My first reactions are HERE.
Note One. The timing of these “responsa“… Merry Christmas everyone! It’s as if they wanted to hurt people even more by making these changes close to such an important day, bound up with Midnight Masses and so forth. Ed Pentin pointed out that the day that Francis signed off on them, 18 November, was the Feast of the Dedication of the Basilicas of Sts. Peter and Paul, and on that very day there was a massive power outage that reduced St. Peter’s to darkness.
Note Two. Speaking of Midnight Masses, one of the “questions” (dubia) asked if a priest can binate (say Mass twice in a day) and therefore say a TLM. The responsum (answer) was “Negative”. So, a priest who says the Novus Ordo during a 24 hour period, cannot then say the TLM later in the day. Or, he can’t say the TLM early and the Novus Ordo later. That means that, if Father has his own parish and takes care of his schedule, but another parish that has the TLM scheduled needs a celebrant – perhaps the usual priest is ill – he cannot be that celebrant. Screw you, “beloved faithful”!
Mind you, I am pretty sure that can. 87 still applies: Diocesan Bishops can still dispense from this … IF… IF these dubia have any force of law, and I am not entirely convinced that they do, at least not universally. They were not published in forma specifica, for example. Responses to dubia are singular administrative acts that apply to the ones who asked the question. So, are they binding on everyone? Either way, they indicate the direction the Congregation is going.
Note Three. I ask you… who would put a question like that to the Congregation as a dubium? Who would worry about bination, for cryin’ out loud? No. The question was concocted from within the Congregation or in collaboration precisely in order to slam another door on people’s outstretched hands.
Note Four. One of the alleged dubia asked whether a priest who refuses to concelebrate, in particular the Chrism Mass, is allowed any concession to use the 1962 Missale at all. Guess what the answer is.
Again… who would ask such a thing? Would a diocesan bishop? I doubt it. They have enough things to worry about apart from forcing priests to concelebrate. This is the sort of question that would come from a pure ideologue, maybe an academic, obsessed with uniformity, willing or not.
Forcing the irrelevant side-issue of concelebration is like forcing a pinch of incense to the genius (divine guiding spirit) of the Emperor Domitian. The cult of the genius of the Emperor was tantamount, but just short of, worshiping a living Emperor as a god. Instead they offered worship to the Emperor’s special tutelary demi-god. Those who refused to worship of semi-detached divinity of the Emperor were considered atheists undermining the contractual peace relationship with the gods, the pax deorum, maintained through rituals.
The ideologues now forcing the issue of concelebration are like the officials at the time of Domitian forcing that pinch of incense, but now the genius of the Emperor is the “Spirit of Vatican II.
Note Five. An astute friend made this point about ordinations and the banning of the Pontificale Romanum.
Rituale yes, Pontificale no. VERY interesting. Cut the apostolic continuity of liturgy. The devil is doing this, in case you had any doubt.
Priests use the Rituale, but the Pontificale is used by pontifices, bishops. My friend is onto something. In making this move, the Congregation is attempting what the Enemy surely would do, if possible.
Frankly, that means that this is crunch-time for bishops who are a) friendly toward Tradition in an authentic way (not the way indicated in the tragically mislabeled TC) or who are b) against pure and simple mean-spirited tyranny. Priests will have to stand up, but bishops have to stand up too.
This is all a savage attack on the identity of bishops.
And I’ll wager that a lot of bishops out there are muttering the maledictory psalms at the Congregation today. These responses are going to cause bishops immense discomfort in their dioceses if they move to implement anything about them… and they should.
People need to step up in great numbers and not be anything like silent in the face of this oppression. They must make their minds known and say what they are going to do or not do about it. I am in no way suggesting anything lacking in charity. As a matter of fact, I warmly counsel careful examination of conscience and frequent confession before acting on conviction.
Shutting up is not an option. The issues are too important.
Note Six. Next, there is always more that they can do to hurt people. And they will do it, in time.
This is a lovely Christmas present from them. That’s how they roll. According to the Fat Man’s Laws of the House of God:
VIII. They can always hurt you more.
Keep looking down the line for the ways that they can hurt people.
My prediction is that their knives will now turn to the traditional groups like the FSSP and ICK, etc. “Commissars” will be appointed over them, endowed with power even to the point that they can unilaterally change the Constitutions of those groups. Hence, the commissars will expunge from those groups the right to have ordinations with the traditional Pontificale Romanum.
Again, an attack on the identity of bishops.
Note Seven. One of the responses says that – friends, I am not making this up – if a bishop can’t find a church or chapel for the Vetus Ordo, can the bishop ask the Congregation for dispensation so that it can be at a parish church. (Never mind that the bishop can apply can. 87 and do it himself.) The response is “Affirmative” but goes on to say that – really, I am not making this up – “such a celebration should not be included in the parish Mass schedule”.
The CDW now wants to regulate what is in parish bulletins?
One response to this on twitter was excellent:
The Pope has directed that henceforth the Tridentine Mass cannot be advertised.
So, at my parish we shall no longer announce the 2:30 Latin Mass. Henceforth,“Sometime after 2:29 but not later than 2:31 there will be a cultural gathering for immigrants from the Roman Empire.”
— Fr Gregory Elder (@Fatherelder) December 18, 2021
Right after the Congregation’s clown-car routine about not making the Mass know at the parish where it is taking place, is where we read…
There is no intention in these provisions to marginalise the faithful who are rooted in the previous form of celebration: they are only meant to remind them that this is a concession to provide for their good…
A woman friend who is involved in a Catholic publishing concern told me they remind her of how the “mean girls” acted in the High School bathroom.
Note Eight. Which leads to another point. I received this (slightly redacted) note:
It’s not about the Liturgy. It’s about traditional Church teaching against sodomy. Traditional liturgy is the visible “head out of the foxhole” for traditional teaching. And so they attack like terrorists – with paper decrees and faux dubia (interesting that there are some dubia that they are able to answer after all) and then run back into their safe spaces under baby milk factories and pre-schools, satisfied that they have triumphed over the oppressor. But like the other Romans two millennia ago as well as the Borg, they will learn that resistance is not futile and that Divine Truth always prevails.
