Wars and rumors of wars on the TLM and Summorum Pontificum”?

Discussion in 'Pope Francis' started by BrianK, May 26, 2021.

  1. Mario

    Mario Powers

    I'm glad you think so, HH! ;)After all, I've had the privilege of baptizing four babies in the last two months!:D Though I must honestly admit, my son, Fr. Patrick, baptized our grandson, Jack, using the Traditional baptismal rite. It was very beautiful!

    Romans 8:28 We know that in everything God works for good with those who love him, who are called according to his purpose.
    Ananchal, Byron, PurpleFlower and 4 others like this.
  2. Mario

    Mario Powers

    I find this helpful, Brian. Thanks!
    BrianK and AED like this.
  3. HeavenlyHosts

    HeavenlyHosts Powers

    I'm sure it was very beautiful. I do remember that you posted about it previously.
  4. BrianK

    BrianK Powers Staff Member

    That’s a straw man argument. I’ve never met or read any traditional Catholic who claimed the Novus Ordo baptism was not valid.
  5. HeavenlyHosts

    HeavenlyHosts Powers

    It’s not an argument. It’s a statement.
    I’m not arguing with you, Brian. I don’t want to.
    Like I said, people are making choices. They are not being forced.
  6. BrianK

    BrianK Powers Staff Member

    But it’s a false statement, limited to only a fringe element of uneducated (in the Faith) sedevacantists at best. You’re making it sound like those who seek out baptism in the old rite believe the Novus Ordo rite is invalid. That’s not true, and by implying such you’re maligning those who seek out an SSPX chapel for baptism in the traditional rite when their own pope and bishop forbids it in diocesan parishes. That’s grossly unfair.
  7. maryrose

    maryrose Powers

    I will pray for you and all who cannot attend Mass because of illness. I will present you to Jesus when I receive Holy Communion. God bless you and may the love of God surround you.
    Sam, RoryRory, Mary's child and 2 others like this.
  8. Mario

    Mario Powers

    Yes, 3 prayers of exorcism in the vestibule of the Church with a purple stole worn by Fr. Patrick, but when you enter the Church proper and proceed to the Baptismal font, he switched to a white stole. These liturgical actions speak clearly of progression from the darkness of original sin to the brilliance of God's light!:ROFLMAO:

    Colossians 1:12 ...giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified us to share in the inheritance of the saints in Light. 13 For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

    Sam, Byron, PurpleFlower and 3 others like this.
  9. HeavenlyHosts

    HeavenlyHosts Powers

    Thank you so much! Very kind of you.
    Sam, Jason Fernando and AED like this.
  10. BrianK

    BrianK Powers Staff Member


    Canonists cast doubt on the force of Responsa ad dubia on the Traditional Latin Mass
    On Saturday 18th December a document was published by the Congregation for Divine Worship tightening up restrictions on the Traditional Latin Mass: Responsa ad dubia. This is a clarification of Pope Francis’ Motu Proprio Traditionis Custodes, answering questions (‘dubia’) sent to the Congregation by bishops.

    Since then canonists all over the Catholic world have been examining the document, which appears to tighten the screws on the availability of the Traditional Mass considerably compared with Traditionis Custodes itself. By a stroke of the pen it prohibits marriages, baptisms, burials, and even blessings, using the older books, outside a tiny number of ‘personal parishes’. Similarly, it prevents priests from saying more than one Old Rite Mass on a Sunday, and allows them to say it on a weekday only if they have no Novus Ordo Masses to celebrate.

    The ban on parishes noting the times of Traditional Masses on their bulletins has caused widespread ridicule. However, it suggests a level of attention to detail, and a desire to make the Traditionist phenomenon disappear from view, which is more than a little alarming. There is no reference to this, or to the other points just mentioned, in Traditionis Custodes, which now appears quite mild by comparison.

    This actually raises a problem which the canonists have noted: a summary of relevant arguments has been made by the Latin Mass Society in a handy guide here. The key point is that the Responsa is not a new law, but an interpretation of another document by a Vatican Congregation. In the places where it goes beyond Traditionis Custodes, it is skating on some pretty thin ice.

    The ice disappears altogether when its proposals are contra legem: in conflict with the law of the Church. Thus, Bishops have the authority to determine when there is pastoral justification for a priest to celebrate additional Masses, for example, from Canon 905 §2. This right is not something which can be stripped from them on the say-so of the Prefect of a Vatican Congregation, howsoever wise and benevolent he may be. And yet that is exactly what the Responsa appear to be doing when it limits the number of Traditional Masses which a priest may say.

