter-of-fact way, and in a very timely fashion — possibly using certified mail — there will be less pressure on individuals alone.
Of course, what would be even better is if all the priests in an archdiocese were to do this, but I don’t know if there’s enough solidarity of priests who love the EF with priests who are just normal priests.
But given that this is a weird restriction on the powers of priests under canon law, just like it’s a weird restriction on bishops, I would say that the most hippie Latin-hating priest should be able to see where this could be going, and it is not pretty. (Or smart. I sure as heck wouldn’t want to try to micromanage the entire Latin/Roman Rite’s bishops and priests, from timezones away. Maybe the Curia does.)
Did I forget a number six?
8. There’s no explanation of how this effects religious orders, or other groups that exist outside diocesan authority.
I think what we are seeing at the death throws of certain age Bishops that realize that everything they worked for in the 70’s and 80’s cannot last in the Church. So they are trying to regulate and enforce their ideas one last time before they die.
Unity? A year ago I could have gone to St. Peter’s in Rome and found a Mass that I could actively participate in, either because 1 I could have found an English vernacular Mass, or 2 I could have found a universal Latin Mass. Either of which any Catholic (at least according to those referenced documents of Vatican II) should be able to understand. Today, I can’t go to a Mass in St. Peter’s that I can understand at all. These people are only trying to sow division. Unity is out the window. This Moto Proprio is just further evidence of that. We were just beginning to see the fruits of Sumorum Pontificum so naturally it must be undone.
I am reminded of Paul Harvey’s “If I were the Devil”. Consider the timing of the liturgical reforms. Arpanet launched October 29th 1969, the liturgical reforms went into effect a month later on November 30 1969. The first email was sent in 1971. EXACTLY at the time when the world was going to be come connected and unified in an unprecedented way. A time when soon every Catholic in the world would soon be able to see each other and communicate. If I were the devil, I would want to confuse the speech of Catholic’s, change the rite so as the world is united, they no longer will be able to actively worship together, there will be no understanding from one country to the next. Instead of unity. I would sow division. I would present options so that even from priest to priest the Mass could look entirely different. Even with the same priest from one week to the next it could look drastically different.
I don’t know how complicit Francis is, or if he is just being used because he is angry, and has a love of dictating power and clericalism, so much so that he genuinely believes he can impose belief through force. I try to lean toward charity that he genuinely believes this is for the good of Catholics. It is getting harder. This is an extreme disappointment. All we can do is pray.
One good thing that will come out of this. Every Bishop in the world will be forced to show their true colors. There will be no hiding or pretending.
I look forward to the day when multiple copies of this document and its accompanying letter are burned to make the smoke signal announcing the election of an orthodox Catholic pope.
Pingback: Motu Proprio Day | Catholicism Pure & Simple
Particularly interesting is the different process for obtaining permission to say the TLM for priests ordained after this MP. This almost certainly is intended as a chilling formality, with the implicit assumption that new priests who would request such a permission won’t become bishops later. This will have the effect of poisoning the well against Catholic orthodoxy and orthopraxy in the future.
In the moment it is extremely hard to think this way but we must take a massive step back and try and look at the big picture. The first historical event that came to mind was when Emperor Julian (ruled from 361 to 363, also known as Julian the Apostate) came to power who rejected Christianity and reinstated paganism after Constantine. I always viewed this as the last “hurrah” of the pagans and after his death Christianity became the official religion for good and paganism continued its steady decline. In my opinion we are at the same moment of history in respect to the Tridentine Mass!
It is also another reminder that we need to increase our prayer and fasting. This will not only help us stay grounded and grow in holiness but also lead to the most good for the Catholic Church and the crazy world around us!
TLM communities should have stuck to non-controversial practices like demanding revisions to the Catechism and reversing the Church’s 2,000 year teaching on human sexuality…
Andrew,
I believe that it is already common practice to repeat the readings and the Gospel in the vernacular.
There appears to be a conscious effort to signal that new priests who request permission to say the TLM in the future will be blocked from “rising in the ranks.” Clearly Summorum Pontificum was extremely successful according to the intent of Benedict, pace the interpretation by Francis.
Does this mean that parish churches which currently have the TLM can no longer have them? Has the TLM been restricted solely to chapels run by the FSSP and the like?
Our good bishop stopped our ad orientum NO Mass.
What’s the chances of him approving TLM ?
I just try to remember that God the Father made and ordered all things for the ultimate glory of His Son. So somehow in a way we may not see until the General Judgment, this too is for the Greater Glory of God.
