I was informed that Rome had more bad news for us all… I include those who are dedicated to the Novus Ordo.
Remember… Novus Ordo fans! Hurt one, all are wounded. You are wounded by the persecution of those who love the Traditional Roman Rite. You should defend your brethren out of both self-interest and charity.
A friend said that the Vicariate of Rome – the “chancery” of the Diocese of Rome, whose Vicar, a Cardinal, runs Rome while a Pope popes – has forbidden celebration of the Triduum at all churches with the Vetus Ordo in Rome, including the PERSONAL PARISH, Santissima Trinità dei Pellegrini, which is staffed by the FSSP.
I don’t have the energy to translate the hideous letter from the Vicar of Rome. Rorate has a translation, HERE, which I will lift, below.
Suffice that… this repression is for, “facilitating ecclesial communion for those Catholics who feel bound to some previous liturgical forms”. Orwell stands in awe.
The repression is done with “lively pastoral charity”.
This pogrom is carried out “for the spiritual good of the faithful.”
The Vicar is setting up a Commissioner to handle requests from priests… blah blah blah…
“every day, except the Easter Triduum, the faithful may participate in the celebration of the Eucharist according to the Missale Romanum of 1962 in the parish of Santissima Trinità dei Pellegrini ”
I remind the readership of the meaning of the Latin term Vicarius.
Vir
Inutilis
Carens
Auctoritati
Rare
Intelligentiae
Umbra
Superioris
VICARIATO DI ROMA
Rome, October 7, 2021 [released to the public November 9, 2021]
– To all the priests involved in the pastoral care of the Diocese of Rome
– To all the faithful of the Diocese
Dear All,
The Diocese of Rome, welcoming the provisions of the Apostolic Letter in the form of a motu proprio of the Holy Father Francis Traditionis Custodes of July 16, 2021, intends with this Pastoral Letter to continue the work of “facilitating ecclesial communion for those Catholics who feel bound to some previous liturgical forms” (John Paul II, Litt. Ap. Motu proprio datae Ecclesia Dei, July 2, 1988), already underway in the City for many years.
To this end, it seemed opportune to continue to exercise a lively pastoral charity towards the faithful who “do not exclude the validity and legitimacy of the liturgical reform, the dictates of the Second Vatican Council and the Magisterium of the Supreme Pontiffs” (art. 3 §1, Traditionis Custodes) and who nevertheless wish to participate in the celebration of the Eucharist according to the Missale Romanum of 1962. For the spiritual good of the faithful, it is appropriate to offer precise coordinates for the implementation of the motu proprio.
The motu proprio establishes that the “liturgical books promulgated by the Holy Pontiffs Paul VI and John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of the Second Vatican Council, are the sole expression [that’s a choice for “unica”] of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite” (art. 1, Traditionis Custodes) and that therefore it is no longer possible to use the Roman Ritual and the other liturgical books of the “ancient rite” for the celebration of sacraments and sacramentals (e.g., the Ritual for the reconciliation of penitents according to the ancient form). The use of the other Ordines, therefore, is currently expressly forbidden and only the use of the Missale Romanum of 1962 remains permitted.
Moreover, all priests—diocesan or religious—who wish to continue to avail themselves of the faculty of celebrating according to the Missale Romanum of 1962 in the territory of the Diocese of Rome must first be authorized in writing by the diocesan Bishop (cf. art. 5, Traditionis Custodes).
All requests concerning the implementation of the motu proprio are to be sent in writing to me, the Cardinal Vicar, who will regulate them through a Commissioner designated by me for the ordinary management of all the fulfilments that fall within the competence of the diocesan Ordinary, especially for the purpose of the correct exercise of the faculties recognized by the P.M. for the faithful who intend to avail themselves of the prerogatives provided for therein. He is endowed with delegated power (cf. can. 131 §1 C.I.C.) and his office is to be kept distinct from that provided for in art. 3 §4 of the P.M., which for the moment will not be activated in the Diocese of Rome, since it is not necessary. In fact, I confirm the entrusting pro tempore to the Parish Priest of Santissima Trinità dei Pellegrini of the task of taking care of the dignified celebration of the Eucharistic liturgy, as well as of the ordinary pastoral and spiritual care of these faithful. He will carry out this office animated by a lively pastoral charity and by a sense of ecclesial communion; he will act in close communion and collaboration with the incumbent mentioned above.