This rings strongly with the truth.
Loading ...
Re Note 2: I advise against trying any of those “tricks of law”. I don’t like TC and I don’t like these dubia answers. That doesn’t mean that I’m allowed not to comply with them. At least if I wish not to be an hypocrite when I say that I remain united with the Roman Pontiff, currently Francis.
These dubia don’t interpret TC in any way limiting the Bishop’s ordinary faculties. However on matter of bination, even though I couldn’t disagree more, it’s just crystal clear. Even if it’s absurd that by application of these Dubias, on Good Thusrsday there will be no EF masses (because priest who don’t concelebrate on Good Thursday should have their license to say EF masses revoked and if a priest did concelebrate, then there would be no “just cause” to celebrate again… absurd).
mddelala says: However on matter of bination, even though I couldn’t disagree more, it’s just crystal clear. Even if it’s absurd that by application of these Dubias, on Good Thusrsday there will be no EF masses (because priest who don’t concelebrate on Good Thursday should have their license to say EF masses revoked and if a priest did concelebrate, then there would be no “just cause” to celebrate again… absurd).
Lex non patitur absurdum.
I guess this is our chance to be corrected of the pervasive error of indiscreet obedience.
If Pope Francis decides to ban the recitation by lay Catholics of the rosary, am I required to comply?
Pingback: Additional Notes from @FatherZ on the Dubious Dubia concerning “Traditionis custodes” – Via Nova Media
“A woman friend who is involved in a Catholic publishing concern told me they remind her of how the “mean girls” acted in the High School bathroom.”
Or how certain… “peoples” with the alphabet-soup orientation would act in this day and age.
mddelala, Frankly, I think it is a sin to obey such an evil and malicious order. The first law is salus animarum! That comes first!
Consider that traditional Catholics are disdained and hated by those running the Holy See today, while sodomy-supporting New Ways ‘Ministry’ received an APOLOGY from Rome for their homosexual propaganda being removed from the “Synod on Synodality” website, and the propaganda was restored!
If this is not the smoke of Satan, what is?
@Anita Moore, O.P.(lay):
Thank you for posting your comment mentioning “indiscreet obedience”.
One of the delights of Catholicism that no pope can diminish is the exposure to crucial distinctions that have not been raised before in a person’s reading.
From The Life of Virtue – Obedience:
From the foregoing, we can see that obedience is a virtue that is directed not just to God alone, but also to superiors (and secular rulers) who act, as it were, on behalf of God, and have our salvation and the common good in view. However, this also means that one is only bound to obey in things which are not contrary to God’s law and which do not violate the common good. Thus, St Thomas distinguishes three levels of obedience: “one, sufficient for salvation, and consisting in obeying when one is bound to obey; secondly, perfect obedience, which obeys in all things lawful; thirdly, indiscreet obedience, which obeys even in matters unlawful”. The last of these is thus not an act of virtue but falls short of the good that motivates all virtuous acts.
This seems like an instruction from those who have never been pastors and have never had to run a parish. The practical effect of the bination restriction is to make it very difficult for a parish to house both a TLM and NO under the same roof, almost requiring a parish staffed exclusively by one of the traditional orders. At the same time, there is an attack on the existence of said orders.
It is almost like Rome is trying to have its cake and eat it too by saying the TLM is perfectly allowed to the faithful, there just will be hardly any priests who will be allowed to celebrate it.
I read through the alleged dubia and the prefect’s responses or, as I believe they should henceforth be called, “Roche Clips.” Of all the absurd, vicious documents to come out of the Vatican in recent years, Roche Clips is just about the worst. If it wasn’t obvious before, it should be obvious now. They’re engaged in an all-out war to the death against us TLMers. It’s the mentality of a jihad: convert to their way of thinking or die. It’s the mentality of the lieutenant in Graham Greene’s “Power and the Glory: society will finally have progress when the last TLM priest is hounded into oblivion. It saddens and sickens me. Yet I have to laugh at the absurdity of it all. In its quixotic war on the TLM, the Vatican is now trying to micromanage parish bulletins. The Roche Clips are so laughably anachronistic. Septuagenarian Roche and Octogenarian Francis are going to keep the kids away from the TLM by restricting publication in the parish bulletin. Genius move, but why stop there? They should also ban the TLM from being promoted on Metamucil packages or advertised during Lawrence Welk Show reruns!
+Roche speaks of the “Rite” Vatican II has given us and on 3 occasions he speaks of the “previous rite”. Is this poor wording on his part or is he saying that the Usus Antiquior and the Novus Ordo are two different rites? Pope Benedict XVI said they are two uses of the one Roman Rite.
Now we will see which bishops really are strong and which ones weak. It is easy look conservative/orthodox when all is quiet and easy. But when it is time for white martyrdom, I think many names we would expect to be vocal and reprentative will be silent or muddled instead.
I haven’t heard from our Archbishop Nauman about THIS latest Dubia, but he has been very lenient on the last proclamation in saying that he is NOT going to stop any TLM’s in his diocese. Another factoid: The FSSP in St. Mary’s is well on its way to finish their beautiful ‘cathedral’ on their property and it will be the largest church in Kansas for sure and maybe in the surrounding areas as well. They will not be stopped or should they. The FSSP will give the Dubia a double ecclesiastical middle finger to Frank in the form of “eh!”
We literally have 6 Christmas Eve Masses (still have covid restrictions in places of worship), the Christmas Vigil Mass in the EF. Forget binating.
I must disagree on point #8. Sodamites are useful idiots in this game. Though the devils lure them into the abominable sin, they are disgusted by it and will punish them severely for all eternity for it.
Rather, the long game in the Liturgy War is about the validity of the Mass (and the rest of the sacraments), for it if it is not that, then this is all just a hissy fit and slap fight over preference and sentiment of liturgical taste. Does anyone doubt that, once the Apostolic TLM is suppressed, that they will not come after those elements in the NO that are still of the Apostolic TLM origin and not “flat products of the instant” (to quote Ratzinger)? How long will the NO retain the Roman Canon as an unused option?