I also try to recall Peter’s zeal to defend Jesus from the soldiers who came to arrest Him, and how Jesus allowed Himself to be taken. That helps me to be calmer in times like this.
After seeing what has happened in the Church as of late, with Fr. Altman, the good Priests being persecuted, and now Pope Francis essentially hammering the Latin Mass, I am reminded of the movie ‘Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves’. The scene where Friar Tuck finds the Bishop pilfering the chapel of all the gold and donations and he says:
Friar Tuck : So… you sold your soul to Satan, Your Grace.
Bishop of Hereford : Brother Friar, you would not strike a fellow man of the cloth?
Friar Tuck : No, no, I wouldn’t. In fact, I’ll help you pack for your journey.
[weighs the Bishop down with several heavy sacks]
Friar Tuck : You’re going to need lots of gold to help you on your way – you’re a very rich man, eh? This too, and that!
Friar Tuck : And… here’s thirty pieces of silver, to pay the Devil… ON YOUR WAY TO HELL!
He then shoves the Bishop out the window.
I find myself enraged at this very moment with the Bishop of Rome, our Holy Father. I am outraged with this latest action by the Pope. Truly.. we are living in the end times, I do not say this lightly.. I can’t believe I am seeing the things I am both in the world and in the Church. Who would have ever thought we’d be living in this age..
May God have mercy on us all. Two Hurrahs for Friar Tuck…
How did we get to the point where we take for granted that the Pope has the authority to do this?
Bl Pius IX balked at adding St Joseph’s name to the canon… and yet now we just assume, without questioning, that the Pope is not acting beyond his authority when he suppresses the Mass of all time?
Can we at least have a grown up discussion about the limits of his authority? All human authority, including the Pope’s, is derived from God, and therefore limited.
Absolutely required reading on how we may have got to this point: https://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2010-Brian-Novus-Disordo.htm and https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2018/10/tyranny-and-sexual-abuse-in-catholic.html
I have no desire to even read this. God, please deal with Francis and all those who are against You and against Your people, because we cannot do it ourselves. Please take care of it quickly. Jesus, I trust in You!
Fr Z, you must be in great pain. I too am suffocated. I offer you solidarity in fraternal love as consolation.
The most important consideration is that each Bishop is authorized to decide what will be. That is intended to be a mobilization of local forces against the TLM, but it is also a juridical space for supporting the TLM. A pessimistic reading of the Guidelines despairs; but we can hope many years of disagreement about what he MP actually requires could give enough time for a happy outcome. [Maybe I’m delusional.]
[It is if we are standing on the ramparts of Minas Tirith as the signal goes up from Mordor. This is the calm before the battle, I’m afraid. It’s the battle none of us want, but which is coming anyway.]
This is very sad news. In the likely absence of the TLM for many of us, we must spend more time in prayer and adoration.
Meanwhile, the biological solution marches on. I know a fair number of priests under age 40 (Archdiocese of Washington), and not one of them shares the leftist baggage held by so many bishops. They are strong men of prayer who eventually will become our next bishops. And they’ll remember the hurt caused by today’s motu proprio.
That said, our faith is not in our pope, bishops, or even young priests…it is in God, who is with us still, and who permits trials like these for our own sanctification, no? Let’s put the new situation to use, then, and grow in holiness as God wills. This motu proprio is not the end of the story.
There is no one more illiberal than an autocratic progressive.
I do not foresee anything good coming from this.
KSC: “Is Francis our first non-Catholic Pope?”
Me: He’s a Jesuit. Take that for what it’s worth.
acardinal: “Surprising to me that Francis promulgates this while his predecessor Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI is still alive! Stunning!”
Me: Not surprised. The cabal probably wishes +Benedict had left the scene completely by now, but since he’s effectively silenced, this may be an indication that the current occupant of the chair thinks his time may be short, so this is a last shot at derailing the Benedictine Marshal Plan. Lip service to respecting his predecessor, but by his actions, he telegraphs his disdain.
rwj: “LibChurch is cornered by the demographics which prove its failure. This seems to be another lashing out. Even those in the highest leadership positions- control still slips from their fingers.”
Me: Princess Leia: “The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers…”
Personally disgusted. Time to vote with the checkbook and explore rites in union that haven’t been so badly disfigured, if any are left.
“The whole world groaned, and was astonished to find itself Arian”
See? It’s happened before.
Nonetheless, God is in charge; Satan has already been defeated and he knows it. Praise God!
