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.