Now let us ask the question, “What happens if you strip the Rite of all elements that are Apostolic? Is validity lost? How much can be stripped for validity to remain?” Isn’t that how the question of the validity of the Anglican order’s/sacraments was resolved, not as a question of faith but as a question of retaining the Apostolic liturgy?
Let’s look at this from God’s point of view. The Latin Tridentine Mass was declared by Pope St. Pius V as the Mass of the church.PERIOD! Novus Ordo heretical. Our Lady of Fatima told the Pope to do a Collegial Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. NOT DONE. Russia is spreading its errors (socialism) through out the word. Lies and more lies by the Church and those in secular power. Covid from communist China, Wear a mask, get the jab. OBEY!!
@Mojoron – point of clarification… The large new church being built in St Marys is the SSPX. They have a very large community there. The FSSP apostolate is in Maple Hill, about 10 minutes away.
Very good. But all this assumes that TC itself is legitimate, and that the Pope has the authority to suppress the Mass of All Time. Which Cardinal Burke, among others, seems to doubt.
Please read the links I posted yesterday. They’re informative. The idea that the Pope can make major changes to the Mass is a very, very new one (late 19th-century at the earliest).
For some odd reason Benedict IX has been in my thoughts recently…
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02429a.htm
Thank you Amatuer Schcolastic,
I think Pope Francis needs to look up the meaning of Anathema. Pope St. Pius V didn’t say he couldn’t… only that if he did, he will be Anathema.
“If Pope Francis decides to ban the recitation by lay Catholics of the rosary, am I required to comply?”
Charles E. Flynn, to answer the question, tongue-in-cheek, by reading the answers to the dubia, then I suppose the following rules would apply:
1. If you want to pray the rosary in Latin, you must also recite the rosary in the vernacular, together with another person who is leading the rosary.
2. You may pray the rosary in Latin but never in a parish church, unless you have no alternative, and only then if the time of the rosary is not posted in the parish bulletin.
2. If you’ve already said a rosary in Latin on a given day, you may not say another rosary in the vernacular — presumably even to fulfill your obligation to con-recitate.
3. If you’ve already said a rosary in the vernacular on a given day, you may not say another rosary in Latin — whether you’ve con-recitated or not. (Serious side note: does this mean that a priest who concelebrates at the Chrism Mass cannot say the TLM for Maundy Thursday precisely *because* he obeyed the edict to concelebrate the Novus Ordo earlier that day?)
4. Presumably, you may say as many rosaries in the vernacular as is permitted by law.
5. Permission is granted to recite the rosary in Latin, but you may not be vested in the brown scapular according to the older form because that ceremony comes from a different book.
At least, that’s how I’m reading it :-)
In other news, there is a nuptial TLM Mass scheduled in my otherwise diocesan parish for later this month, and announced in the bulletin. Given that TC has been mostly ignored by our community, I can safely predict that the traditional rite of matrimony will proceed as planned.
And I would even guess that bination is going to continue to happen anyways, along with the continued publication of the TLM schedule.
If I’m not mistaken, Bergoglio has said that something to the effect that it’s ok to relax morals because they are “too difficult” to follow to the letter. But what if his illogical restrictions regarding the TLM and traditional sacraments are also too difficult to follow as well? Who are they to judge?
Would it be out of line to start saying, “Let’s go, Francis”?
@Baritone,
Nicely done. You could have been a canon lawyer.
Pingback: Sunday Go-To-Meeting Post | The Port Stands At Your Elbow
Phyllis Zagano is on social media trying to get people to report Father Z’s posts on the fake dubia to Rome. She, in her demonic glee, thinks that her enemy (Father Z) will finally get the severe punishment she has always desired for him to get.
These are the monstrous creatures emboldened by the pope. May God have mercy on them all.
I want to point out something accompanying this “dubia” that seems to have gone unnoticed by many.
For the past five months, we’ve been reading translations of the Motu Proprio without receiving the official Latin. All of these aforementioned translations contain the following line:
In English, and in full with my emphasis:
“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.”
In Spanish:
“deberán presentar una solicitud formal al obispo diocesano, que consultará a la Sede Apostólica antes de conceder la autorización.”
In Italian:
“devono inoltrare formale richiesta al Vescovo diocesano il quale prima di concedere l’autorizzazione consulterà la Sede Apostolica.”
In German:
“der vor der Erteilung der Genehmigung den Apostolischen Stuhl konsultiert.”
Why is this such a big deal? It’s a big deal, because according to Traditionis Custodes, as it was originally rendered in the vernacular, all the diocesan bishop needs to do is send in the newly ordained priest’s name to Rome, and then the permission can be granted. Rome is consulted, the bishop acts as he wills (being a guardian of tradition, no doubt).
But not long after TC came out, the mistake was immediately realized by those at the CDW, namely that the document did not force bishops to attain consent from Rome, but only consultation.
How did they fix this problem? Yesterday, one dubium asks:
“Does the diocesan Bishop have to be authorised by the Apostolic See to allow priests ordained after the publication of the Motu Proprio Traditionis custodes to celebrate with the Missale Romanum of 1962 (cf. Traditionis custodies, n. 4)?”
Based on what we’ve seen above, it seems that the answer should be in the negative, however, very cunningly, here is the response and explicatory note:
“Affirmative. Article 4 of the Latin text (which is the official text to be referenced) reads as follows: «Presbyteri ordinati post has Litteras Apostolicas Motu Proprio datas promulgatas, celebrare volentes iuxta Missale Romanum anno 1962 editum, petitionem formalem Episcopo dioecesano mittere debent, qui, ante concessionem, a Sede Apostolica licentiam rogabit». [My slavishly literal transalation: Priests ordained after this Apostolic Letter promulgated and given as Motu Proprio, wishing to celebrate according to the 1962 Edition of the Roman Missal, should send a formal petition to the diocesan bishop, who, before permitting (him to do so), will ask permission from the Holy See.]
“This is not merely a consultative opinion, but a necessary authorisation given to the diocesan Bishop by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, which exercises the authority of the Holy See over matters within its competence. (cf. Traditionis custodes, n. 7).
