From a private letter to me from Prebendary Michael Moreton (7 November 2001);
"I regard the Roman canon as part of the complex of traditions which characterised the life of the Church as it emerged from the centuries of persecution: a shared rule of faith in the creeds, a shared rule of what constituted Scripture, a shared rule of holy order, and a shared rule of prayer. I do not believe that any part of the Church in later centuries has any authority to alter these canons."
From Cardinal Ratzinger:
"Rites ... are forms of the apostolic Tradition and of its unfolding in the great places of the Tradition. ... After the Second Vatican Council, the impression arose that the pope really could do anything in liturgical matters ... the First Vatican Council had in no way defined the pope as an absolute monarch. On the contrary, it presented him as the guarantor of obedience to the revealed Word ... The authority of the pope is not unlimited; it is at the service of Sacred Tradition."
So much, then for Bergoglianist autocracy. In passing on, we can applaud the insight and determination of the Moscow Patriarchate in resisting papist ambitions in the See of Constantinople.
But if the hyperuebersuperultrapapalism of Bergoglianity will not serve God's People, what will? Conciliarism? You just have to be joking. After the fiasco of Vatican II (yes; genuine, valid, canonical Ecumenical Councils can be disasters for the Church, as both S John Henry Newman and Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger had no trouble discerning)? And, on the other side of the fence, how about the megafiasco of the 'Great and Holy Council' a few years ago in Crete? 'Nuff Said!
Holy Tradition, which, of course, has Holy Scripture as one of its ruling structures.
Holy Tradition, the foremost manifestation of which, day by day, is in the Liturgy.
Holy Tradition is our truest Mistress.
Holy Tradition is the ultimate and over-ruling auctoritas in the life of the Household of God.
No auctoritas can subsist in enactments which manifestly subvert Holy Tradition.
He has committed a hugely 'bold' act of uncharity, not to mention injustice. I am reminded time and time again that this is aimed, vindictively, at those groups in the Roman church which are growing pastorally, spiritually and numerically. I cannot see how this will 'unite' the church in the revised Roman rites post 1962.Shameful...
I would be interested, Father, in your opinion as to whether or not todays utterance is likely to have any effect on the Ordinariate rite(s)? Or do they escape abrogation automatically as being post 1962 and therefore not divisive?
Quis custodiet traditionis custodes?
As a knowledgable outsider, It's the cruelty of the thing which strikes me most.
Nikon and the Old Believers redivivus.
So what would be an appropriate response to this morning's papal Motu Proprio?
The words 'kick in the teeth' spring to mind. I suppose that is the result of purging and selecting the episcopacy over the past decade, and then, once the majority are known to be safely neutralized, asking the yes-men 'their opinion'
One wonders what the effect will be on FSSP, who have taken over and renewed many languishing parish churches.
Such a dubiously lawful 'edict' will inevitably create a sizeable underground church, and/or vastly increase the congregations of SSPX.
Makes perfect sense Father. But I don't see the practical consequences.
The difference here between the disaster of Crete and disastrous decisions made by Rome is that in the former case, the pleroma of the Orthodox Church-- including the laity-- can (and has, for the most part) laughed off Crete as a robber council precisely in its capacity as the traditionis custodes. Catholics don't have that option vis-a-vis the glorified HR department that is the Vatican.
Fr. H, am I correct in assuming that, according to Roman Catholic teaching, a Pope has every right and proper claim to suppress any liturgical element, as happened today? If the answer is yes, how can one reject the substance of the suppression but not the claim and authority behind it? Seems to be the conundrum of the age for traddies. Latin-rite Catholics comfortable with the Novus Ordo (be they familiar or desirous of the EO or not) would in all likelihood not be perturbed (if all you've ever known is thin gruel, you may not even know the fatted calf if it was in front of you), but traddies are faced yet again (I can only imagine the pain an Arch. Lefebrve must have endured) with the cruel dilemma of having their pontifex maximus be not the defender against, but the aggressor of innovation and destruction.