In view of the above, I hereby decree that the Director of the Liturgical Office of the Vicariate of Rome shall hold the office of pro tempore Commissioner for the implementation of the motu proprio Traditionis Custodes.
Coming to some necessary specific determinations, I further decree the following:
– all requests specifically related to art. 3 §2 of the motu proprio must explicitly mention the Church or Oratory in which the celebration is intended (except parish churches, cf. art. 3 §2 Traditionis Custodes);
– every day, except the Easter Triduum, the faithful may participate in the celebration of the Eucharist according to the Missale Romanum of 1962 in the parish of Santissima Trinità dei Pellegrini (cf. art. 3 §5, Traditionis Custodes);
– in the churches of St. Dominic and St. Sixtus, St. Celsus and St. Julian, St. Joseph at Capo le Case and St. Anne at the Lateran, the faithful may participate in the celebration of the Eucharist according to the Missale Romanum of 1962, to be celebrated at a time agreed upon with the Rector of the church and with the person in charge mentioned above, possibly also on Sundays and feast days of obligation (excluding the Easter Triduum);
– the readings will always be proclaimed in Italian, according to the CE.I. 2008 translation (cf. art. 3 §3, Traditionis Custodes).
Trusting in the confident acceptance by all of what I have disposed, I bless you with affection and accompany you with my prayers.
Angelo Card. DE DONATIS
Vicar General of His Holiness
for the Diocese of Rome
Prot. no. 1845/21
Original letter
1986-80, After the Pogrom, Artist: Minkowski, Photographer: John Parnell, Photo © The Jewish Museum, New York
Loading ...
What appalling little men. I hope they go to their graves knowing young priests are still saying the Traditional Mass for young families.
Pingback: Diocese of Rome issues severe implementation of Traditionis Custodes: outlaws all sacramental rites except Mass, outlaws Triduum | Catholicism Pure & Simple
Evil has it’s day. Sad to say, most Catholics don’t care. This is my impression, only.
Mainstream Catholics are like the vaccinated, they seem happy someone else is the target and they rest easy in that knowledge. It’s not them, so who cares.
Catholics who adhere to the TLM will just continue, because the TLM is going to be offered. Wherever the TLM is offered, Catholics will be there. They can prevent some old people from getting the TLM, or those who are severely limited, but not most Catholics. So if it’s not in a church, that’s fine. A simple setting will only illuminate the grandeur and majesty of the proper worship of God. All present will continue to be riveted by the action taking place in front of them.
These men can rail, and they have their little impact, but it’s not much. They throw rocks at the moon. I wish there was a way to let them know, they have taken away nothing from us, and we lose no sleep over them, and they are completely and totally irrelevant to our lives. And when each one of them drops off the planet, if their names are familiar at all (doubtful), it will be wondered if they are enjoying the fruits of their own labor now.
For old cradle Catholics like me who remember Vatican II, this is No TLM Part II. As now, a lot of people were upset. I could be wrong, but I think that when prominent Traditionalists expressed the hope that the TLM would spread and slowly swing the Church back to pre-Vatican II days, it was several steps too far for Pope Francis and other liberals in top Church positions. None the less, I agree that Traditionis Custodes was far too harsh. This situation called for compromise, not a mighty whack with the Papal Hammer.
It doesn’t say anything about pre-1955 Holy Week…
Pingback: The Anti-Catholic Progrom continues” Today… in Rome itself – Via Nova Media
“the readings will always be proclaimed in Italian,” reads the loathsome decree, once again proclaiming to the world, “We used to be home for all Catholics around the world, but Rome is closing itself in for only Italians now.”
So much for Pope Francis’ call to welcome in immigrants and strangers, so much for accommodating tourists and expatriats.
Ignore them and celebrate the Triduum anyway.
Let Bergoglio or his previous “vicar” send the Vatican police to padlock the church doors.
The FSSP can then celebrate underground, in the proverbial catacombs. That’s where this is all headed anyway.
At this point what is there to lose?