As for a locale for the Mass. While a parish church may be good and convenient, back in the day, we were happy to hear Mass (TLM) in the local civic hall or theatre or anywhere. My small dining room at home is also available. The Irish used a rock in a field.
In the meantime, won’t somebody pick up the spat dummy and return it to PF’s pram?
So much for the “day job”, not getting anything done today for obvious reasons.
On a lighter note, this exchange:
Reminded me of a bon mot I heard from a *GOOD* Jesuit (yes, a rarity):
What a fitting end to such a horrible Pontificate, which had already destroyed so much.
I have always admired Pope Benedict, and still do, but I cannot help but harbor some resentment that he was not strong enough to ensure the spiritual protection within the Church of traditional, faithful Catholics. It would be of some consolation if he were to provide in his last will and testament that his funeral Mass be in the Extraordinary Form.
First of all, the Reverser can be reversed, himself supplying the precedent.
Secondly, this is a test. It is ONLY a test. Although this analogy may not be congenial to a traditional readership, I have seen this principle in the wild and am convinced we are on the verge of a terrific victory- as was Christ on the cross. Was He not obedient unto death? Did He not experience a terrific victory AS A RESULT?.
By way of analogy, back in the day, February of 1968, our twelve member charismatic prayer group was ordered by Bishop Blanchette, Bishop of Joliet to neither speak in tongues or to lay hands on one another. To us at the time it seemed like a death sentence for our little group. However, under the advice of our CARMELITE chaplain, Howard Rafferty, O.C.D. we were STRICTLY obedient. As a result we were greatly blessed and by late June our little group had grown to 200 people and other charismatic gifts other than tongues were manifesting.
In other words, this Motu Proprio is an OPPORTUNITY in the LORD, and we should take full advantage of it by NOT complaining, grousing or the like, but by being rigidly obedient. Yes, let our so-called rigidity bear its full fruit. Whoever says aught else understands nothing and is the enemy of an incredible liturgical renewal.
Our Lady of Mt. Carmel has given us a wonderful gift this day, an opportunity that we did not have yesterday.
I had been registered both at the FSSP personal parish in my diocese, and my local NO parish. I just de-registered from the NO parish.
An opportunity from God presents itself: serve the Lord or serve the current, temporary, hostile regime in the Vatican which issued a “Motu Proprio” hostile to the Great Commission.
The current Vatican regime is fearful of and enraged by the TLM and faithful Catholics. The current Vatican regime abandoned Chinese Christians and effectively abandoned the Sacraments during a mild pandemic. The current Vatican regime mocks God and the Gospel with Pachamama rituals. They are on the wrong path, they must repent. “Make straight the Way of the Lord.”
Jorge Bergoglio SJ wrote:
“One is dealing here with comportment that contradicts communion and nurtures the divisive tendency.”
Correct. Repent, Bergoglio SJ along with much of your hierarchy. Repent of your divisiveness, your immorality, your anti-Christianity, and your Pachamama paganism.
Furthermore, these “documents” should be available in Latin. Then again, exorcists have often stated that demons hate Latin. If it please God, that is not the case here.
“Without denying the dignity and grandeur of this Rite, the Bishops gathered in ecumenical council asked that it be reformed; their intention was that “the faithful would not assist as strangers and silent spectators in the mystery of faith, but, with a full understanding of the rites and prayers, would participate in the sacred action consciously, piously, and actively”.”
The current Vatican regime, having decided pimping the Bugnini Liturgy was unsuccessful, are now behaving as a Politburo and will attempt to force the Bugnini Liturgy on Christians. Non possumus.
The TLM is tradition and the future, the 1960s and 1970s have passed. Furthermore, even Vatican II stated Latin is to be “preserved,” Gregorian chant is “specially suited to the Roman liturgy,” and Vatican II did not demand versus populum. The TLM, not the Bugnini Liturgy, is the reverence due God. The TLM, not the Bugnini Liturgy, adheres closer to the Vatican II documents for which the current Vatican regime deceptively claims regard.
The current Vatican regime apparently has a serious problem with God. The current Vatican regime enables irreverence and perversity, but is hostile to faithful Catholics and tradition.
“…determine that these groups do not deny the validity and the legitimacy of the liturgical reform…”
Papers, please. So-called “dissent” will be punished. Beatings will continue until morale improves. The current and temporary Vatican regime is excited by thuggery and tyranny, and are slaves to their passions.
Bergoglio SJ and his Marxist, even occultist, henchmen who drafted these two documents also appeal to St. Paul, the very St. Paul who Bergoglio SJ recently mocked and belittled.
