This came from a friend in France. While I warmly endorse the sentiment, I’m afraid this might be overly optimistic, that Benedict would intercede with Francis. That Francis would even bother to listen even if he did! He’d probably order the water and power to be shut off to Benedict’s house if he raised his pinky finger in open defense of Summorum.
lettre du 26 Août 2021
LE 28 AOUT 2021
SEPTIEME MANIFESTATION
POUR LA DEFENSE DE LA MESSE TRADITIONNELLE
DEVANT LA NONCIATURE APOSTOLIQUE A PARIS
Chers amis
Samedi 28 aout 2021 se déroulera à midi précise et jusqu’à 12h45, devant le 14bis avenue du président Wilson, notre Septième manifestation pour la défense de la messe traditionnelle et de nos prêtres devant la nonciature apostolique en France.
Avec la rentrée nous devrions nous retrouver plus nombreux à réciter pacifiquement notre supplique litanique au Pape Benoit devant la représentation du Pape François à Paris pour lui faire connaître notre refus de voir mettre à mort la Réconciliation et la Paix liturgique initiées par Benoit XVI ?
Pape Benoît, auteur de Summorum Pontificum : Ne nous oubliez pas !
Pape Benoît, qui avez voulu la paix liturgique : Ne nous oubliez pas !
Pape Benoît, qui avez voulu la justice : Ne nous oubliez pas !
Pape Benoît, qui avez voulu un traitement juste et paternel des minorités catholiques : Ne nous oubliez pas !
Pape Benoît, artisan d’unité : Ne nous oubliez pas !
Pape Benoît, qui avez proclamé la liberté de célébrer le Sacrifice de la Messe selon le missel tridentin : Ne nous oubliez pas !
Pape Benoît, qui avez affirmé que le missel ancien n’a jamais été abrogé : Ne nous oubliez pas !
Pape Benoît, qui avez affirmé la liberté de tout prêtre d’user librement le missel ancien pour ses messes : Ne nous oubliez pas !
Pape Benoît, qui avez affirmé que le missel tridentin est expression de la lex orandi : Ne nous oubliez pas !
Pape Benoît, qui avez dit aux curés d’accueillir volontiers et dans la paix les demandes des groupes de fidèles attachés à la liturgie traditionnelle : Ne nous oubliez pas !
Pape Benoît, qui avez libéré les célébrations des mariages, obsèques, messes de pèlerinage : Ne nous oubliez pas !
Pape Benoît, qui avez compris que les jeunes aiment à rencontrer le mystère de la Très Sainte Eucharistie dans la liturgie traditionnelle : Ne nous oubliez pas !
Pape Benoît, qui saviez que la célébration traditionnelle ne peut que rester fidèle et unie à la foi entière de l’Eglise : Ne nous oubliez pas !
Pape Benoît, qui saviez que la célébration traditionnelle ne génère pas de désordres : Ne nous oubliez pas !
Pape Benoît, qui estimiez que l’histoire de la liturgie est faite de croissance et de développement, et non de rupture : Ne nous oubliez pas !
Pape Benoît, qui avez affirmé que ce qui était grand et sacré pour les générations précédentes restait grand et sacré pour nous : Ne nous oubliez pas !
Pape Benoît, qui avez déclaré qu’il est bon pour tous de conserver les richesses qui ont grandi dans la foi et dans la prière de l’Église : Ne nous oubliez pas !
Pape Benoît, grâce à qui la vie liturgique a grandi à nouveau dans l’Eglise : Ne nous oubliez pas !
Pape Benoît, grâce à qui tant de vocations ont fleuri dans l’Eglise : Ne nous oubliez pas !
Pape Benoît, espoir des prêtres : Ne nous oubliez pas !
Pape Benoît, espoir des religieux : Ne nous oubliez pas !
Pape Benoît, espoir des religieuses : Ne nous oubliez pas !
Pape Benoît, espoir des séminaristes : Ne nous oubliez pas !
Pape Benoît, espoirs des laïcs : Ne nous oubliez pas !
Pape Benoît, espoir des familles : Ne nous oubliez pas !
Pape Benoît, intercédez pour nous ! Pape Benoît, intercédez pour nous !