“Only after receiving this permission will the diocesan Bishop be able to authorise Priests ordained after the publication of the Motu Proprio (16 July 2021) to celebrate with the Missale Romanum of 1962.”
Do you see what they did? Having recognized the problems in their original publication of TC, these bishops did something very sneaky. They couldn’t quite change the published versions of the Motu Proprio, but they could change the unpublished Latin. And now the word which should be in the translation (namely consultatio) has been replaced with another word, licentia.
Very sneaky, sinister, and downright mean-spirited actions by these bishops, such that they even use the mother-tongue of the Church against those who love it the most.
Events such as this bring to mind what was reported in Der Speigel back in 2016 when Pope Francis said to a group of intimates “It is not to be excluded that I will enter history as the one who split the Catholic Church.”
I recall during college theology in the early 70’s Godfrey Diekmann OSB saying the papacy serves as the “locus of unity.”
Not so much anymore?
I went to a TLM today, and prayed for a new Pope, that the current Pope might be taken into God’s infinite mercy, and we get a Shepherd after God’s own heart.
With reference to the comment by Vir Qui Timet Dominum, Father John Hunwicke today discusses the change in Article 5 from the vernacular “seeking authorisation; autorizzatione; autorizacion; gennehmigung” to “licentiam rogabunt”, and notes, “In Article 3: 1, a Bishop is now required to check that groups using the Authentic Use accept the auctoritatem of the novel post-conciliar rites. In the vernacular versions, this Article read validity; validita; validez; gueltigkeit. This is even true of a quotation of these words within the Responsa. In other words, when it suits the authors of the Responsa, they cheerfully quote the vernacular versions of the Motu proprio, forgetting that in their recently concocted Latin version they had changed the text to auctoritatem.”
It occurred to me today on my way to Holy Mass at an established TLM PARISH, that the traditional Latin mass serves also as an unwanted, bothersome tether to the Novus Ordo mass. And that the enemy and his Curial henchmen not only hate the TLM per se and in se, but that they want that tether loosed and destroyed so as to be free to re-sculpt and re-form the NO Mass even further. As long as the TLM perdures they cannot broaden their assault on the NO Mass. In addition to plain hatred of the TLM and her adherents these actions reveal a Divide and Conquer procedure.
A perversion of the concept of obedience is partly to blame for our present predicament. What do you do when Francis changes the Holy Trinity to the Holy Duo. Silly, you say. Do not rule out something equally heretical. His attacks against the dogmas of the Church are already legion. It should, and I believe, be required that any pronouncement must not contradict a previous pronouncement made by an individual of equivalent or greater weight. This is about more than the Triditene Mass. It is a prelude to major attacks on Dogmas of the Church.
New Mass Catholics who do not want to see the Catholic Church go down the Anglican road to women priests, gay marriage and all the rest are very mistaken if they think the present attack on the TLM is not their problem. The present attack is aimed at clearing the way for the “new Woke way.” In this regard it is a very well-aimed attack. The TLM is the bulwark against modernism. It more than anything else stands in the way of the modernist project.
Just an FYI: November 18 is also International Occult Day (probably from the 19th century and Eliphas Levi) and World Philosophy Day (since 2002, third Thursday in November, UNESCO).
Father, as you note above, the day that Francis signed off on the Traditionis custodes dubia responsa, 18 November, was the Feast of the Dedication of the Basilicas of Sts. Peter and Paul, and on that very day there was a massive power outage at the Vatican. It’s also interesting that the supposed “Enthronement” of the fallen archangel Lucifer took place in the the Chapel of St. Paul, on June 30, 1963, the Feast of SS. Peter and Paul. (prefiguring the Pacham*ma Episode, perhaps???)
Fr. Brian Harrison O.S., suggested to the late Rev. Dr. Malachi Martin that it would be very appropriate for both of them to celebrate Masses of reparation on the 33rd anniversary of this wicked outrage, Fr. Harrison in the Vatican—where it took place—and he on the East coast of the U.S., where the parallel Luciferian ceremony was simultaneously carried out. Again providentially, even the day of the week was the same: July 1st fell on a Monday in 1996, as it had in 1963.
Fr. Martin readily agreed, and that’s what they did: Fr. Harrison offered a Mass of reparation in the Blessed Sacrament Chapel of St. Peter’s on 7/1/96 (a ferial day in the Novus Ordo calendar), and Fr. Martin celebrated his Mass for that intention on the same day in the little oratory within his apartment. (For him it was the Feast of the Precious Blood, since he always celebrated the Traditional Latin Mass.)
Fr. Martin told Fr. Harrison the Satanic act became known because one of its participants repented a decade or so later on his deathbed and confessed this grave sin. The Roman priest hearing his confession told him he had a grave obligation to allow this shocking sacrilege to be made known to the Supreme Pontiff, in order for a re-consecration of the Pauline Chapel to be made. Accordingly, he told the penitent he could not absolve him unless the latter gave him permission to make this shocking event known to higher ecclesial authority.
Fr. Harrison stated to the Remnant (May 3, 2021) that it was further evidence that Malachi Martin was telling him what he believed to be the truth about the Luciferian Enthronement, the date on which it historically took place, and the way he came to know about it. For he found it hard to imagine Fr. Martin making a Mass intention part of a conscious lie that he had fabricated, just to sell books.
I myself knew Malachi personally for a decade as a friend and priest/confessor, he was above reproach. He predicted the Bergoglian Pontificate in his book “The Keys of This Blood.” The Approaching Scream of an Ancient Beast grows louder, Father.
Our Lady of Fatima, Saint Padre Pio, and Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.
@Mike – to avoid temptation, I pray for God to give us a good pope as soon as possible. If God wants to provide a new person or knock Bergoglio off his horse and transform him, that’s God’s business. Otherwise, it’s too easy for me to start slipping down a slippery slope of bad intentions.