^precious
Pingback: Zap Big Pulpit – Big Pulpit
Priests, along with laity who plan to host TLMs in their homes in the near future, need to devote time and prayer to understanding the limits of papal and episcopal authority. Not all commands are lawful, even from one who holds an office. We need to devote time to understanding the limits of these guys’ lawful authority. After all, they have no political power to stop TLMs being celebrated in private. Therefore, if they act beyond their authority, they can be ignored, and in 10-20 years they’ll be gone.
The former top lawyer of the Catholic Church, for one, seems to be saying that TC is ultra vires: https://www.cardinalburke.com/presentations/traditionis-custodes – see paras 15 and 16.
And we need a better understanding of history. 200 years ago, the idea that the Pope had authority to end the ancient celebration of the Roman rite, in favour of one invented by a committee 60 years ago, would have been laughed at. Yet now, Catholics mindlessly assume he can. Listen to Alan Fimister’s talk on Vatican II (hosted by Sensus Fidelium on Youtube) for a great introduction to how people came to believe that the Pope could do whatever he wanted, with no thought for the end (purpose) of his office, which is to hand down, carry on, preserve.
Franciscus Caesar and his lackeys are treating faithful Catholics with the harshness we only dreamt that Ss. Paul VI and John Paul II would employ with the most pernicious dissenters of the 60’s, 70’s, and 80’s… the combination of outright distortion of facts and the dripping condescension toward the “traddie” Faithful that marks just about every new “gift” is just mind-bending.
I wonder how long it will be before this edict is thrust upon the rest of the traditional Catholic world, not just in Rome.
Maybe I am just cynical or paranoid, but to what degree might the extremeness of this application be a trap, aimed at baiting people into open protest or disobedience, which could in turn serve as a basis for the powers that be to point at and say “See?! This is the *exact* kind of division and rigidity that forced us to take the steps we did! See!? We were right to restrict them! I guess we just need to restrict them more. For the good of the rest of the Church, of course… quite regrettable, but what choice do we have?”
I’m with JPM on the legal loophole. It says they can’t celebrate the Triduum according to the 1962 Missal, so that means pre-1955 is fair game.
Rich Leonardi says:
The FSSP can then celebrate underground, in the proverbial catacombs. That’s where this is all headed anyway.
Christians hiding in the catacombs existed only in Hollywood movies.
The catacombs were burial chambers. The Eucharist was celebrated there to be in the presence of the bodies of the saintly dead–not out of fear from pagans.
The catacomb practice is why certain churches later were built over the tomb of saint (e.g. St Peters in Rome). And finally putting a relic of a saint in the altar.
Good, so just celebrate the Easter Triduum elsewhere and/or the pre-1955 Holy Week celebrations, and problem solved.
I don’t know how widespread the pre-1955 Holy Week celebrations are amongst the TLM communities, but I am proud to say that this has always been the norm at my TLM, so in all likelihood, decrees like these would not have affected us.
In either case, I had been wondering all this time what the situation of the TLM is in Rome post-TC….not that that decree matters! Lol. The TLM in Rome should just carry on and with readings proclaimed in Latin, like always. To be fair, the decree only states that readings should be proclaimed in Italian….it doesn’t explicitly exclude proclaiming them in Latin. A simple recitation in the Italian should be enough.
And as far as the restrictions of the sacraments in the vetus Ordo go, I think we have reached a point where we have to stand up for the things that belong to God. As someone mentioned above, Bergoglio and his cronies will soon realize that they are throwing rocks at the moon. Sure, there might be some drama along the way, but with time they will soon see the limits of their power.
The celebration of the TLM Easter Triduum is being suppressed in Rome because it contains the (watered-down) Good Friday prayer for the conversion of the Jews. It’s really that simple. Abe Foxman even personally thanked Bergoglio for TC.
If this grotesque, perverse decree is obeyed, the only public TLM in Rome next Easter will be celebrated by the SSPX.
Think about that.
Pingback: VVEDNESDAY EDITION – Big Pulpit
I may be silly, but I am a little puzzled that while TC expressly forbids that TLM be said at parish churches, THIS decree says that it will be said at the parish of Santissima Trinità dei Pellegrini. Does His Excellency Ghengis the Hun not notice that he is giving away more than TC says he can? On what authority does he do this? (He cites Article 3, #5, but that makes no sense.)