Pape Benoît, venez à notre secours ! Pape Benoît, venez à notre secours !
Pape Benoît, intervenez pour nous ! Pape Benoît, intervenez pour nous !
Je compte sur vos prières et si possible sur votre présence
En union de prière et d’amitié
Christian Marquant
Loading ...
But Father
Nobody expects Francis to listen to anyone.
But one word out of Benedict and all Francis’s credibility is eviscerated permanently.
Wow, I was just thinking today “anytime now! Benedict can speak up anytime now!!” God, please do something!
Assuming that Benedict really meant to leave the power of the papal seat to his successor, he has been wisely quiet in all the folderol from the Francine reign.
But here I think there is, finally, room for Benedict to speak: Francis has claimed a reason and motive for Benedict’s act of issuing Summorum Pontificum, and that claim (and more, its use in Francis’ documents) is quite antithetical to Benedict’s own actual motives and reasons. Without registering any direct opinion about TC, Benedict could well speak in clarification of his own motives. He knows them better than Francis, and Francis’s current magisterial authority does not unseat Benedict’s thoughts when he issued SP. However right it may be for the former pope to keep a prudent silence, it need not extend to assertions about his OWN motives.
Unfortunately, there is every possibility that Benedict may now be past the point where he can, physically and intellectually, take on the task of speaking out on such a topic: at some point his energy and his acumen will fail, and while it is usually a gradual thing, he has been getting weaker over the now 8 years since he resigned.
Well, I look at these words of Pope Benedict XVI, and I think of many comments I come across which do not accord with this requirement. –
“Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness.” BXVI; letter to bishops explaining SP.
I read comments by people saying they would miss their Sunday Mass rather than attend a Novus Ordo. And unofficial descriptions generally say the FSSP priests celebrate exclusively in the old rite.
I must say that I find this litany to Pope Benedict quite disturbing. A litany should be a prayer to God or to someone in heaven, and ‘praying’ thus to Pope Benedict feels quite wrong to me.
Gaby Carmel,
Surely it is not a liturgy, though it does seem a sort of evocation of the style of a liturgy. I seem to recall many cries of ‘subito sancto’ following the death of Pope St. John Paul II – what may one cry, what may one think to discern during the lifetime of a – shall we say ‘gracious’ – believer, and erstwhile Pope? But one may certainly ask anyone (presumed to be in grace) for their prayers? But that is not done here – here one asks One in the peculiar status of (self-described) Pope Emeritus (not returned to, say, Cardinal-Bishop as the curious claimant, Baldassare Cossa, once called (by some) Pope John XXIII) for his human and humane practical intervention in the interests of truth, justice, courtesy, and what-all else?
I find it difficult to imagine that the (as he might be styled) Holy Father Emeritus is likely to be physically and intellectually incapable of taking on the task – unless “physically” includes restraints characteristic of a prisoner. What he considers prudent – in circumstances of prudential consideration – is another matter, as is what he considers feasible, however prudent, in circumstances he knows as we do not.
May he yet wish – and succeed – to smuggle something inescapibly convincing out!
It wouldn’t be B16’s style to intervene directly, but I can imagine a scenario wherein, say, he writes a “private” letter to an interested TLM person or group assuring them of his prayers for their survival and prosperity, and reiterating his belief that the TLM can never be abrogated. etc. Please let it happen, Deo volente.
I just found out I can read French.
I must say that I find this litany to Pope Benedict quite disturbing. A litany should be a prayer to God or to someone in heaven, and ‘praying’ thus to Pope Benedict feels quite wrong to me.
Gaby, the verb “pray” has a very old history, and many different types of use. Protestants are horrified that we “pray to” Mary and the saints, but that’s because they have a narrower meaning to the word than we have: they think of “pray to X” as something like “asking X for divine favor” as if X had the authority to grant it. But of course, we don’t use “pray to Mary” in that sense: we are asking her to ask God for us.
This introduces a still wider meaning: “pray” can be taken almost as broadly as simply “ask”. The old-fashioned term “prithee” is simply a contraction of “pray thee”, as in “I pray thee, wilt thou take thine foot off my neck?” We STILL use otherwise archaic forms of “pray” in our courtrooms, where we pray the judge will hear our plea. In general, we could pray for attention or assistance from anyone who was above us in a position to lend us their aid. And in THAT spirit, it is quite reasonable to “pray” for Benedict’s attention and assistance.
