If they think this is going to go away, they are delusional.
Keep in mind the phrase: quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
Also, yesterday in some commentary on the strange opinions of a bishop, I mentioned the issue of “unity”, which has become a prevailing theme (aka buzz word).
From Infovaticana. How it starts:
The prefect of the Dicastery for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Cardinal Arthur Roche, has assured that Pope Leo XIV will not modify the restrictions on the celebration of the traditional Mass established by Traditionis custodes nor restore the regime provided for by Benedict XVI in Summorum Pontificum.
The statements were made in an interview granted to the British weekly The Tablet, [aka The Bitter Pill] in which the English prelate categorically affirmed: «Pope Leo is not going to change Traditionis custodes and is not going to return to Summorum Pontificum.»
This is the first public statement by Roche regarding the Pontiff’s position on one of the liturgical issues that has generated the most debate within the Church in recent years.
Unity as an argument
During the interview, the prefect defended that the question of the traditional liturgy must be understood from the perspective of ecclesial unity. He recalled that the Eucharist is «the sacrament of unity» and maintained that, if the celebration of the Mass becomes a cause of division, «something is seriously wrong». [Something is seriously wrong with his ecclesiology. Are Romans not in unity with Ukrainians and Maronites? Apparently we are not in unity with those who use the NeoCat thing or Anglican use.]
Roche also rejected the claims of persecution made by some faithful linked to the traditional liturgy. According to him, when the Pope grants authorizations in accordance with current regulations and those groups continue to claim they are being persecuted, «they cannot answer what the real problem is». [What?!?]
Likewise, he lamented the tone of some criticisms directed against Church authorities and even wondered: «Can one honestly say that one is Catholic when one writes things so full of hatred about people and about the Church?».
Defense of the liturgical reform
The prefect clarified that he does not consider the liturgy prior to the Second Vatican Council to be erroneous, but maintained that the reform promoted after the Council responded to the need to prepare the Church for a renewed missionary task. [Does we need again to trot out the statistics of what has gone on since the Council? Do we need again to point out that the great missionary age of the Church was not carried out with the Novus Ordo?]
[…]
How long, Lord?
Given that the idea of ex ecclesiam nullus sallus is persona non grata in the post-conciliar period, I feel the need to ask:
What is the renewed missionary task of the church of which +Roche speaks?
Given how quickly arguments like Roche’s fall apart upon the slightest scrutiny, it would be comedic, except that he and all to many like him sit in various drivers’ seats. Therefore, it is instead dangerous and tragic, if not completely maddening.
Likewise, he lamented the tone of some criticisms directed against Church authorities and even wondered: Can one honestly say that one is Catholic when one writes things so full of hatred about people and about the Church?
What the heck does that even mean? Roche is going to be replaced soon, and his office leaves a legacy of hatred for the authority of bishops and the dignity due to the people of God. He sneers at anyone who likes the Traditional Mass, he forces bishops to ask him for permissions to do things within their competency. He abolished the privilege of bishops to dispense particular elements of the Universal Law via Canon 87, something the Vatican has only done for processes like scandal and sex abuse. He goes around every few months taking interviews and flaunting his authority.
Indeed, Cardinal Roche, can one honestly say that one is Catholic when one writes things so full of hatred about people and about the Church?