I suggest that the suggestion above of saying the TLM at the “proverbial catacombs” cease to be proverbial, and say them at the ACTUAL catacombs. First, let the diocese know in advance which catacomb you have picked out…then say mass somewhere else. There are miles of places to pick from. Let them run around in the dark searching for the hidden nugget in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike; or playing whack-a-mole. Even put up faux little groups that only LOOK like they might be about to say mass. Oh, and film it all. Send it to major media: it will be fun! The meenie weenies in the Vatican seem to be leaving no stone unturned in looking foolish ever and again, so we could give them a couple more stones to turn and watch the game afoot.
Those of you here who are triumphantly nattering about using the pre-1955 rite for Easter obviously failed to read this heinous paragraph of the letter:
“The motu proprio establishes that the “liturgical books promulgated by the Holy Pontiffs Paul VI and John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of the Second Vatican Council, are the sole expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite” (art. 1, Traditionis Custodes) and that therefore it is no longer possible to use the Roman Ritual and the other liturgical books of the “ancient rite” for the celebration of sacraments and sacramentals (e.g., the Ritual for the reconciliation of penitents according to the ancient form). The use of the other Ordines, therefore, is currently expressly forbidden and only the use of the Missale Romanum of 1962 remains permitted.”
So what DeDonatis is saying is that not only are Missals previous to 1962 forbidden, apparently so is even the Rituale Romanum and presumably even the Breviary. That’s the harshest reading of TC I have yet seen, unless I’ve missed something (which is entirely possible).
Think about this…they already canceled Easter 2020 worldwide. Easter 2021 was still weak everywhere except in traditional parishes. And now they want to kneecap them for Easter 2022. That ought to make it pretty obvious who they are serving…
They are spitting in Our Lady’s face as she pleads with her Son to have mercy on us. That Divine wrath is sure to come soon…read about Civitavecchia and Akita and pray really hard.
Ah, Tradition in Custody: it’s the gift that keeps on taking.
“Remember, O most gracious Virgin Mary…”
Let God arise, His enemies be scattered.
robtbrown, I’m aware of the history and used “catacombs” as a metaphor.
I remember going to a talk with Fr. Paul Trinchard SJ. RIP. Someone asked if we need VaticanIII, He replied NO, we need TrentII. Won’t happen with the current destroyers. I suggest reading Fr. Malachi Martin’s book The Rise and Decline of the Roman Church. He speaks only of the bad popes. (most really bad). Point of the book is no matter what ,the Holy Ghost protects The Church.
Farther has always said: “The Devil hates Latin.”
If those who prefer the TLM because they desire to worship God “in awe and reverence” (Book of Hebrews) openly engaged in sexual deviancy, would the Vatican be more open to their desires?……you know, all of that accompaniment and pastoral care and going to those “peripheries” (“where no man has gone before” as Captain Kirk might put it).
In my VCR 1980’s days I obtained a VHS tape of Fulton Sheen narrating a 1940 Latin Mass from Our Lady of Sorrows in Chicago. I watched it every Sunday for years. It was a foretaste of Heaven.
The Vatican is so rigid in its hostility towards those who get so much from this foretaste of Heaven.
Liturgical Build Back Better brought to you by His Most Rigidly Unrigid, Pope Francis
Pingback: New Liturgical Movement: The Feast of St. Leo the Great at the Vatican
On a positive note, this instruction serves to lay aside the mask and reveals without any ambiguity the character of the individuals irresponsibly wielding the authority of the offices they occupy.
There is, as Bernanos wrote, a sleeping Caesar in every poor man. Those who obviously were “pinched” in their ideological motivations during previous pontificates now hold the whip and they find base satisfaction in using it.
It is quite pathetic.
First they came for…
This attack on traditional Catholics is clearly a test of our faith. Are we going to remain on the barque of St. Peter through the horrible storm or are we going to abandon? Some have already gone over to the Orthodox churches. I will remain a Catholic until I die and I will keep praying in Latin until my teeth fall out, which isn’t in the too distant future, since I’m 60 years old.