Thank you, Father. My Twitter page is lighting up with news, horror and sadness.
Dear Father. Bergoglio is acting Ultra Vires in trying to use the 60s Synod as the cat's paw to separate living Catholics from pre-60s Synod Catholics which is another way of saying he is denying the Communion of Saints.
How ironic! In the thread on Auctoritas I commented:
"So an ancient entity such as the Venerable Roman Rite possesses per se great Mana or Auctoritas as well as sacredness. This numinous power is real and means that the TLM has a life of its own, so to speak, and, as Benedict realized, cannot be abrogated by mere human power, not even by Papal authority.
In the movie Lilo and Stitch, young Lilo has a sign on her bedroom door: Kapu. This is the Hawai'ian cognate of Tapu (Sacred/sacredness- taboo is from.a cognate) and in this context means Keep Out, No Trespassing.
Can we affix a similar sign to the Ancient Roman Liturgy? Meaning hands off, this is not a plaything."
But no-one listens to me, not even the Pontiff.
With respect, it would seem that the Holy Father is rushing in where angels fear to tread. This is holy ground.
I have never disliked poor Father Bergoglio less than I do today. Please believe me.
I liked him at first, as I think MERCY is the great gift that resembles CHARITY and my favorite decade of the rosary is, after all, the decade devoted to CHARITY, when Mary, the best of women, with Jesus, the best of men, in her womb, on her way to visit (with who knows how many inconveniences - I, for one, DO NOT LIKE TO TRAVEL -) the mother of the greatest prophet of the Old Covenant ---- and poor Father Bergoglio, although obviously a man beset by the sins of arrogance and resentment, correctly focused on MERCY as something valuable in the first years of the pontificate that has brought the poor old man so much grief. But after a year or two, his praise for abortionists, his foul mouth, his physical abuse of a poor small Chinese woman - after a while I could no longer admire him at all. But what the poor man said today is so obviously delusional ---- as if he were a better man than poor Ratzinger, with a deeper understanding ---- that I forgive it all, because I did not know how little he knew of the world ---- our poor coddled elitist Jesuit from a very beautiful country with a very nasty milieu. Anyway, I pray for the poor man, and I even hope I am wrong to rejoice in the fact that he regards me in a malicious way --- Jesus said it is good not to win the praise of evil and malicious men ---- in a way I hope I am wrong to be glad to have earned the abusive words of our poor foul mouthed pontiff. But, to be fair, it is not likely I am wrong ---- like so many of us, I can easily recognize a great and public sinner. But for now, I am glad, and, if my prayers for his soul are listened to, I will continue to be glad.
@Stephen As a lifelong Catholic, ie, a non-convert, I certainly don't recognise the authority of the pope to suppress liturgical forms outside his own diocese (and in some cases maybe not even there).
@Stephen -- The Pope should regulate and approve the liturgy by way of preserving the customary use of the mass and sacraments as they have been received and approved by tradition and correcting abuses of the same. See the Council of Florence "Decretum pro Graecis" and The Council of Trent Profession of Faith and Session 7 Canon 13. Pius XII cited Canon 1257 of the 1917 code as his authority in Mediator Dei to say that the pope can change "human elements." That is another way of saying that the Pope has the authority to suppress abuses and return the liturgy to the sacred norm. What Bergoglio is doing is not even in the conversation of what a "pope" would do.
This most recent and most cruel of Francis's actions against members of the flock Christ enjoined Peter and his successors to feed---Catholics who, their faults notwithstanding, have not done anything personal or institutional against him---confirms (as if that confirmation were needed) the actions of the faithful Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre regarding co-habitation with Modernists: it is inevitably a losing and spiritually dangerous proposition, for they have a different religion from that of Catholics and bear true Catholics naked, undisguised malice. This action by Francis is a scandalous aggression against part of his flock and sheer malevolence---and that from a man who constantly babbles about compassion, charity, and "accompaniment." Pity his troubled soul, for he clearly does not fear or believe in God's judgment.
