12 November 2021

Chaotic "Law"

Just a few examples:

(1) Traditionis custodes lays down (2:3) that the reading at Mass should be "in the vernacular language". But the Vicar of  Rome ... a town where, in the past, Catholics from every country in the world have often gone on pilgrimage ... has laid down that the readings should be in Italian. 

So a priest leading a group of his own folk who do not understand Italian really has got to struggle through two readings in a language he does not himself understand and will not pronounce correctly, for the benefit of a congregation for whom this silly performance will be pure gibberish.

We also have here yet another example of Italophile imperialist arrogance; the mentality which de facto treats Italian, rather than Latin, as the official language of the Catholic Church.

(2) PF laid down that "everything that I have declared in this Apostolic Letter ... I order to be observed in all its parts etc.. But the letter of the Vicar for Rome informs his readers that one of the articles in the Motu proprio is "not being activated" in Rome.

Unlike PF, who wanted every word of his decree to be activated immediately, in Rome itself, apparently, this legislation has to await the say-so of the Cardinal Vicar to be "activated".

(3) The Cardinal Vicar neatly explained that such other books as the old Rituale are now forbidden. But, in his letter to Vincent Nichols, Arthur Roche replied to precisely this question with the words "Traditionis custodes speaks only of the use of the Missale Romanum of 1962 and Eucharistic celebration."

I am sure that canonical experts must have discussed the situation arising when an apparent 'law' is so badly drafted as to be incomprehensible, or impractical, or manifestly contrary to the good of christifideles.


Robin said...

What is surely heartening is the desperation of the Bergoglians to stamp on the Latin Mass. If they were not afraid of its success in gaining new adherents would they be behaving in this (dare I say) unChristian way?

vetusta ecclesia said...

Like the restrictions in St Peter’s we have here another example of the de facto claim that the Italians own the Church

keynciontan said...

TC says one thing, then Roch another, then the Polish bishops are told yet another, all this to be contradicted by the practice of the Diocese of Rome. One hand hits, then another comforts, only to be prepare the ground for another great slap again.

There is a name for the psychological phenomenon where punishment and praise are used in an entirely arbitrary fashion, which I cannot now recall - only that in experiments it resulted in dogs becoming entirely psychopathic and dangerous in their behaviour. Is that the way the Pope of Mercy wishes to condition his church?

Steven said...

I fear that the intent of the Bergoglians is even more troubling. Given that vocations to the priesthood have been increasingly dominated by conservative students (especially during the pontificate of Benedict XVI and especially in France), perhaps the intent of these restrictions is to discourage these vocations. I have long suspected that the vocation crisis of the last 50 years has been largely artificially induced by driving away the more conservative candidates. I personally observed this in the late 1980s. The rise of the FSSP along the SSPX has provided a way for these conservative candidates to find a home. Under Summorum Pontificum these more conservative students probably felt a bit more confident that it was worth putting up with the liberal vocation teams. That situation has clearly changed. How long before we see a complete collapse in vocations, and the liberals calling for female priests as the solution to this "inexplicable" shortage of priests?

PM said...

Meanwhile, the section on the Traditional Mass in the survey of US Catholic opinion by the excellent Pillar Catholic makes interesting reading:


It shows that the Traditional Mass has an appeal far beyond the 3% who worship in it exclusively, that is appeals particularly to younger people with families, and that the significant number who worship mainly in the NO but attend the TLM from time to time suggests that the cross-pollination for which Benedict XVI hoped may indeed have been happening quietly on the ground.

I agree entirely on the absurdity of forcing a liturgy in Italian on the 75% plus of worshipers at St Peter's Basilica who are not Italian. For the rest of the world, it might as well be in Latin for intelligibility, and Latin might be more familiar to many of them despite the Bugninians' attempt's to stamp it out.

Pulex said...

"The Cardinal Vicar neatly explained that such other books as the old Rituale are now forbidden. ... Arthur Roche replied ... "Traditionis custodes speaks only of the use of the Missale Romanum of 1962 and Eucharistic celebration."

Those are not necessarily in contradiction. From the text of the documents it appears that both prelates believe that Pope Francis has abolished the usus antiquior totally, with all its litugical books, and now only the 1962 Missal is allowed under conditions listed in TC as an exceptional (and temporally limited) grace.

PM said...

I should add to my earlier post, the Pillar survey also shows that only 11% of American Catholics surveyed thought the Traditional Mass should be suppressed. In other words, notwithstanding the screeching from 'progressive' liturgists and curial sycophants, the vast majority of Catholics who attend the NO Mass are happy to live and let live with those who prefer the Vetus Ordo. The Gamaliel principle is alive and well.

PM said...

And as for Italians thinking they own the Church, the Pillar reports that the Holy See has finally disposed of the Chelsea property at the heart of the Becciu affair for a loss of a mere 130 million euros.

The Ancient Professor said...

It technically is not correct to say that Italian is the vernacular language. It is the literary/scholarly language; there are meaningful variations all across the country, as is the case all across Europe.

Fr Edward said...

St Peter's at the Vatican is a very conservative place, and so often the last to take up any new decrees from he nearby offices and palaces. It always has been, I think.

Well after the reforms of Holy Week of Pio XII, it was a still doing things in the morning. The afternoon liturgy came even after that. Perhaps the siesta was a hard battle to fight. When the playing of the organ during the Canon of the Mass was forbidden by some kill-joy from behind a desk, many an organist would slip onto the organ still and happily tootle away. I imagine its Chapter like to think that they aren't for being shoved around by their new bishop. More strength to their capitular elbow!

Matt Smyth said...

PF is the pope of the Great Reset. And he wants his own reset within the Church while his friends in Davos are leading the global one. Can't have too many dissenters in the new "religious-public-private" partnership he is trying to create with the planetary "stakeholders", hey?