@donato2 – I’m with you – I think the lukewarm Novus Ordo Catholics, the ones who even have a Latin Mass in their own parish but are still too lazy, too distracted, too full of this world to bother with learning about the liturgical traditions of over a thousand years because [reasons] are the ones I struggle with not losing patience. The old geezers trying to salvage their failed revolution against the Church I can understand – the lazy, flabby, do-nothing Catholics who are sincere in their Faith but not sincere enough to not do Travel Soccer on Sundays are the ones that make me understand God’s disdain for the lukewarm. Spewed from the mouth indeed.
Well, I’m sure it’s not proper canon law language, but…
One of the meanings of “licentia” is “a freedom that is assumed.”
So it could be said that the bishop is just deigning to ask about something he’s already doing, and can assume forever and ever that he’s got the freedom to do it.
So… if the bishop sends a letter, writes his inquiry in invisible ink in the margin, and doesn’t get an answer back, he’s done his “consultatio” and can continue assuming the “licentia” part.
Not advising that this is what anybody should do, of course.
But honestly, given the powers of bishops, and the lack of need they have to consult anybody, as well as the “bad law is no law” principle — this kind of procedure is probably an unnecessary level of due diligence. Just drag your bishoppy feet for a year or two, and everything will be probably okay (and half the elderly Vatican crowd will probably be six-feet-under, for all I know).
Vir Qui makes a very good point above: they changed the text for the Latin edition, in order to fix a mistake the originals had: from bishops consulting with Rome before giving permission for TLM to new priests, to bishops asking permission of Rome to give permission.
I would agree with Vir Qui’s point on another basis as well: the Pope just said in TC that it is the BISHOP who is in charge in his diocese. It is out of character to say “the bishop is in charge” and then in the next sentence say “but Rome is in charge”. Now that many bishops (well, more than 2 or 3, anyhow, though certainly nothing like a majority) are clearly NOT going to implement TC the way Rome wanted, Rome is changing its mind on giving bishops control. Which undermines the principle that TC was built on – and was put right into its name. So, there is Rome being two-faced about it all.
As far as obedience to this new document: I ask whether Francis approved this in forma specifica. So far as I can see from the document itself, he did NOT. That means it was issued not formally with the pope’s special authority, as far as I understand it, but with the lesser authority of the bishops in the Congregation for Worship. Well, that’s not insignificant, but bishops of dioceses are bishops just like bishops in the Congregation are. It doesn’t mean they can blithely ignore whatever they feel like, but when the orders for “implementing” TC are actually contradictory and confused about TC, a bishop can easily decide that they are not binding on him. That’s my opinion, of course. Of course, if I were a bishop, before I implemented any of this, I would appoint a committee to “study” it, and hold several diocesan synods with “the people” asking them how best to put it into practice, and then (after perhaps 15 or 20 years) carry out some of the least troublesome parts of it. After issuing several pastoral letters dissecting it and carving out its guts to expose the idiocy and lies implicit in it.
Pingback: MONDAY EDITION – Big Pulpit
Pingback: Präfekt Roche Responsa ad dubia (1 von 7) - Tradition und Glauben
Dear WVC,
the old geezers trying to salvage their failed revolution against the Church I can understand – the lazy, flabby, do-nothing Catholics who are sincere in their Faith but not sincere enough to not do Travel Soccer on Sundays are the ones that make me understand God’s disdain for the lukewarm. Spewed from the mouth indeed.
As you yourself say that you are talking about people sincere in their Faith, and seeing how hard that is in this world and age even without any further trouble, and, e. g., that giving witness to the world about belonging to the Church, preferably happily, and giving witness to the Church that you sincerely think something who undoubtedly does hold Church office does is wrong, that these are two different things possibly in conflict with each other,
– consider yourself (by someone who neither has the authority nor the holiness to do so) fraternally admonished to charity. (Sorry.)
And by the way, what struck me as remarkable are in fact how much exactly those believing Catholics actually are with us on Traditionis custodes. They have nothing to do with the Old Rite, and no particular desire to learn about it, and yes, they might it think their good right to go to swim at a lake or watch a soccer match on Sunday afternoon after having been at Mass in the morning (which, you know, it is). But they do have a problem with the Pope fighting against a rite merely because he dislikes it; and I for one am grateful for that.
How bright can these evil prelates be? Let’s just say for a moment that TLMs will not be advertised in parish bulletins anymore. How are they going to keep tab on us in the future? Isn’t their goal to keep tab on us in order to destroy us? Any of their efforts to enforce their evil decrees on all TLMs all over the world will only become more difficult to do so from Rome.
As an example, in my diocesan parish’s bulletin, I can already see some bination scheduled to happen by our main parish priest for later on this month (they usually write down the name of the celebrant for each scheduled mass). If the parish suddenly stops publishing this info on their website, there is no way that those in Rome would ever find these things out. Just saying…
There will be spies. There will always be spies and tattletales who slither off to snitch. You see them on Twitter even now, slimy people who stick their noses in and stir trouble.
The present atmosphere in Rome – and it will grow in other places as long as this unfortunate span of time continues – like that of East Germany under the Stasi.
@Imrahil
Sorry, I do not understand what you are trying to say. It got a little too Jesuitical for me to follow.
I’m not singling anyone out. And if generalizations are no longer allowed, then Bishop Barron needs to apologize for his “beige Catholicism” and, well, it’s not like I personally made up the part about the lukewarm getting spewed out.
In general, my patience with those who take their faith seriously but not seriously enough to actually do much about it is about worn out. Are there folks out there who will go their whole life eating nothing but Mac n’ Cheese from a box and never trying out filet mignon because it’s too tough to chew? Sure, but if they’d made the effort to seek the finer things in life, then they might be a little more concerned when the Climate Change dictators ban all meat for the sake of saving the world. Bad analogy, but then I haven’t had much coffee yet.
Dear WVC,
it was you who said that those you complain about are sincere in their faith. And to be sincere in the faith is a good thing. The definition of “lukewarm” includes being insincere in the faith.
If they do something actually wrong, fine, complain as much as you like. And if they were haughtily teasing us “we’re Novus Ordoers, we’re the good ones, shame on you for your disobedience” and then were even refusing to listen to our defensive arguments, then yes, that would be wrong. But they don’t; and in any case, you didn’t complain about their doing that.
