9 February 2022

A Game you can all play!! The Roche Conundrum

 Facts: (A) In Summorum Pontificum, (7 July 2007), Benedict XVI, Pope (unless you are a sedevacantist: see below), wrote that the edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by S John XXIII was "numquam abrogatam" [never abrogated].

(B)  On 4 August 2021, Archbishop Arthur Roche wrote, in English, about the Old Rite: "which, in fact, was abrogated by Pope Saint Paul VI." [In fairness, I should make clear that this letter was "an initial response" giving "our present understanding". It does, however, carry a Protocol Number.]

Your simple man on an uncomplicated Clapham omnibus might, in his simple South London way, see these two statements as contradictory. 

Many simple yet wholesome men from Clapham have never had the benefit of a Jesuit formation!!! (We Essex Men certainly haven't.)

The Game I am inviting readers to enjoy is to make suggestions about the import of Arthur's statement (B) supra. 

To get you going, I venture to throw out some feeble suggestions of my own.

(1) Arthur has never read Summorum Pontificum.

(2) Arthur did read it; and he strongly disagreed with Pope Benedict. But, during that pontificate, he concealed his secret dissent, fearing, as we all did, the Terrible Wrath of the Great Inquisitor.

(3) Arthur did accept the canonical judgement embodied in the Decree of Pope Benedict, but has since changed his mind; he now sets himself above all the decrees of mere popes. "I'm as good a pope as anybody! I'm from Yorkshire!"

(4) Arthur did at the time accept the judgement of Pope Benedict; but his Large Mentor has since taken him aside and said "Now look 'ere, Harfur me old cock, we're going to 'ave to change the records and put it about that the Old Rite really was habrogated by Paul VI. Let's 'ave no Rigid rubbish about telling the Truth! You'd better jump promptly into line or I may 'ave to 'urrrrt you. If you really want to 'ave that dicastery and be a Cardinal ... 'nuff said ..."

(5) Arthur is an Orwellian 1984-style Winston Smith in Minitruth who conscientiously "corrects" History every time Ingsoc, Big Brother, and the Party require him to do so. That is why History is always so totally right!

(6) Arthur is a secret sedevacantist determined to undermine the post-Conciliar popes by subtle subversion and ingenious mendacity.

(7) Arthur's mind is starting to fail and he can't always quite remember ... er ... um ... things ... um ...

Over to you!


william arthurs said...

The missing word is "constructive".

Liturgical example: The BCP remains permanently authorised for use in the C of E, but it has been constructively deprecated ---- in practice even hard-core BCP parishes will be using the modern language services fairly frequently for baptism, confirmation, and so on.

Legal example: I was not fired from my job, indeed my boss tried to stop me walking out of the door after I finally took umbrage at his barrage of dismissive/ offensive personal remarks about me, but the employment tribunal subsequently held that I had been "constructively dismissed".

You may have a tribunal to reach such a decision, or you may point to the opinions of the world at large, or ...

Hannes said...

Or perhaps Roche believes that "nunquam abrogatum" is not the most obvious interpretation of the Apostolic constitution "Missale Romanum". In this case your text - if you insert everywhere "Benedict XVI" instead of "Roche" - might reflect his very own thoughts.

Maybe it was not the most prudent strategy to base the reintroduction of the Old Rite on a mere (doubtful) reinterpretation of the legal status quo, as this strategy may lead other people to reinterpret your reinterpretation, and this is what is happening now.

frjustin said...

Cardinal Raymond Burke, prefect emeritus of the Apostolic Signatura, the Church’s highest court, said that the Responsa ad Dubia are binding “only inasmuch as they are coherent with the doctrine and discipline of the Church, according to the fundamental principle of the regula iuris [rule of law], which, when it is not respected, makes the law an arbitrary tool in the hands of individuals advancing a particular ideology or agenda.”

In this context, he believes [Arthur's] Responsa ad Dubia are “confused” and “contradictory” when read in conjunction with the motu proprio itself, and as such, “what the congregation pretends is not only contrary to the good order of the Church but contrary to reason.”