    Again, it may have irritated some in Rome that so many bishops—and not just the Tradition-friendly usual suspects—invoked Canon 87 §1, which allows a bishop to set aside the universal law of the Church when the good of souls requires it, in order to allow Traditional Masses to continue in parish churches, contrary to Traditionis Custodes. The Congregation seems to be trying to claw back the force of the original ban by asking bishops to come to it for a dispensation, should this be really necessary. However, the Congregation cannot repeal Canon 87 §1; still less can it wave aside the theological foundation of this prerogative of bishops, which is found in the texts of the Second Vatican Council (Christus Dominus8).

    The fundamental right and duty of bishops to exercise discretion over what happens in their dioceses was, in fact, what we were told Traditionis Custodes was trying to restore, after Pope Benedict’s 2007 Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum ushered in a period in which priests were given the right to start celebrating the Traditional Mass at will, and bishops were told to find ways of accommodating groups of the Faithful who wanted it. Pope Francis proclaimed: “I have desired to affirm that it is up to the Bishop, as moderator, promoter, and guardian of the liturgical life of the Church of which he is the principle of unity, to regulate the liturgical celebrations.”

    The idea that bishops were in practice unable to control the situation under Summorum Pontificum does not stand up to scrutiny: as a rule, the dioceses of bishops who didn’t want Traditional Masses didn’t have them. But it now seems the Congregation for Divine Worship only wants bishops to have discretion if it can determine the outcome in advance.

    Bishops now have the choice, as expressed by JD Flynn, between doing what they have been told just because this has come from the Holy See, and following Pope Francis’ own principle: “diocesan bishops don’t answer to curial prefects”.

    Joseph Shaw is the Chairman of the Latin Mass Society

    Sent from my iPhone
  11. BrianK

    BrianK Powers Staff Member


    On 'Traditionis' dubia, will power overrule authority?
    JD FlynnDec 21
    Bishop Arthur Roche, prefect of the Vatican’s Congregation for Divine Worship. Credit: © Mazur/catholicnews.org.uk/ via Flickr.
    When the Vatican’s Congregation for Divine Worship and Sacraments issued new instructions Saturday on a papal plan to limit the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, the document seemed to be a strong assertion of the Vatican’s will on an issue of serious controversy.

    Commentators and pundits — for and against — have taken for granted that the directive will reshape the rules regarding the Extraordinary Form in dioceses around the world.

    But bishops, for whom the instructionswere actually intended, have thus far said very little.

    Some may be planning how best to implement the congregation’s directions. But others have told The Pillar they’re giving the instructions a beat or two, to see whether anything more might be coming down the pike — including canonical clarity on the actual authority of Saturday’s instructions.

    Other bishops, of course, may be trying to wrap their heads around a rather dizzying turn of events.

    Consider an example: When Pope Francis published Traditionis custodesin July, the text was made available in English, Spanish, Italian, and German.

    In one provision, each language told bishops the same thing: If they wanted newly ordained priests to be able to offer Mass in the Extraordinary Form, they’d need to consult the Vatican before they gave permission.

    The English, Italian, Spanish, and German texts each used similar verbs: “consult,” “consulterà,” “consultará,” and “konsultiert.”

    But when the Congregation for Divine Worship and Sacraments responded on Saturday to questions about the Traditionis custodes, it said that bishops should not “merely,” seek a “consultative opinion, but a necessary authorisation given to the diocesan Bishop by the Congregation for Divine Worship.”

    It wasn’t that they had to consult, the Vatican said. It’s that they had to get permission.

    And bishops should know that’s what was required, the Congregation suggested, because that is what the Latin text — the official text — of Traditionis custodes had said all along.

    The only problem?

    The Latin text of Traditionis custodes did not appear on the Vatican website, or anywhere else, until Dec. 17, the day before the Congregation issued its interpretation.

    In light of that circumstance, bishops who have been trying since July to navigate the actual implementation of the pope’s motu proprio might be forgiven for feeling they’d gotten a bit of a bait and switch.

    And it might be understandable why Catholics who have felt aggrieved about the pope’s restrictions on the Extraordinary Form might feel like that “clarification” is but another turn of the screw, aimed at squeezing out from the Church’s life a form of the Mass that many of them have come to love, and to experience as the source and summit of their Christian faith.