But maybe it would have been better in a letter actually SENT to Benedict?
I would think that Papa Bergoglio consulted with Papa Ratzinger before issuing
Traditionis custodes, even if pro-forma and perhaps even over the latter’s private objections. Is there rumour to the contrary?
[ROFL!!! Thanks for the laugh.]
While their might be something to Gaby’s objection, I thought the “litany” was beautiful.
I immagine that Pope Benedict already has received many requests to intervene or say something. It crossed my mind to write a letter to him but I abandoned the idea because I could not think of anything appropriate to ask of him. The motu proprio concerns the governance of the Church. As such, it is not Pope Benedict’s place to say anything. He abdicated. That has consequences.
It would nonetheless nice to have some sort of consolation from Pope Benedict. I think a wonderful gesture would be for his funeral Mass — may it not be soon! — be a traditional Latin Requium Mass celebrated by Cardinal Sarah.
Yikes – “there” not “their.”
I kind of wonder if Benedict has some sort of surprise in store for us. I can totally picture a scenario in which a letter by him would be released upon his passing, in which he would speak out against TC. I think that alone would discredit Francis’ decree and would help encourage more clergy to simply ignore it altogether. It would only intensify the culture war in the Church, but for the better because it would mean that the true Guardians of Tradition (meaning: us) would step up to a stronger position.
Btw, I’m willing to bet the next conclave might might take an unusually long time to produce a pope, not unlike the conclaves of centuries ago, in which we had no pope for months or even years at a time. Thanks to Benedict, we were re-introduced to quite a few things that were common in the Church in centuries past, the vast majority of them good, such as a return to historical papal vestment styles, the way he wore the papal pallium in his pre-Guido Marini years, bringing back dalmatics for deacons, the Eucharistic fanfare with trumpet, the “Benedictine” candle altar arrangement, to name just a few. And on the other side of the coin, we also got re-introduced to some not so good things of the Church’s past, such as having more than one pope at the same time (or shall we say “anti-pope”?), which itself has led to even a return to having a real, actual evil pope. Indeed, we had gotten spoilt since at least the 19th Century to having generally good, pious popes. I remember reading the history books as a child when reading about the evil, bad popes the Church has had, wondering in disbelief how they could have been tolerated at all, and reassuring myself that “that could never happen in our times,” and then we get a cruel, heretical pope that promotes immoral values….ha! So, also thanks to Benedict (albeit indirectly), the return of the bad, evil popes has also been dusted off and brought back from the Church’s attic.
An appeal to Benedict over Francis is like trying to play one parent against the other. It is disrespectful to both. It also calls forth ghosts of the specious argument that Benedict somehow secretly retained some share of the papal office and is keeping it secret to spring it on us at some point. Nothing suggests he is a man to play such games.
Having argued against the wisdom or desirability of such an appeal I should probably retire from the field but I would suggest that the dismissal of Benedictine influence over Franciscan policy is to forget how many references there are to optional celibacy in Querida Amazonia. Even writings he distances himself from hold sway. It might be possible to pull the rabbit out of that hat again, but I think the rabbit very much likes staying in the hat.
@Senor Quixana – so, if a father is abusive the child is a fool to appeal to his mother?
I may have my own reservations on the whole “Pope Emeritus” business, but at the same time I can recognize that folks are desperately looking for something, anything, to help stop the destruction. Folks who don’t appreciate the “any port in a storm” mentality may not understand the severity of the storm that is raging all around us right now.
This storm is historic. We are living, for better and worse, during a milestone time that is unique in Church History and will be remembered forever. We’re talking “there was a time when 3 guys claimed to be pope” levels of bad.
I don’t like that I feel this way, because I love Ratzinger as a spiritual father, but I think everything he has ever stood for has been swept away by himself. He has spoken about the responsibilities of a bishop before and to not lend his voice to correcting the numerous errors and flat out heresy and apostasy in the Roman Church and among his brother bishops is unforgivable. I am a father of 6 and I would never NOT continue to teach my children about the truth and therefore abandon them to the wolves. I think he’s a coward and puts his own soul in jeopardy by not continuing to care for those entrusted to him.