Still trying to buy a small Greek Orthodox chapel on a Greek island next to my property… I will turn it into a Catholic chapel and invite any priest to offer the Mass in Latin in MY private chapel and if someone from the Vatican comes onto my property to complain, I will greet him at the gate with a rifle (because I’m a crazy American).
So what DeDonatis is saying is that not only are Missals previous to 1962 forbidden, apparently so is even the Rituale Romanum and presumably even the Breviary.
I am a little puzzled about the notion that the Roman Breviary even could be forbidden. When a priest says his office, isn’t that private prayer? How can PRIVATE prayers of a certain type and form be forbidden? I mean, it would be one thing for the prayers to be explicitly heretical or schismatic in internal content – the Church could point out that they are heretical or schismatic, and thereby show that it would be wrong to use them. But nobody can even remotely imagine the Church could say such a thing about the Roman Breviary – it would be only slightly less absurd than saying the 11 Apostles were heretics or schismatics. It would be as absurd as the Church forbidding Mary to appear miraculously on Earth.
The further the Vaticanistas go in issuing absurd and unlawful “laws”, the more they expose themselves as being absurd and not to be obeyed on such things. I suppose that, in a sense, this is actually a blessing in disguise, because otherwise it would be much more difficult to discern that they are not to be obeyed.
At an emotional level I would very much like to see this diktat disobeyed. But it is important to think everything through, to consider what the consequences might be and have a strategy that is served by those consequences. If there is no such strategy it is very risky and perhaps foolish to disobey. Were the FSSP to disobey, the Trinita’ dei Pellegrini parish, or possibly the entire FSSP, could be suppressed. Maybe it’s time to have it out, I’m not sure. I’m not sure but my gut (which is not to say my intellect) tells me that it is time — better sooner than before the frog gets used to the boiling water.
As St. Thomas Aquinas says, a law is a law if it is followed and/or enforced. The first question is, to what extent do we, as traditional Catholics, fear the weight of these announcements on paper? The second question is, who exactly is it that would enforce these “pastoral measures”? If a bunch of trads, FSSP or not, go ahead and celebrate the pre-55 Triduum in some random church in Rome, is the Swiss Guard going to come and chase them out? I simply cannot guess how these “pastoral measures” are going to be enforced. Commands on paper are easy to ignore, and what physical manpower is there to do the kicking?
Our world today is so entirely absorbed with what they read on screens, that no one seems to ask themselves, “to what extent does this text affect my life when I’m not looking at my phone/computer/TV?” If trads are asking themselves that, but the Vaticanistas are not, then, there is literally nothing to fear. This cancel-culture is purely virtual, and it is propagated by those who have a progressively weaker grip on the nature of reality. (Esp. Atheists, bc Reality Itself is God)
Speaking of St Thomas, he says that a “law … is nothing else than (1) an ordinance of reason (2) for the common good, (3) made by him who has care of the community, and (4) promulgated.”
Four conditions. All must be met. If all are not met, it’s not law, but an act of tyranny that can be lawfully disregarded. How many of these conditions does TC meet? Others can answer better than I can, but these are the questions we need to be asking.
Archbishop Sample of Portland in Oregon recently published his own decree on the implementation of TC. Where once we were limited to celebrating the TLM on Sundays only at our parish, he now appears to be mandating the TLM on Holy Days as well:
https://files.constantcontact.com/6cb561fb001/d07ecdef-29af-4f79-a4db-bdd2aa1a9346.pdf
I am a little puzzled about the notion that the Roman Breviary even could be forbidden. When a priest says his office, isn’t that private prayer?
Laws are interpreted in such a way as to make sense and not be absurd. So, forbidding the Breviary does of course not mean that it can’t be prayed; but – and here’s the thing: When somebody prays the Breviary (even one who is not obliged to do so, such as myself), it’s not private prayer, it’s the official prayer of the Church. In this sense, e. g., Pope St. Pius X forbade the pre-1911 Breviary.
That doesn’t mean that the text of the Breviary, even (say) the pre-1911 Breviary, cannot be used precisely in private prayer. (When I, occasionally, pray a bit of Breviary, I allow myself to freely pick and choose. That means, I guess, that it ceases to be prayer-of-the-Church in the specific sense, and becomes private prayer; I can live with that.)