    Indeed, even among Catholics with no particular attachment to the Extraordinary Form, the Vatican’s responsa, issued Saturday to apparently submitted questions on the meaning of Traditionis custodes, has sent up alarm bells in many corners of the Church.

    While some have praised the text, many Catholics have said it seems punitive, divisive, or at least unwelcoming that Extraordinary Form Masses can’t be advertised in parish Mass schedules, or that weddings and baptisms in the Extraordinary Form can take place in only a narrow band of circumstances.

  12. BrianK

    BrianK Powers Staff Member


    It is true that some of the Church’s more divisive figures attend the Extraordinary Form, which seems to be a motivating factor for the Vatican.

    But priests and bishops, among others, have told The Pillar that they more commonly find witness of true faith in Extraordinary Form communities, which constitute only a small minority of practicing Catholics.

    Ultimately, it is diocesan bishops who are responsible to decide what to do about the CDWS’ responsa on Traditionis custodes. Some may haveno concern about implementing the responses.

    But for many bishops, implementing the CDWS provisions wholesale would mean going back to communities for whom they have just issued implementation plans of the pope’s July text, and wiping most of those plans clear from the drawing board.

    If bishops had offered dispensations to have the Extraordinary Form in parish churches, because few other locations would be available, the CDWS expects they be revoked, at least temporarily, while Vatican permission is sought.

    If bishops had permitted local pastors to offer Extraordinary Form Masses for, say, cloistered religious communities, they would probably now be expected to withdraw that permission — at least for priests who also offer the Ordinary Form each day, as most do.

    If bishops had okayed weddings or confirmations in the Extraordinary Form, many of them would now have to be cancelled.

    Some bishops have told The Pillar they’re reticent to make those changes. One bishop told The Pillar that as he considers the challenges his flock has endured among the coronavirus pandemic, and the difficulties his chancery has had developing reasonable and pastoral implementations on the first round of Traditionis custodes, he just doesn’t have the heart to reshuffle things again.

    Complicating things, of course, is that bishops do not seem technically bound by the provisions of the Congregation for Divine Worship’s Saturday responsa.

    Canonists have generally agreed that a Vatican dicastery, responding to dubia under its own authority, has no authority to authentically interpret canon law — to create the kind of legally binding interpretations that might have been made with a specific approval, or a specific delegation, from Pope Francis.

    So what the bishops have is a document which gives them the mind of a Vatican office — and presumably the mind of Pope Francis — but which probably does not bind them. Of course, some will use that document to enact liturgical policies they’d like to see. And some, with no particular interest in the issue, might be glad to do what the CDWS directs.

    A few might write back to the Vatican to ask about the responsa’s authority.

    But other bishops might decide that the Vatican knows what it’s doing — and if the pope had wanted to bind them with a definitive legal interpretation, he would have done it.

    There is, of course, a difference between legally binding authority and power. And bishops who decide that instructions from the pope’s newly-selected liturgy czar do not have legal authority — even if they’re correct — might well discover that difference quickly. More than a few bishops will decide that whatever the canonists say, if the Vatican says it, they’d better do it.

    On the other hand, though, the pope has emphasized frequently that diocesan bishops don’t answer to curial prefects, and shouldn’t answer to curial prefects — that the curia was made for bishops, not bishops for the curia.

    If bishops don’t take up the instructions of the Vatican’s Congregation for Divine Worship, Pope Francis may have to decide how seriously he means that — whether he’ll force the question, or let it go.

    And, while diocesan bishops weigh how much back-and-forth a portion of their flocks can take, the pope may have to make a similar discernment about their shepherds.
    Julia likes this.
  13. Julia

    Julia Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us.

    I was somewhat dumbfounded to click into Midnight Mass at the Vatican and there was Pope Francis saying a Latin Mass. The Christ Child statue was carried by Pope Francis to the crib there in the Vatican, and that was beautiful too.

    I don't know if this was the calm before the storm, or if it there is hope for the Latin Mass after so many opinions that the Vatican wants to abolish it. Confusion, confusion, confusion.

    In the meantime, have a happy and holy Christmas everyone. And have hope and trust the New Year will be better than the last. Viva Christo Rey.
    HeavenlyHosts, Sam, AED and 2 others like this.
  14. RoryRory

    RoryRory Perseverance

    Thank you immensely.
    HeavenlyHosts and Mary's child like this.
  15. BrianK

    BrianK Powers Staff Member


    Why the Catholic Church is facing chaos this Christmas


    Pope Francis renewed his campaign against the Latin Mass this month, permitting his liturgy chief Archbishop Arthur Roche to issue all manner of threats to clergy celebrating the ancient liturgy. This 'clarification' has been greeted with horror by bishops around the world, including many who aren't keen on the old rite.