I agree with Gaby Carmel. It’s like the “icon” of St Ignatius, St Francix, and St Peter Claver seated as the Blessed Trinity (a la Rublev). Non est dignum
@WVC my friend, thank you for a thoughtful response.
If dad is abusing a child and mom is unaware, then the child is no fool to tell mom. That is not playing one against the other. In this instance, assuming that Benedict retains his mental faculties, there is no reason to suspect he is unawares. Qui tacet consentire veditur. He may dislike and disagree with Francis’s decree, but he submits to Francis’s legitimate authority and his quiet implies he consents to the directive. I see that @josephaloisius feels free to accuse Benedict of overlooking abuse, but I cannot see how charity allows it. 9@josephaloisius can be forgiven for thinking himself more Catholic than the pope, but he is the first one I have encountered to think himself more Catholic than 2 popes.)
Supression of the TLM is bad policy. It is not prudent in any way I can understand. Pastorally, well, it is just antipastoral. Unwise as it may be it is within legitimate papal authority. It sucks. It is not an overwhelming storm that threatens to destroy the Church. The NO does not appeal to the aesthetic sensibilities of TLM afficianados, but there is nothing to suggest that God is not as pleased by a reverently celebrates NO. His pleasure is more important than our sensitivities.
I long for a new pope as much as anyone here, but I do not give our current one credit for being able to do us more harm than we can sustain.
To appeal to Benedict, knowing he is aware of the situation, is to indirectly accuse him, in your example, of ignoring abuse. That is a stiff accusation to make and, I believe, one that cannot be sustaineed.
It was said that Brother Pacificus had a vision where St. Francis of Assisi was given a throne in heaven originally designated for Lucifer. I am sure Lucifer is angry over this and wants revenge. I find it disheartening to think of the name Francis in a context unrelated to sainthood. Maybe instead of a “litany” asking intercession from Pope Benedict, we could pray a litany of saints comprised of every Saint Francis, asking for their particular help at this time.
Supression of the TLM is bad policy. It is not prudent in any way I can understand. Pastorally, well, it is just antipastoral. Unwise as it may be it is within legitimate papal authority.
@Senor Quixana:
There are a number of highly educated and devout people, including canon lawyers, who question and doubt whether TC is indeed binding law – or at least whether PARTS of it are binding law. There are various bases for such thinking, but they all revolve around the fact that it is Christ who founded the Church, He provided it with a constitution, and the papal office resides within that constitution with limits on its reach. The Church did not immediately recognize all of those limits, but over time, (as one example) she realized that the Patriarch of Rome isn’t the direct and principal custodian of the EASTERN Rites of the Church, the patriarchs of those regions are, and they (rightly) resisted papal attempts to change practices in those Rites when unwarranted.
Further, Summorum Pontificum explicitly references rights that priests have, not by granting such rights, but by recognizing those rights existed already, and arguably one reason those rights existed is on account of immemorial custom. Apparently, canon law provides the pope can change / eradicate an immemorial custom ONLY by direct, explicit reference, so TC’s offhand reference is insufficient. (Or so I have read, I would like someone to correct me if this is wrong.) Possibly, those rights are even more firmly seated than THAT, because Benedict seems to be indicating they cannot be removed.
An appeal to Benedict over Francis is like trying to play one parent against the other. It is disrespectful to both. It also calls forth ghosts of the specious argument that Benedict somehow secretly retained some share of the papal office and is keeping it secret to spring it on us at some point.
As I indicated above: In addition issuing juridical directives in TC, Francis issued an apostolic LETTER explaining his reasoning. That letter makes claims about Benedict’s motives. I think it is well within Benedict’s rights as a bishop (he remains a bishop, forever) to REPLY to that letter with a letter of his own, responding to errors in Francis’ claims. Benedict knows his own motives better than Francis, and nothing in the Holy Spirit’s guidance of the Church precludes Francis having made a mistake about Benedict’s motives. Claims about motives is NOT a juridic act by the pope, and Benedict does not owe to Francis submission of the intent of his own papal juridic acts, which are authoritative as Francis’ own juridic acts are. Francis can CHANGE a law, he cannot change the fact that the former law had a reason.