“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” – St. Paul
“Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil.”
“And if you be unwilling to serve the Lord, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in Mesopotamia, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell; as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”
“Then put away the foreign gods which are among you, and incline your heart to the Lord, the God of Israel.”
“Lo, I am with you Always, even unto the end of the Age.”
Lurker 59: Oh, they took note back in 1970. They’d **NEVER** mess with their liturgy, because they know that that’s the outward expression of their faith. In fact, that’s *one* of the points that Orthodox will make in “proving” that theirs is the one, true, apostolic Church and that *we* are heretics. As for Byzantine Catholics, they’re bracing themselves for the refugees that are sure to come their way, and with some trepidation. Latin Catholics looking to Byzantine parishes to escape from the liturgical lunacy at the local Latin parish haven’t always been good guests, agitating for latinizations that have no place in Eastern Christianity and often not taking the time to understand Eastern Christian theology. The Byzantine Catholic Churches are **NOT** the place to run away from what you don’t like happening in the Latin Catholic Church. Unless you are legitimately attracted to Eastern Christianity in its worship, prayer, and devotional practices for what they are, you’re not going to be happy in a Byzantine Catholic parish.
Donato2, no. It says nothing of the sort. Sunday obligation is still fulfilled at the traditional Latin Mass.
This is going to blow the church into pieces. The larger piece for now will limp along, but the body is mortally wounded and will fall. The smaller piece has all the life and love and faith and Truth, and it will continue in a better sense without having to drag along a diseased corpse, lighter and freer. There comes a time…the time is now. The very inspiring Laurence England put it well, “The SSPX is going to need a bigger church”. God bless you Fr. Z, all faithful priests, and all faithful friends of the Traditional Latin Mass of the Ages which we have no intention of giving up. Nor will we watch it infiltrated. Now will be be “returning” to the Novus Ordo. Not now. Not ever. As in, ever.
Let it be like Notre Dame.
FUBAR
Father, my two cents and two takes on this
1. After reading that hot mess, all I saw in my minds eye was visions of Stalin, Lenin, Trotsky, Che and Fidel as the great communist two sides argument was made by a Marxist Jesuit.
2. “Cry ‘Havoc!’ , and let slip the dogs of war.”
Well, at least we’ve got it all out in the open.
Perhaps what I posted elsewhere may be more appropriate here.
First, there is nothing in the Motu Proprio which prevents a priest from saying a mass following the Paul VI missal in Latin and ad orientem.
Second, there is an irony in the new document. While in a mass said following the pre-1970 form must have the readings in the vernacular, there is no corresponding requirement for masses using the Paul VI missal.
From “Christus Vincit: Christ’s Triumph Over the Darkness of the Age”:
Diane Montagna: Would there have been any priests in that area?
Bishop Schneider: Unfortunately, they had to go ten years, more or less, with no priests. But the families transmitted the faith, and every day they prayed. For example, in Lent, on Fridays in the evening after this hard work, neighboring families came together and prayed the Stations of the Cross in a room. Even after an exhausting day, the prayed the Stations of the Cross in Lent. And then priests came secretly. In particular, there was a Ukrainian priest in exile in Karaganda, Blessed Fr. Oleksiy (Alexij) Zarytskyj, who travelled a distance of two thousand kilometers to the Ural Mountains.
Chaswjd: “First, there is nothing in the Motu Proprio which prevents a priest from saying a mass following the Paul VI missal in Latin and ad orientem.”
Good point. It will require Faith and Fortitude.
Dustin F., OCDS et al: The last apparition at the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima resembled OL of Mt. Carmel. (via a text from a friend who in turn watched Taylor Marshall’s livestream today).
There is no two ways about this, no way to sugar coat it. It is a complete and total catastrophe. Not even faithful bishops can help us now, as they owe obedience, as do we, to the Pope. It is not even over. Pope Francis plainly states his intent to suppress the TLM entirely “in due time.” So in other words, today’s motu proprio is to be understood only as a first step toward the complete suppression of the TLM.
“Obedience is a virtue intended to direct us toward good, not toward evil. To pretend not to see evil, in order not to appear disobedient, is a betrayal of truth and a betrayal of our own selves.”
– Abp Marcel Lefebvre
“Everything that I have declared in this Apostolic Letter in the form of Motu Proprio, I order to be observed in all its parts…”
Rigid!
“…entering immediately in force…”
Rigid!