    This episode of Holy Smoke puts this outrage in the context of what one distinguished priest calls the 'Wild West' of the Bergoglio pontificate. Never have I known such widespread despair among all but the most hardline liberal clergy. That this should be happening at Christmas underlines the grim unfairness of it all – and the desperate need for regime change in the Church. And if that means the Vatican as we know it ceases to exist, perhaps that isn't such a bad thing.
    Julia likes this.
  16. BrianK

    BrianK Powers Staff Member


    Cardinal Sarah: "Prohibiting or suspending the extraordinary form can only be inspired by the devil"
    July 24, 2021
    When he was prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, the highest authority of the Church - after the Pope - regarding Mass, Cardinal Robert Sarah gave an interview to Edward Pentin, of the National Catholic Register, on the occasion of the publication of a book.

    It was September 2019. Pentin, in the extensive interview, asked the cardinal why more and more young people were attracted by the extraordinary form of the Roman rite. We offer you Cardinal Sarah's answer, in an excerpt from the interview she once translated InfoCatólico:

    "It's not that I believe it. It's just that I'm witnessing it. And many young people have entrusted me with their absolute preference for the extraordinary, more educational and most insistent form in the primacy and centrality of God, in silence and in the meaning of sacred and divine transcendence. But, above all, how can we understand, how can we not be surprised and be deeply shocked because what was the norm yesterday was prohibited today? Isn't it true that prohibiting or suspending the extraordinary form can only be inspired by the demon who desires our suffocation and spiritual death?

    When the extraordinary form in the spirit of Vatican II is celebrated, all its fruitfulness is revealed: How can we be surprised that a liturgy transmitted by so many saints continues to smile at so many young souls thirsty for God?

    Like Pope Benedict XVI, I hope that the two forms of the Roman Rite will continue to enrich each other. This implies leaving a hermeneutics of rupture. Both forms share the same faith and theology. Opposing them is a profound ecclesiological error. It means destroying the Church separating it from its Tradition and making people believe that what the Church considered sacred in the past is wrong and unacceptable. What a disappointment and an insult to all the saints who have preceded us! What a vision of the Church.

    We must move away from dialectical oppositions. The Council did not want to break with the liturgical forms inherited from Tradition but, on the contrary, enter and participate better and more fully in them.

    The Conciliar Constitution stipulates that "the new forms adopted should, in some way, grow organically from existing ones."

    Therefore, it would be a mistake to oppose the Council to the Tradition of the Church. In this sense, it is necessary that those who celebrate the extraordinary form do so without a spirit of opposition and therefore in the spirit of Sacrosanctum Concilium.

    We need the extraordinary way to know in what spirit to celebrate the ordinary. On the other hand, to celebrate the extraordinary form without taking into account the indications of Sacrosanctum Concilium is to risk reducing this form to a lifeless archaeological vestige without a future.

    It would also be desirable to include in the appendix to a future edition of the missal the Penitentiary Rite and the Offertory in the extraordinary way to emphasize that the two liturgical forms illuminate each other, in continuity and without opposition.

    If we live in this spirit, then the liturgy will cease to be a place of rivalries and criticism and will finally lead us to the great heavenly liturgy."

    Help Infovaticana keep informing

    Sent from my iPhone
    Kwaters, Julia and PurpleFlower like this.
  17. HeavenlyHosts

    HeavenlyHosts Powers

    It’s great to hear from you, Julia. I hope your Christmas was very beautiful. I love your attitude.:love:
    Julia and AED like this.
  18. Julia

    Julia Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us.

    Here is another bombshell. A link between the lavender mafia and rejection of the TLM. Common denominator... Saint Pius V.

  19. Muzhik

    Muzhik Powers

    My guess is he wasn't saying the TLM, but the Latin translation of the Novus Ordo. Latin IS the official language of Vatican City State. (Even the ATMs are in Latin!) The liturgy would have been written in Latin first, and all vernacular versions would have used that as the source for their own translations. Since this would have been an international Mass, Latin would be used instead of Italian.
    Clare A, HeavenlyHosts, Mario and 5 others like this.
  20. BrianK

    BrianK Powers Staff Member

Share This Page