In other words, the Cardinal agrees with "the simple man on an uncomplicated Clapham omnibus".


Jonathan said...

(94) Arthur consulted dictionary.com and found two slightly different meanings for 'abrogate'.

His Holiness used the first meaning - the old rite was never 'abolished by formal means'.

His Excellency uses the second meaning - Paul VI did in fact 'put aside' the old rite.

Steve Cavanaugh said...

I wonder if our writer could have been sidestepping the entire question, by his use of "in fact", so as to mean, was de facto abrogated (even if it wasn't quite abrogated de jure).

coradcorloquitur said...

I vote for #2, 4, and 5. When one considers that logic, facts, history, consistency, the law of non-contradiction, decency, reason itself and respect for those who came before us all mean less than a hill of beans to the typical liberal (or the self-serving bureaucrat, these two often being overlapping categories), then the riddle is easily solved. We are in the hands of shameless men who don't care about what makes life civilized and livable. But, oh, we had to have aggiornamento so the world would love us! Miserere nobis.

E sapelion said...

The Instruction Inter oecumenici revising the rubrics of the Missal of 1962, was published in AAS 56(1964)877-900. And the decree Nuper edita Instructione promulgating those rubrics in an editio typica appears in AAS 57(1965)408-409, and also ordering the printing of those rubrics in any new printings of the Missal. Both of these contain the usual expressions of Papal authority replacing an edition of the Roman Missal, so it appears to me (resident of Kennington rarely venturing into the far-flung suburbs like Clapham) that the edition of 1965 abrogated that of 1962, just as 1962 had abrogated 1960.
On the other hand it seems reasonable to say that because of the "Heenan/(Agatha Christie) indult" being dated before the implementation of the 1969 Missal (1973 in England&Wales), the "Missal antecedent to the 1969 Missal" was not abrogated, but as the indult says that was "the 1965 Missal with the further rubric changes published in 1967".
One might even say that the abrogation of the 1962 Missal had been withdrawn by JPII, but not that it had never occurred. I found it surprising that Papa Ratzinger allowed this confusion to arise.

Prayerful said...

+Arthur Roche was noted for his ungenerosity as bishop of Leeds with Summorum Pontificum, well then it was supposedly the right of the priest to offer TLM, but he was one of many who patently saw it as a gift they deigned not to give. He wasn't a loss to the world of tradition. What he's doing probably matches with his core views, I think.

John Vasc said...

The 1984 reference comes closest as an explanation.
'Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia. Although no directive was ever issued, it was known that the chiefs of the Department intended that within one week no reference to the war with Eurasia, or the alliance with Eastasia, should remain in existence anywhere.'

Last week i read the letter sent by Bugnini (then Secretary of the CDW) in the name of Pope Paul VI, allowing the 'Agatha Christi Indulgence'. But Cardinal Roche has recently claimed the CDW contains no evidence the Indulgence was ever permitted. So next time I search for the letter I fully expect to be unable to find it.

londonfrater said...

Arthur, (a) basing his understanding of time on the Augustinian implication [Cofessions, Sheed and Ward, London 1947] that past, present, and future are all one and simultanaeous in the mind of God, convinced Himself that, being tantamount to the Divine Nature (as head of a major dicastry under the greatest pontiff since sliced bread), his own recent assurance of the abrogation of the missal of Pius V could simultanaeously pre-date that of the aged, infirm, deposed, imprisoned, humiliated, not-as-clever-as-he-thought-he-was-erstwhile-papst-der-Benedikt-XVI-von-RATZINGER-MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!

Or, (b) Arthur is thick as a brick.

PM said...

Either (2) or (4). I should think. There is video footage, now available on Youtube, of Roche in 2005 defending the Traditional Mass - presumably because he then thought it would help his career prospects.

(6) is also a possibility.

Anonymous said...

do you think +Roche gives a toss??

Arthur H. said...

And lest my comment be misinterpreted, I attend the "Novus Ordo" Mass, and I think it valid and licit. I'm also the local altarboy for the Latin Mass... And yes, I get into fistfights, in a manner of speaking.

JohnSnow said...