Even Pres. Bush provided Saddam Hussein an extra 48 hours. If the excellent Michael D. O’Brien and excellent Tom Clancy wrote a thriller together they wouldn’t trash the Vatican the way the Vatican is trashing itself today. Bergoglio SJ turned the key and launched a pre-emptive nuke against young families, faithful and motivated seminarians, etc. etc.
https://youtu.be/3edi2Wkr5YI
Well, that explains why the Bergoglio Regime is considering scrapping Just War Theory. A belligerent lot, they are.
Christus Vincit.
When I read the news I cried. My holy Father has rejected me and others who sincerely love the Church. How unkind an act for such a supposedly kindly pope.
And he couldn’t even wait until his predecessor was dead before he overturned his motu proprio that freed up the celebration of the traditional Latin Mass after forty years of suppression.
I fear that division, not unity, will be exacerbated now.
“Do you suppose that I came to give peace on earth? I tell you, not at all, but rather division. – Jesus
Well, so it’s here. At least it wasn’t in cold blood.
One observation: I find it very clever of Francis that his decree is valid immediately and published on a Friday, barely giving any time for the clergy to seek the permissions required for this Sunday’s regularly scheduled TLMs. In effect, they want to force us to go to an NO Mass already this Sunday, lol. Maybe even concelebrated…ha!
Given the little regard that church libs have towards church teachings, (ie. communion on the hand, girl altar servers (before it was officially prohibited), communion for divorced or remarried Catholics) I say we just “cough” on Francis’ motu propio, and simply carry on, business as usual. No whining, no complaining, just pure carrying on as if nothing happened.
And in the end of the day, we must be prepared to go underground if that is what they want. Ironically, that would actually be in line with the “spirit of Vatican 2”, which seems to have a full obsession with returning to the early roots of the first Christians, who themselves had to go to Mass in underground church communities.
Going forward, I predict that maybe in a future papacy, the TLM’s role in the Church will be ultimately clarified (and elevated) in the form of an actual ecumenical council, call it Vatican 3, if you will. A council in which orthodox clergy will be the majority after the biological solution drives away the hippie clergy. But it will take years, maybe even decades.
Pingback: Canon212 Update: When Popes Aren’t Catholic, They Hate Catholic Masses Too – The Stumbling Block
SUGGESTION: If you go to TLM, reach out to your (arch)bishop and thank him for the Mass being in his (arch)diocese. Say a line about how it has brought you closer to Jesus. Assure him of your prayers. Leave it at that.
One more thing, only with time will they be able to see the effects of this self-harming legislation, and it won’t be pretty.
It is not over for the TLM. The TLM will continue to grow, and they will regret to see that much of that growth and $$$ is not actually part of the diocesan coffers. Hence the future need for the eventual elevation of the TLM I reference in my previous post.
Just curious. As people have mentioned “chapels,” etc…
Are the side altars in older parishes, in cathedrals, etc. considered “chapels,” at which the TLM could still be offered, since it wouldn’t be at the main altar?
Rectory chapels that aren’t even “in” the church proper?
I know that the entire thing is silly, and even this question seems silly to have to ask, but I’m interested in knowing.
Just curious. As people have mentioned “chapels,” etc…
Are the side altars in older parishes, in cathedrals, etc. considered “chapels,” at which the TLM could still be offered, since it wouldn’t be at the main altar?
Rectory chapels that aren’t even “in” the church proper?
I know that the entire thing is silly, and even this question seems silly to have to ask, but I’m interested in knowing.
boredoftheworld wrote:
“How much of this sort of mercy can we endure?”
True, the mercy is a bit much sometimes. But you don’t have to endure a bad night’s sleep when you visit MyPillow dot com Promo code Poso.
It is not hyperbole to state that suppression of the Holy Sacrifice comes from the evil one.
And we know that Satan always over plays his hand.
Speaking of mercy, here’s Pavarotti and Zucchero singing “Miserere” which I hear is loosely based on Psalm 51 [50]:
https://youtu.be/f4xQ4PB3Kd0
acardnal: ““Do you suppose that I came to give peace on earth? I tell you, not at all, but rather division. – Jesus”
Good point. Jesus also called the first pope Satan.
While we’re at it, there have been holy popes, mediocre popes, and times when there was no pope or three popes. Popes come and go. The Catholic Church continues on its grand adventure and the Great Commission.
If the current people in the Vatican are exhilarated with their Gadarene rush towards a cliff, yelping all the while “accompaniment” and “walking together” and “Hagan lio,” there is no reason to join them. God gave us a brain to be used for more than just keeping our ears apart.