So, the decree doesn’t mean the Breviary is “forbidden”, but that it does no longer “count for”, as it were, the Breviary obligation of clerics and religious. This is in itself quite possible.
It is a different question that what Pope St. Pius X. did was good or at least justifiable, and what the Holy Father is doing is not, and yet another question whether it’s so bad that it’s not law, on account of its badness (say, a Pope cannot suppress a rite entirely, and the New Rite is, while Catholic, a different rite; and such arguments). But it is something the Church and Papal authority does in principle have jurisdiction over.
What strikes me the most is that since TC was promulgated, there has never been a time in the entire history of the Church where there was less liturgical diversity than now.
Even 300 years after Trent, the supposedly bad and rigid council that was overcome in the glorious 1960s, priests were still offering Masses not in conformity with the Roman Missal (i.e. St John Vianney). Now the policy is that almost everyone must conform themselves completely to the Mass of Paul VI. This is liturgical communism.
Ironically, thanks to TC, I now feel a greater aversion to attending the NO than before. Prior to TC, I wouldn’t mind attending an NO if I had no other choice. But now during TC and Bergoglio, thanks but no thanks. I am guessing I am not alone. I wonder if Bergoglio and his cronies even realize how counter-productive they are being in getting us to “return to the NO in due time”.
Amateur- a) highly unlikely as the law is unclear, self-contradicting, and proffers a theologically novel conception of lex orandi b) ha! (even taken at face value, the means to achieve the end are not due and ordered) c) presumably this was written by Francis or that he signed his name d) seems likely unless reception theory holds and the whole church just says – nah. Thanks Pope Francis, but no. In my mind the church should indeed say this when shepherds attempt to foist novel ideas on their flock.
A lot of Catholics don’t even know that there _is_ an Easter duty. Yet this functionary wants to make sure that traditional-minded Catholics can’t fulfill it in the EF.
It is amazing how many people are evangelists of malice. If only they took the same care to really teach Catholic doctrine to ignorant souls, it would be like a Catholic-style Great Awakening.
Please God let this nightmare of a Pontificate come to an end.
Today, LA County’s Sherriff gave the local legislators a reality check. The reality is that their mandates are not feasible, won’t work, can’t do it. They have massive increases in early retirements, and workers comp claims. If they then go ahead and fire the cops that won’t vaccinate, they will have NO PATROL force or NO CUSTODY force. They have to either concede OR choose patrol or custody. This is reality.
Their mandates are not legit. Call their bluff.
On another topic entirely…Regarding the persecution of faithful traditional Catholic Christians, history proves this is the surest way to make it flourish. But woe be it to him who is the means of that persecution. I don’t expect that “eh, witout me da whole ting would nevah have happened” defense worked for Judas before the Judge, and it won’t help any modern bishops of the Church either.
As St. Thomas Aquinas says, a law is a law if it is followed
@ Liturgical Legos: I don’t remember where Aquinas says that. Can you point to a citation? That would be great.
As St. Thomas Aquinas says, a law is a law if it is followed and/or enforced.
I know where St. Thomas says that when a law HAS BEEN a law, and then the legislator / enforcer changes his mind and STOPS enforcing it, the change that occurs in the law no longer being enforced has the effect of displaying / manifesting that the legislator NO LONGER intends the law to be binding law (i.e. to be no longer law). This is stated in the Summa, Prima Secundae, Q 97, Article 3:
All law proceeds from the reason and will of the lawgiver; the Divine and natural laws from the reasonable will of God; the human law from the will of man, regulated by reason. Now just as human reason and will, in practical matters, may be made manifest by speech, so may they be made known by deeds: since seemingly a man chooses as good that which he carries into execution… As stated above (I-II:96:6), human laws fail in some cases: wherefore it is possible sometimes to act beside the law; namely, in a case where the law fails; yet the act will not be evil. And when such cases are multiplied, by reason of some change in man, then custom shows that the law is no longer useful: just as it might be declared by the verbal promulgation of a law to the contrary.
So he is describing a situation where a law was made, and was good for initial conditions, but some change in man and his social milieu makes enforcement no longer useful, and the law-giver no longer enforces it. This change in behavior by the law-giver SIGNALS his intention that the written law be no longer binding, and thus no true law.