What you did complain was that they are “not sincere in their faith enough to get acquainted with the Roman Rite”, and that they might prefer Travel Soccer (I do not know this precise expression, but imagined something) to having a Mass at an awkward time such as in the afternoon (and I assumed that they went to a more convenient Mass in the morning, which would be the more traditional time anyway). This, now, is something you, sorry, do not have business complaining about.
What is of obligation is of obligation and what is voluntary is voluntary. To get to know the Old Roman Rite is a very good thing, but it is in the latter category. (I’m talking about lay Mass attenders now and leave open the question of priests and the idea of them getting to understand what they celebrate.)
Following these principles, I then added some 3 observations:
1. People might have a hard life even without additional trouble; especially if they are sincere in their faith in this time and age. It might be that adhering to the Old Roman Rite, a laudable but voluntary thing, might be this additional trouble they just cannot bear.
2. People might be exposed to non-Catholics, perhaps more so than others, or perhaps they personally put more stress on that exposure more than others. It is evident that they ought to bear witness to their Catholic faith. Now imagine a man who says: “Critisizing the Pope, and doing things that appear as criticism of the Pope (such as being a trad) is quite fine among Catholics of good-will. But I can’t expect non-Catholic onlookers’ minds to jump on three thought levels. So, I’ll try as far as possible to keep my mouth shut as long as they listen; though of course I won’t lie. This isn’t cowardice; it’s self-restraint and I think deserves praise.” I’m not saying he’s entirely factually right (hence the “imagine a man who says” construction), but I do say his thoughts are entirely defensible.
3. The non-trad sincere-in-their-faith Catholics, at least those around me, have in fact responded flawlessly to the Traditionis custodes crisis. I must say I hadn’t really expected that. Not one of them taunted us, not one of them admonished us to (real or supposed) obedience. They all do seem to have felt that the Pope did something he should not have done. – And quite a few, including some I had not expected to, actually have started to appear at the Old Mass; and we have not reproached them for not doing so even earlier: if we had, it would have been both tactically unwise and factually wrong. And of course something you just don’t do to a friend.
So, if we do talk about Bible verses, the appropriate one is: “A bruised reed shall He not break, and the smoking flax shall He not quench: He shall bring forth judgment unto truth”; and not the one about God spitting out of his mouth that are lukewarm, hence, foul and insincere.
Footnote: “I hadn’t really expected that” – not because I have no high opinion of them; I wouldn’t have expected it of myself in a comparable situation. We are all human beings.
But sometimes, human beings do rise to the occasion, apparently.
We are a little group that organize the TLM weekly. We do not want to become sedevacantist. We are just turning in “sedemenefreghisti” (Holy See-we-do-not-care). This is a good neologism that a friend of mine coined after reading the answers of last saturday to the alleged dubia.
There is another path to resistance until we get a new pope who, perhaps, acts with more charity to the faithful – a Latin Mass said in strict compliance with the requirements of the missal of Paul VI.
There is nothing in the current legislation which forbids saying a mass according to the 1970 missal in Latin. Canon law explicitly allows for the liturgy to be said in Latin. see Canon 928 (“The eucharistic celebration is to be carried out in the Latin language or in another language provided that the liturgical texts have been legitimately approved.”) One could incorporate some of the legitimate variations in the missal into such a mass – use of Eucharistic Prayer I, use of the Responsorial Gradual from the Graduale Romanum instead of the responsorial psalm (see GIRM par. 61), use of the other propers sung in Latin, ad orientem worship, the use of a Gregorian Chant ordinary, etc. All of these are legitimate options given to us in the Missal of Paul VI.
Indeed, by the use of Gregorian Chant and Latin, one would be executing exactly what the fathers of Vatican II explicitly wished for. see Sacrosanctum Concilium par. 54 (“Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.”)
Tradster,
I had a similar thought while loading my wood stove this morning.
Let’s go Franden!
@Imrahil – I do not hold sincerity as an on/off or black/white option. I suspect that, along with many human qualities, it exists on a spectrum. Those who are completely insincere would not, I think, qualify as “lukewarm” – they’d be outright against Christ. To give some public examples, look at Pelosi or Biden or any of the rabidly anti-Christian Catholic politicians.
There is a wide spectrum of folks, though, we are sincere, but whose sincerity is not supported by their will. Thus they would like to be a good Catholic, and when they take time to think about it think fond thoughts about it, but give up [fill in the blank] for the sake of growing closer to my faith? “Let’s not get overzealous, now!”
They are very similar to the rich young man who went away sad. I would not call him insincere.
The fact is, if more folks were actively engaged in the fight, it would be more difficult for the enemies of the Church. That the vast, vast majority is still sitting on the sidelines (i.e. not simply refraining from taunting tradition-minded Catholics, which is a pretty low bar to clear, but actually voicing their concerns to Church leadership and actively praying for the preservation and flourishing of the traditional liturgy – I’m not saying none are doing this, but it’s reasonable to assume not many are doing this) – and as a result the wicked ones feel ever more emboldened to press their advantage.
The rest of your analysis goes outside of the point I was making.
It is interesting to me that it is the diocesan priests celebrating the TLM and sympathetic and supportive bishops who are the main object of this month’s round of liturgical assaults. The next round against the traditional orders is being lined up, but they still have some wiggle room for now.
What appears to be happening is that on the diocesan level, there is a sizable minority of priests come of age during JPII and BXVI who have now learned of the richness of the old rite and have begun to prefer it privately. They hear the rhetoric coming from the Pope (not just liturgically, but also matters affecting morals) and see that they themselves are now in the his crosshairs. At first they find it confusing, then maddening, and then they arrive at an understanding of the revolution that has taken place in the Church.
It’s not exclusively about the liturgy, even if it is a large part of it. The current pontificate is red-pilling many of these young priests and the old guard is realizing it. Hence the harsh crackdown first on diocesan priests, secondly the traditional orders, while the new SSPX faculties remain unchanged.
The Pope is attempting to poison the well of younger priests and the future bishops that will come from their ranks. The TLM movement was always supposed to stay marginalized, but it was becoming more mainstream and picking up momentum.
The old guard is afraid for the future of their revolution.