“For as high as the heavens are above the earth, so great is His mercy to those who fear (awe) Him.”
And that mercy, excellent acardnal, is the only mercy that ultimately matters.
The directive ‘ to appoint a priest who, as delegate of the bishop, is entrusted with these celebrations and with the pastoral care of these groups of the faithful’ just smacks of Soviet era political officers on warships.
There are a few parishes that are afloat only because of the numbers present at the Latin Masses said there.
I agree with some, the tone is ….. punitive.
The Church’s liturgy is a repository of her patrimony- a lived, and prayed, expression of the deposit of faith, in which the redeeming sacrifice of Jesus Christ is made present through the sacrament of the Most Holy Eucharist. Since the foundation of the Church at Pentecost, the Church has expressed, with beauty and grace, the meaning of salvation’s mystery. In liturgy, the Church expresses through symbolism what is often inexpressible in words. Pope Benedict was right- knowing, understanding, and preserving the riches of the Church’s liturgical history helps us to know Christ more intimately through the sacred liturgy. – Bishop Conley of Lincoln, from the foreword to Fr. Jackson’s “Nothing Superfluous.”
Phillipians 4:
Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do; and the God of peace will be with you.
Roger Scruton: The sense of beauty puts a brake on destruction, by representing its object as irreplaceable. What is revealed to me in the experience of beauty is a fundamental truth about being- that being is a gift.
Through the pursuit of beauty we shape the world as a home, and in doing so we both amplify our joys and find consolation for our sorrows.
Beauty matters. It is not just a subjective thing but a universal need of human beings. If we ignore this need we find ourselves in a spiritual desert.
Two thoughts spring first to mind:
It took this situation — THIS situation? — to get the current Vatican to write something concise? Reflecting on that alongside Pope St. Pius X’s description of people who make it a point to seem to have trouble expressing themselves precisely puts all the other recent publications in an interesting light.
The anger and sadness over division drives one to call immediately for the repression of the older forms and requires that everyone must accept/use the newer form?? — this is, Like Fr. Z said on a related post, as clear a line as was ever drawn. There is no interest in growth, where we might consider why one form is growing and another dying. There is no period of self-inspection where we might ask why the younger Catholics with no direct memory are drawn to it, or where we might ask why people attached to the older form seem to consistently see a rift or problem at the Council. There is no attempt to clarify, to remind that B16 wanted mutual enrichment and not a “divergence”. There is no considering the implications of “diverging” between the pre-Conciliar and post-Conciliar — there is continuity or there isn’t, so if divergence is apparent, what does that tell a thoughtful observer? No, there is nothing of the sort, merely a cease-and-desist order, “let it go, you are going to get on the bandwagon sooner or later”. This is the act of a REVOLUTIONARY, blatantly admitting that there is a rift, not giving two hoots about the implications for faith or souls or even a business-like concern for growth instead of decay – there is only the revolution, and it will not be allowed to fail.
And FWIW, our bishop has said he sees no issues with and will make no change to the current single oratory using the 1962 Missal within the diocese. This is wonderful to hear, and raises a third question. If enough bishops react this way, does this become merely a sop to the revolutionary party, and seal off but not extinguish the ember of traditional practice, such that when that day ever comes that it does get another puff of oxygen, it will let loose in a conflagration?
Which then raises a fourth question, when is that day? Are we in the middle of the 100 years of Pope Leo XIII’s vision, so until 2065?
Worse than I expected… sigh. I expect that this will generate such an uproar as to require a rollback of the rollback. Definitely tone-deaf.
Adelle Cecelia,
“Are the side altars in older parishes, in cathedrals, etc. considered “chapels,” at which the TLM could still be offered, since it wouldn’t be at the main altar?
Rectory chapels that aren’t even “in” the church proper?”
—
I know I have seen spaces in cathedrals and large church buildings designated as ‘chapels’ instead of ‘side altars’, but… I suspect this usage is closer to “different building than a parish church”.
Technically, a parish has only one church. It might have any number of purpose-built, beautiful spaces, even free-standing buildings, used and well-suited for Mass – but only one is the parish Church.
At least, that was what we were told when my childhood parish finally got diocesan go-ahead to build a new church (keeping the old one in use). “It’s not ‘old church’ & ‘new church’, it’s not ‘ big church’ & ‘little church'”, we were told. “It’s Saint ___ Church and Saint ___ Chapel.”
