UPDATED ACTION ITEM! PROPOSAL TO PRIESTS: On 1 August say Holy Mass for Blase Cupich – LINK to post

UPDATE: 31 July

Proposed:

Every priest who possibly can on 1 August should celebrate Holy Mass for the intention of Card. Blase Cupich.   

In private… in public… TLM or Novus Ordo…. pray that God provides him with exactly what he needs for his own best good.

So far… UPDATED : 1 August  17: 53 EDT

Vetus Ordo: 53
Novus Ordo: 23

There may be more priests who haven’t yet informed me.

Priests and laity alike, pray that what Cupich has planned may be averted.

Original post is HERE.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Comments

  1. MarianneF says:

    Can we add Bishop Burbidge and Arlington to this prayer intention? This didn’t have to happen.

  2. Gab says:

    This action by Carinal Cupich is just a shot across the bow. More prelates will do the same to other traditional orders in their respective dioceses.

  3. JonPatrick says:

    “Public masses are suspended”.
    I wonder what would happen if a priest were to offer a private mass and a few people should just happen to show up …

    For the chess puzzle, I would move my rook to h3 skewering the white king and rook then take the rook when he has to move the king.

  4. Orual says:

    @JonPatrick, I was wondering the same thing. Also, the sign says ‘Confession times are discontinued’ instead of ‘Confessions are discontinued.’ Maybe they’re still hearing confessions but by appointment only? I’m not sure exactly what Cupich said they’re not allowed to do but it seems like there may be some ways to get around it if they get creative.

    What an unbelievable time we’re living in!

  5. Fr. Kelly says:

    Mission accomplished.
    I said the Mass for St. Peter in Chains for Cardinal Cupich this morning at a side altar in our retreat house chapel.

  6. Joe Crupi says:

    What would happen if the priests who offer the holy Sacrifice of the Mass ignore the Bishop on the grounds that his order is invalid?

  7. dutchessoftexas says:

    My (diocesan) priest said Mass today (TLM) for St Peter in chains. He didn’t specifically mention Cdl Cupich, but in his homily he specifically asked us to pray that our current Peter be freed from his chains.

  8. Gab says:

    ”The Archdiocese of Chicago is supportive of the Institute’s efforts to maintain its presence in the Woodlawn community and continue its ministry there. The Archdiocese wishes the Institute every success.” The 2016 statement from Cupich.

    It is absurd. It was okay then but not now purely because the Pope said so.

  9. ByzCat08 says:

    “Just burn one pinch of incense to the emperor and we will let you live”

    “Just burn one pinch of incense to the Novus Ordo and we will let you continue to minister publicly”

  10. APX says:

    The reason behind this is even more concerning since it’s not even in conformity with the Church’s numerous other Latin Rites of Mass.


    Institute could not, in their conscience, sign a document presented to them by Cupich.

    In that document, which contains several points, the ICKSP priests were asked to sign that the Novus Ordo Mass is the only true expression of the Roman rite, thereby rejecting the traditional Roman rite. .

  11. TonyO says:

    In that document, which contains several points, the ICKSP priests were asked to sign that the Novus Ordo Mass is the only true expression of the Roman rite

    I don’t know what the ICKSP said to the official requiring their signature. I would have signed something nearly the same – as much the same as I could possibly make it look, sound, and BE the same, except that it would state true things instead of false ones. For instance, (just playing off the top of my head here, this is not a thoroughly considered point) “the Novus Ordo Mass is the only mass of the Roman Rite that has universal approval from the current Pope.”

    Not sure even that is accurate: for example, I haven’t heard one blip from the Pope and his bully-boys about chaining the Dominican mass. And I think there are a couple other masses of immemorial custom that the pope hasn’t targeted. And then there is the Ambrosian “Rite”, which is a different mass within the Latin Church – it’s called a “rite” rather than a “use”, but I have yet to hear anyone state an essential distinction between “uses” and “rites”.

    I would also protest being made to sign something like a “loyalty oath” that has not been required of everyone else by Rome. On what BASIS is Cd. Seepage insisting on such a document? (Sure, that might not win them any brownie points, but: they are looking at the demolition of their order’s houses in the Chicago diocese – do they think they are going to WIN this by not protesting?)

    I wonder what would happen if a priest were to offer a private mass and a few people should just happen to show up …

    As has been said about this before: under canon law’s interpretive rules, directives that narrow one’s rights are to be interpreted narrowly, not broadly, i.e. as imposing only the narrowest restrictions consistent with the words and phrases used. If the directive didn’t SAY anything about private masses, then it didn’t MEAN anything about private masses. (This doesn’t, by itself imply that it would be PRUDENT to do that: if you are going to be caught at it, and punished for doing it, that might not be worth it in the larger scheme of things (even if such punishment is clearly unjust because you WERE obeying the rule).)

  12. Josephus Muris Saliensis says:

    While one might (one doesn’t) be able to understand the idealogical desire to prohibit Masses in our beloved Ritus Romanus, this does not of course impede access to Holy Communion (however gruesome the surviving Masses may be). I simply fail to see how or why anyone, apart from an anti-Christian totalitarian, would wish to stop people going to Confession, thereby denying them the means of Salvation and Grace.

    As I was taught, the man who made this order will be held accountable for every single consequently unshriven soul who arrives at the Heavenly Gates, and his will be a long Purgatory indeed.

  13. JesusFreak84 says:

    Does anyone know what the status of the Mass in Hammond is? It was celebrated by one of the Chicago Canons, so…

    Also: “Institute could not, in their conscience, sign a document presented to them by Cupich.” If there’s no proof that such a document exists, PLEASE do not spread rumors! You do the ICKSP no favors and only enable Cupich further. Canon Talarico does not need more headaches.

Think, proof read, preview BEFORE posting!