This, of course, has no bearing on a NEW law that the lawgiver issues precisely to change a current behavior: then, law defeats custom.
If, however, the same reason remains, for which the law was useful hitherto, then it is not the custom that prevails against the law, but the law that overcomes the custom…
So, at least going by St. Thomas, it seems that a law that was enforced for a time, but after changes in society is no longer enforced, ceases to be “law” because the change manifests the mind and intention of the lawmaker, and law is an “ordinance of reason”, i.e. the reason of the lawmaker. I don’t know how to get from that principle to saying a law not followed fails to be a law – especially with regard to a new law meant to change a current behavior. I would love to see that stated or explained in more detail.
So, forbidding the Breviary does of course not mean that it can’t be prayed; but – and here’s the thing: When somebody prays the Breviary (even one who is not obliged to do so, such as myself), it’s not private prayer, it’s the official prayer of the Church. In this sense, e. g., Pope St. Pius X forbade the pre-1911 Breviary.
That doesn’t mean that the text of the Breviary, even (say) the pre-1911 Breviary, cannot be used precisely in private prayer.
Thank you, Imrahil, for taking my question seriously, and helping elucidate the topic. I believe that you have probably set forth one of the best arguments for the case. I am too ignorant on the deeper facts, history, and theology to see my way past numerous objections I have to that explanation. I accept that offering those objections would be out of place here.
The TLM parishes should host/promote a pilgrimage for The Triduum to a nearby diocese where they’re not forbidden. They could host a huge live stream projection of that Triduum liturgy for those who cannot attend the pilgrimage.
The TLM parishes should host/promote a pilgrimage for The Triduum to a nearby diocese where they’re not forbidden. They could host a huge live stream projection of that Triduum liturgy for those who cannot attend the pilgrimage.
Pingback: PopeWatch: Congealed Cruelty – The American Catholic
@Felipe. Good idea.
Or alternatively, find a church in Rome that does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Diocese of Rome to hold the Triduum there. One such church is only about a block or two away from Santa Trinita Dei Pellegrini. I don’t remember the name of the church, but it falls under the direct jurisdiction of the Archdiocese of Madrid (it’s the national church for Spain in Rome). Just to name an example. If they are sympathetic to the TLM cause, it *could* work theoretically.
It would seem that these TC Masters are hellbent on this…
I live in Rome… my roommate has been speaking of moving to Norcia or a village with a SSPX convent since July. Neither her nor me ever thought about this before. And I know we’re not alone.
One thing I just couldn’t understand, if this whole madness is to “facilitating ecclesial communion for those Catholics who feel bound to some previous liturgical forms”, why PF approved the validity of all seven sacraments ministered by SSPX this spring? He could easily finish off more trads by renewing the excommunication…
Is this a trap, or simply….Alzheimer?
Out of curiosity, I would like to ask if there are versions of your Mass that you consider superior to the 1570-1962 “Tridentine,” which I understand that you consider superior (? am I mistaken?) to the postconciliar Mass.
Not snark. If there were a multitude of liturgical forms before 1570, some were better than others, and I’ve yet seen a compromise which was “the best of all possible worlds” as Voltaire would put it.
@PostCatholic, wrote: “If there were a multitude of liturgical forms before 1570, some were better than others, and I’ve yet seen a compromise which was “the best of all possible worlds”.
From what I understand, Pope Pius V chose to allow the continuance of any of these pre-1570 liturgical forms, as long as they were already established (at least older than 200 years old, which I personally consider an already generous yardstick, IMHO). So there was never any need to do any compromise with the Mass that came to be codified in 1570 for the Latin Rite. The 1570 Mass was able to live side by side next to the other previous forms, wherever the latter already existed.
With regards to your first question (“if there are versions of your Mass that you consider superior to the 1570-1962 “Tridentine,”). Considering that “your Mass” means here the “Tridentine” mass, the question does not really make sense. You are basically asking if we consider “our Mass” (the TLM) to be better than the “Tridentine” (also the TLM).
Thanks for the explanation, kurtmasur. I meant “your Mass” in the broad historical sense of all the liturgies for it that the western Catholic Church employed over the centuries.