@Fr. Z.
Re: Spies
Fr. Hunwicke made a comment the other day about the Latin Art 7 of TC.
“two dicasteries which will exercise the authority of the Holy See observantiae harum dispositionum invigilantes … watching over, keeping an eye on, the observance of Tc.”
I would add that the practical effect is to incentivize snitching by ladder climbers in the diocesan chancery. Hence, there is a need to provide a steady stream of suitable reports to these dicasteries, and select individuals who can pick any investigating officials up at the airport, drive them the long way around town, before depositing them back at the airport and wishing them Godspeed.
—
@WVC
At a very macro view of things, the Church is in the situation she is in because, as you allude to, what concerns a great number of people is “what is the minimum that is necessary for me to get to heaven?” Some might say that this is very Protestant, but as a convert, I would say that it is very traditional Protestant thought to say that an individual who leaves their bible unopened on the shelf is liable to judgment for that.
Taking what you have said further, Vatican II is filled with admonitions for people not knowing the liturgy more / actively participating in it. So VII agrees with you about those who are sincere enough to be where they are at but not sincere enough to go further and, following the Spirit of the Council, to actively know their Rite more.
Dear WVC,
the thing is the only thing we have to give up for our faith are sins. One cannot be zealous enough in not committing sins.
All the rest of life is to be consecrated to God with thanksgiving. (My point is that this is the truth. However, we can hardly overlook that the fact that in the 1960s people wanted to have a bit more fun and relaxation and thought wrongly that the Church was against them on this did play a part in bringing us into the situation where we are now.)
I had not argued for “let’s do as little as possible to get to Heaven” (though in fact that is a good standard where reproaching others, not under one’s spiritual care, is concerned). What I here said, though, was simply that I fail to see how the mere fact to have chosen for the “something more than that” something different from what you think most important would earn as harsh a reproach. (I hope we agree that “you are lukewarm and God spits you out of your mouth” is about as harsh as reproaches among believing Christians get, right? Hence, it should not be used lightly.)
But yes, I’ll grant the emotion: Some of these people are my friends, and it hurts to hear them attacked like this.
Chaswjd,
I’ve often said the same thing. A mostly Latin NO, ad orientem (or at least with a Benedictine altar arrangement), with full chanted propers instead of hymns, the Roman Canon, and omitting the sign of peace can be truly beautiful and uplifting. A vernacular hymn could even be thrown in after the Communion antiphon or at the recessional for those who won’t give them up. Obviously the homily and the scriptures could be in the vernacular (though perhaps the readings could be chanted in Latin first). This would be ideal as far as the NO goes, and the option to use the traditional offertory prayers would make it even better. Frankly, had it been done that way to begin with, while allowing the option to celebrate the older liturgy at least on occasion, I believe that a large percentage of the liturgy wars could have been avoided.
@Imrahil – And do you think I do not also have friends who would fall under the description I have written? I do. Some of them of whom I am extremely fond. But that doesn’t change the fact that, since they continue to remain as uninterested as they can about affairs within the Church or with the health of the liturgy (and this despite the super-human efforts of the pastor and vicar of our parish to invite, educate, and encourage the parishioners), that as a result of their inability to be concerned with more than the bare minimum that is required the bishop does not have as much visible support within his diocese and those in the Vatican do not see as much visible opposition to their evil schemes.
It’s just a fact, if even half of those sincere but not all THAT sincere Catholics had fostered a devotion to the more reverent liturgical traditions, and the numbers attending Latin Mass were closer to 50% than 10%, the evil machinations currently underway would be laughed to scorn. Those bishops who may be a little more on the reluctant-to-anger-Rome side might feel more emboldened to defend their sheep if they knew a large portion of those sheep were being directly attacked.
Perhaps there’s never a time where “coasting” is good for one’s spiritual health, but right now, in the middle of this latest war raging for the future of the Church, those not awake to the need and answering the call are aiding and abetting the enemy even if only by their silence.
Regarding spies. I picked this up from Twitter, posted by one of the most unctuous of the papalatrous Bergoglian Mean Girls
What kind of a sad, warped, and forlorn soul goes picking through parish bulletins just to rat out people trying to celebrate a reverent and traditional Midnight Mass? Truly a wretch like this suffers one of the worst punishments imaginable – having to be with himself at all times of the day. That must be a miserable fate.
WVC: A stoolie looking for an extra bowl of Pachamama gruel (“Gulag Archipelago,” “One Day in the Life…”). A kapo. A quisling. A ferret (The Great Escape).
*Austin Ivereigh marches into the Ledbury church wearing a crisp rainbow uniform and gleaming leather boots, topped off with a monocle. Tucked under his left arm is a copy of Mein Fratelli Tutti- a clenched fist embossed on its leather cover. He scowls, or maybe pouts, then cracks his riding crop against a pew and points it directly at the priest. “To the Cooler, Schnell!”*
CBC News, “The pleasure and peril of snitching on your neighbours during a pandemic,” April 26, 2020:
“Citizen groups that help with law enforcement are nothing new, they [“experts”] say, especially during turbulent times like these when social norms have been uprooted [who and why? must civility vanish? at what point do Little Johnny and Susie next door usher in a new “social norm” by squatting on the front lawn and devouring the cat?].
“”It’s [snitching] restoring a sense of justice and balance,” said Kate White, a marketing and behavioural science professor at the University of British Columbia’s Sauder School of Business.”
…
“Bennett [political science professor at University of Victoria] says part of the problem is that snitching often plays into prejudice and racism. He says research [research: hipsters hopped up on Starbucks, “Human Jerky” by Cattle Decapitation blaring from the speakers, scrolling with tattooed hands through the Daily Kos news feed] shows that white people are more likely to report on visible minorities.”
…
“Psychologists like White say that calling out those around us for breaking the rules has long served a purpose, from an evolutionary standpoint.
“White says snitching is meant to reinforce social harmony and cohesion, and right now social norms are changing so quickly that more people are working to make sure everyone abides by new protocols.”
Capitaine Renard to Harry Morgan in the 1944 film “To Have and Have Not”:
“We are only interested in those persons who have broken the rules laid down for their behavior.”