…
As I said to acardnal or someone above – I suspect that it could be used to mean that only designated non-parish chapels/oratories/shrines have regular weekly EF Mass and therefore only occasionally in “regular” parish life.
One very hesitant observation and a question : I think it’s clear that Traditionis Custodes intends to abrogate Summorum Pontificum. But I don’t think Traditionis Custodes abrogates the 1962 Missal itself. Remember how Summorum Pontificum simply observed that the 1962 Missal had never been abrogated? That observation is just an observation – it’s not abrogatable. So is that observation still valid? If so, then would every priest still be allowed to celebrate the 1962 Missal in private? Is it just the public celebration that is being regulated?
To bishops out there if you are reading this:
How about changing the status of those parish churches with a strong TLM community so that they receive a different canonical status other than that of a parish? It could be a *clever* workaround solution to Francis‘s petty attempt at suppressing the TLM. Just a thought.
Such an action would be done out of charity and out of pastoral purposes.
1. So per the new Motu Proprio, every priest saying the TLM in every parish, must ask the Bishop for permission. Pope Emeritus Benedict, it is says, says the TLM privately, living inside the Vatican, in the Diocese of Rome. Therefore, ironically, he must ask Pope Francis, the local Ordinary, if he can continue to say he TLM in his private chapel. The irony.
2. Here is the Elephant in the Room: every priest and group of faithful going forward, under the new Dracula Motu Proprio, can consider going the route of the SSPX. Either join up with the SSPX, or just start a local independent chapel (that itself can coordinate with the SSPX). This has always been a viable option since 1970. Fr. Z may disagree with his Ecclesia Dei commission background, or maybe is starting to see that option for some, but in the MANY dioceses where SP has already been ignored, when this new Motu Proprio hits the fan (implied pun intended), many priests and laity need to consider this option. The Church supplying jurisdiction during this kind of Crisis.
It muy come down to simple resistance. Passive, or active, as necessary.
Maybe the law does not matter much any more in what really is a lawless church.
It is important to note that no one “owns” the Mass. God gives and God takes. We can’t simply decide to have the old Mass at any cost, as it doesn’t belong to us. This chain of command is for our safety or our deserved punishment. Those fortunate enough to have good bishops and supportive priests will be okay for now. That is the crux.
God will take care of us. Yes He has fashioned our cross for us and gives it to us lovingly. Remember the compassion of Jesus considering the crowd that hadn’t eaten for 3 days – He fed them, and then some.
Alternatively, consider the Jews in the desert who forgot all that God had done for them and railed about the lack of meat. God rained the birds down on them, they ate, got what they wanted, and then He smote them – killing them with the meat in their mouth, killing the fattest, the greediest.
If we were to take a charitable view of this letter and assume that in good faith the Holy Father only wanted unity within the Roman church, perhaps a good faith solution would be a revision of the current mass of Paul VI to allow options for the prayers at the foot of the altar, the traditional offertory prayers, and the last gospel. If this revised mass was said in Latin and Ad Orientem it would be almost indistinguishable from the TLM and would provide that unity that this MP seems to be seeking.
@JonPatrick:
In a twisted way, Pope Francis is doing us all a favor with his MP. With his MP enabling the draining of the TLM from those dioceses with anti-TLM bishops, it will create a filter that will make it clear to everybody which dioceses thrive vs. which dioceses are in crisis or even face threat of extinction. I think this will further accelerate Pope Benedict’s prediction of a smaller Church, but with actual faithful members who adhere to official Church teachings and disciplines.
Eventually there may come a time in which it will become so obvious that it is the TLM what really keeps the Church alive that it will be formally acknowledged, and I believe a Church council might even be called up to re-examine the liturgical reforms of Vatican 2 and its results. It might take decades, maybe even around the 100 year mark of V2, but I have faith something of the sorts will happen that will permanently lift the TLM restrictions of Francis’ MP.
LT Brass Bancroft: “I had been registered both at the FSSP personal parish in my diocese, and my local NO parish. I just de-registered from the NO parish.”
Yes. I and many others will no longer attend the NO. God willing, one day in the future, after regime change at the Vatican and a new pope who is pro-Christian, pro-TLM and not deranged we will reconsider. If TLM-only means Holy Mass intermittently, so be it- it’s happened before in history, such as Bishop Schneider’s circumstances (see my comment above), and will no doubt happen again.
Yes, some NO Masses are reverent. Yes, some NO-only priests are faithful. That is their business, the Bugnini Ritual need not be ours. The current Vatican is obsessed with promoting paganism, socialism, decadence and molesting, mocking and denying the Sacraments to faithful Christians. That is their business, the road to perdition need not be ours.