As Father Z points out, the Pope is a gardener, not a lumberjack. The Liturgy is an heirloom to be cherished, not a plaything to be discarded.
Father, could you provide the source for the quote from Cdl. Ratzinger?
Mediator Dei also made clear '58. It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.' [my emphasis]
It also, infamously, inverted the old principle of lex orandi, lex credendi.
Dear Father, At the High Mass today (18 Jul) at St Mary's, Preston, the Rector pointed out that shrine churches like St Mary's are currently exempt from this latest fad of Pope Francis. The epistle and gospel were read in Latin as usual, and translated by the Rector from the pulpit. Also exempt, I assume, are the two beautiful churches at Preston, staffed by priests of the Institute of Christ Sovereign priest, and their magnificent church at Wallasey. But from today, these wonderful churches will begin to feel like the early followers of Archbishop Lefebvre - a new band of recusants. I have always been content with the Novus Ordo, but this open persecution of fellow-Catholics fills me with both sadness and fear.
TonyV and JohnM - I have been praying for poor Father Bergoglio for a long time. What I meant to say was not an approval of his malicious actions in any way.
Dear Rubricarius. What was the status of the moto proprio of Benedict XVI and if he could, as he did, declare that the Lil' Licit Liturgy was the same rite as The Real Mass than what is supposed to prevent Bergoglio from doing to his motto proprio what Benedict XVI did to the Holy Rite of Pope Paul V?
"Mediator Dei also made clear '58. It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.' [my emphasis]"
It also, infamously, inverted the old principle of lex orandi, lex credendi."
Session 7 Canon XIII on the Sacraments in General:
If anyone shall say that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church customarily
used in the solemn administration of the sacraments may be disparaged, or be omitted at
pleasure by the ministers without sin, or be able to be changed by whomsoever pastor of the churches into other new rites: let him be anathema.
An infallible council decrees one thing and yet Pius XII and subsequent Popes contend otherwise to the point now where Bergoglio claims the Real Mass is divisive. How does he not qualify for an anathema?
Who is the judge in the matter of all of the problems resulting from the centralisation of all liturgical matters?
We know the SSPX does not rely upon the S.P. of Pope Benedict XVI to celebrate the Real Mass - which makes perfect sense. Their worship of the One True God relies upon Quo Primum
When complicated matters that underlie the liturgical chaos sends us Catholics into intellectual spasms of confusion and contention it is crucial that amateurs try and calm the seas of liturgical tumult upon which the opinions of men are tossed to and fro and so ABS has decided that all should follow Quo Primum when it comes to these problems because one is being forced to either choose to stand in the light of Tradition of stand with Bergoglio in the darkness whereas at one time all real Catholics trusted and obeyed Quo Primum and that unanimity is one of the proofs of Real Catholicism according to the great Saint Vincent of Lerins who teaches us to hold fast to Tradtion in the face of novelties.
For those who would appeal to a Council against a pope, Pius II's Execrabilis might be worth a read.
If the SSPX did indeed celebrate the 'Real Mass' and followed Quo primum they would be celebrating the feast of St James tomorrow and not the ninth Sunday after Pentecost.
I think Traditiones Custodes was not only unwise but ill thought out and unnecessary. Where is the evidence to suggest that those who are attached to the traditional Mass have fostered disunity in the Roman Church? If persuasive evidence to support that claim exists I would love to see it. However I am extremely sceptical to say the least. Attempts to suppress the Traditional Latin Mass are hardly likely to promote unity within the church. Surely a better way would be to acknowledge that both the old and the new Masses are authentic expressions of the Roman rite. It's not as though varieties of use aren't already authorised by Rome. Think of the Oriental rites, the Uniate and Ordinariate rites, as well as the historic ones distinctive to some religious communities. Thankfully the evidence to date suggests that most of the world's Catholic bishops are quietly ignoring the latest edict and letting matters continue much as they did before.
Post a Comment