On the other hand…
Orange County Sheriff Don Barnes, Nov. 19, 2020:
“We are currently assessing the action by the Governor. At this time, due to the need to have deputies available for emergency calls for service, deputies will not be responding to requests for face-coverings or social-gatherings enforcement.”
‘Merica. On the other hand…
“Vaccinated families can feel good about enjoying a typical Thanksgiving or Christmas this year.” Seasons Greetings 2021 from Herr Doktor Fauci.
“Prepare for a Winter of Death”- Happy Holidays 2021 from Dear Leader Biden.
@Semper Gumby – there’s just no room for the Latin Mass or those who THINK the way the Latin Mass teaches on to the think in the Great Reset of Francis, Fauci, and the New World Order.
Pachmama, COVID, the mandates, the ban on the Latin Mass – no way in the world this isn’t all part of one big diabolical plan.
Sometimes, the times make the man. I’m praying that, for many bishops, that turns out to be the case. The good ones, at this point, have nothing left to lose in comparison to what is about to be taken from all of us. Sadly, their performance during COVID hysteria has not encouraged me.
Fr. Gregory Elder, the priest with the fantastic tweet, heard my first Confession and gave me my first Holy Communion. I will have to go to one of his Masses one of these days.
Fr. Gregory Elder, the priest with the fantastic tweet, heard my first Confession and gave me my first Holy Communion. I will have to go to one of his Masses one of these days.
Pingback: New Liturgical Movement: First Roundup of Responses to the CDW’s Responsa Ad Dubia
WVC: You raise an excellent point, the times making the man.
In his 1982 Address to the British Parliament Ronald Reagan put it this way:
“During the dark days of the Second World War, when this island was incandescent with courage, Winston Churchill exclaimed about Britain’s adversaries, “What kind of a people do they think we are?” Well, Britain’s adversaries found out what extraordinary people the British are. But all the democracies paid a terrible price for allowing the dictators to underestimate us. We dare not make that mistake again. So, let us ask ourselves, “What kind of people do we think we are?” And let us answer, “Free people, worthy of freedom and determined not only to remain so but to help others gain their freedom as well.””
In the challenges ahead some clergy and laity, teachers, doctors, military, shopkeepers and farmers, politicians and lawyers will rise to the challenge, some will falter.
Fr. Richard John Neuhaus adds, “As Christians and as Americans [and Europeans, if I could add], in this our awkward duality of citizenship, we seek to be faithful in a time not of our choosing but of our testing. We resist the hubris of presuming that it is the definitive time and place of historical promise or tragedy, but it is our time and place…A time for rejoicing in momentary triumphs, and for defiance in momentary defeats; a time for persistence in reasoned argument, never tiring in proposing to the world a more excellent way.”
The hubris mentioned by Fr. Neuhaus can take different forms. Thomas Sowell observed, “Some of the biggest cases of mistaken identity are among intellectuals who have trouble remembering that they are not God.” Thus the Gulag, Dachau, Pol Pot’s Killing Fields and Mao’s Cultural Revolution.
Men and women have freewill, thus there is evil. Benedict XVI in his 2007 letter “Saved in Hope”: “Freedom must constantly be won over for the cause of good. Free assent to the good never exists simply by itself. If there were structures which could irrevocably guarantee a good state of the world, man’s freedom would be denied, and hence they would not be good structures at all.”
Good point. The conspiratorial Monster State- whether the Soviet Union or the European Union which denies and often attacks the truth of Europe’s Christian heritage- declares: “We define what is good. We redefine what is good whenever we please. We tell you what your “rights” are.”
In contrast, the American Declaration of Independence states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Certainly, with Rights come Obligations. Benjamin Franklin, when asked what kind of government had been formed, replied, “A Republic, if you can keep it.” The current political and cultural problems afflicting our Republic begin with us, repairing the damage requires Virtue, Faith and Reason.
The “experts” of the Monster State will say (before they start screaming it), “We will have Heaven on Earth. We just have to first destroy…” Pleasing words to those of a certain disposition. And, as we have seen during the Twentieth Century and recently, those words sometimes please many.
Of course, there is a large void in the words of the conspiratorial Monster State. Edith Stein, a philosopher who became a nun and was murdered at Auschwitz in 1942, wrote: “Do not accept anything as love which lacks truth.”
The conspiratorial Monster State, no matter how much they try to hide it, is the enemy of the Good, the True and the Beautiful. The Monster State can be fierce, yet we persevere in hope.
In Amsterdam in 1943, in an attic above a warehouse, a girl named Anne Frank wrote in her diary, “Where there’s hope, there’s life. It fills us with fresh courage and makes us strong again.”
Gentlemen, you heard the lady. Get action.
@Semper Gumby – Given Bishop Barron’s statements and behavior against the Latin Mass just a few months before all this broke, what are the odds that he wasn’t read in on the plan before hand? I’m thinking zero.
WVC: You’re probably right, WOF caught wind of this. By the way, there was also that “secret” Zoom meeting WOF and others participated in late July.
WOF appears to be Lukewarm (so does Integralism or whatever their brand is these days- Integralism is essentially Liberal Fascism with its socialism, coercion fetish, agit-prop, need for attention and personality cult).
As for the Lukewarm, perhaps they’ll return to the straight and narrow. If not, Shakespeare and Henry V:
If we are marked to die, we are enough
To do our country loss; and if to live,
The fewer men, the greater share of honour.
Proclaim it, Westmoreland, throughout my host,
That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made
And crowns for convoy put into his purse.
We would not die in that man’s company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
Jesus Christ and all the angels and the saints are pulling for all of us here in the vineyards. Let’s make ’em proud.
Pingback: New Liturgical Movement: First Roundup of Responses to the CDW’s Responsa Ad Dubia – The Old Roman
Pingback: MiL – Messainlatino.it:New Liturgical Movement: prima raccolta di risposte ai Responsa ad Dubia #traditioniscustodesMateria Oscura nella cappella, conferenza dell’abortista Jeffrey Sachs, prolusione della luterana e laicista von der Leyen. La Catt