2 Peter 2: But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. 2 And many will follow their licentiousness, and because of them the way of truth will be reviled.
For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
Christus Vincit.
Suggestion for a counterattack: Pro-TLM bishops flood the Vatican with dubiums regarding the MP. We know they are slow to answer or just don’t respond, e.g. the famous Cardinals’ Dubium which still has not been responded to. This could delay implementation for decades!
I’m not angry. I’m not even sad. I thought from the beginning the the TLM would be lost to most of us the minute Benedict died. Francis might have had a scare with his colon surgery so he decided to act now but this was coming along.
“Indications about how to proceed in your dioceses are chiefly dictated by two principles: on the one hand, to provide for the good of those who are rooted in the previous form of celebration and need to return in due time to the Roman Rite promulgated by Saints Paul VI and John Paul II,”
For TLM Congregations served by Diocesan priests (like me)…this means wait till “those” priests die. Who will replace us? Friendly Bishop must get Vatican approval for replacement.
Particularly cruel is “those…need to return “in due time” to the Roman Rite ….”
When we Diocesan priests offering the TLM die…the Rite in our Dioceses die with us. So very sad.
Okay, I slept on this– well, barely. Now the time has come to reform the Novus Ordo— from within. Call it undermining from within if you prefer; call it an assault or attack if you like. However you want to describe it, retreating to a marginalized ghetto or periphery is no longer sufficient. Those who prefer the TLM now must start agitating for change in ordinary Masses in ordinary parishes if the TLM is taken away from them. The “TLM or bust” way of thinking has to be put aside, at least for now, at least in most places– unless a bishop is willing to ignore the Pope (which may actually happen quietly in some places). But traditionalists in general will have no choice but to force the “reform of the reform” that never really happened. They have no choice but to get involved in parishes and diocese and start forcing a rereading of Sacrosanctum Concilium with a hermeneutic of continuity instead of the hermeneutic of rupture. If they want traditionalists to be attending ordinary Masses, then traditionalists have to be accommodated– and not ignored.
The Novus Ordo can be offered reverently in ways that regulars here already know and I won’t repeat again. I understand the severe bitterness that many have for the Novus Ordo for many reasons, and over the years I have come to sympathize with that even though I never acquired that sort of emotional bitterness that permeates much writing on the topic. But it’s time to put that bitterness aside and do what rationally must be done now. Instead of merely hating the Novus Ordo, the time has come to start making it better so that some day, we can laugh at a day such as yesterday and say, “Yeah, they thought they killed traditionalism in 2021, but we sure showed them, didn’t we,” as we offer a reformed Novus Ordo that looks suspiciously like the TLM that they thought they had killed off– after infiltrating it and changing it from within. Evolution is more lasting than revolution, anyway. Let’s start evolving the Novus Ordo into something better than it generally is instead of wringing our hands as defeatists do and claim “it can’t be done.” You have to work with what you have, not what you’d like to have.
Quick note to sympathetic bishops– you can start enforcing Canon 249 quietly and immediately. That’s something you still have and can use, so use it. Make sure that every seminarian knows Latin well. Train them clandestinely in the TLM even if they can’t use it. Interview them personally and see to it that they’ll be ready for whatever may come next. Encourage traditionalist “interpretations” of the Novus Ordo. Privately let your priests know that you have their backs. As Captain Kirk once told Mr. Scott, “Push it right to the limit.”
1. “TRADITIONIS CUSTODES”
“Guardians of the Tradition…”
Peace is war, war is peace. Freedom is slavery, slavery is freedom. Knowledge is ignorance, ignorance is knowledge.
2. The alliance of the current Vatican and leftist Globalists is also known as “Guardians,” they like to be photographed with the caption “Our Guardians.” We’ll decline that nonsense. Apparently these Vatican usurpers have never heard about the far less-sanctimonious and far less-lethal Guardian angels.
3. The Bugnini zealots will find that the TLM is not easy to destroy. Preserving the TLM only requires faith and perseverance. An illustration:
“Israel is laid waste, it’s seed is not”
Inscription c. 1200 BC by Pharaoh Merneptah.
acardnal: “Suggestion for a counterattack: Pro-TLM bishops flood the Vatican with dubiums regarding the MP.”
Has potential. How about some air support? Tanker planes to flood the Vatican with Holy Water.
SemperGumby, I knew I could count on your support!