Tue 21st Oct 2014 | Last updated: Tue 21st Oct 2014 at 14:48pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Latest News

Traditionalists urge Pope: Don’t roll back Summorum Pontificum

By on Friday, 18 February 2011

Bishop Edward Slattery celebrates a solemn high Mass in the Extraordinary Form in Washington (Photo: CNS)

Bishop Edward Slattery celebrates a solemn high Mass in the Extraordinary Form in Washington (Photo: CNS)

Traditionalists around the world are appealing to Pope Benedict XVI not to approve a document rumoured to restrict celebrations of the traditional Latin Mass.

Dozens of people have already signed a petition at motuproprioappeal.com calling on the Pope to oppose a forthcoming clarification on the 2007 document Summorum Pontificum.

The site says it has noted signs that the long-awaited instruction will “take away what you have legally established in th[e] Motu Proprio”.

It adds: “Any restrictive measures would cause scandal, disunity and suffering in the Church and would frustrate the reconciliation you so earnestly desire.”

The petition follows reports on the Rorate Caeli blog that “strange, violent, and dark forces wish to derail the application of Summorum Pontificum”.

According to the blog, reports from different sources suggest “that ill-intentioned people within the highest ranks of the Holy See wish to use the clarification document on Summorum Pontificum as a Trojan Horse, emptying the Motu Proprio of all its content, especially regarding parish priests and other members of the diocesan clergy… This is a dangerous, clear, and credible threat. We must pray, indeed, but all priests and lay faithful must act.”

Pope Benedict’s 2007 Motu Proprio allowed priests to celebrate the traditional Mass without the permission of the bishop. It made clear that parishes could celebrate according to the pre-conciliar form if they wanted to – and bishops would be expected to make provision for it.

  • Profidebookstore

    I do say so, unless you provide evidence to the contrary, because it is you who claims that what Hildebrand says of the new liturgy is true.

  • Profidebookstore

    The the claim is that “the Tridentine rite” was “codified in perpetuity at Trent and protected forever from alteration by St. Pius V upon the peril of the wrath of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.”
    COMMENT: A pope can only laid down a law binding his subjects, not his successors.

  • Profidebookstore

    I am delighted that you agree with me at last; earlier, in aonther post, I was “not Catholic”.

  • Profidebookstore

    I know it. There is nothing there, referring to any point in the Mass, that is wrong, if celebrated as decribed above. I am not asking what the Cardinals said about accompanying documents, but quote: “anything wrong in the text of the Mass in Latin”. By way of concession, I will admit an accurate English translation as well. But please, deal with the text itself and not what somebody else said about it. I do not claim that the latter is irrelevant, but to start with, let’s find errors in the text itself, because that what the people experience if present. The Mass is not the book, but an event each time when it takes place.

  • Jeannine

    “…they would want is the celebrants back to the people once again!”

    That’s allowed in the Novus Ordo mass as well as praying it in Latin.

  • Profidebookstore

    “1969 illegitimate rite” No one who calls this rite “illegitimate” can claim to be in communion with the popes who call it legitimate.
    Communion is in doctrine, worship and government. The Mass comes under the worship, its legitimacy comes under government. So, those who are not in communion of worship and government are not in commuion with the Pope. And those who are not in communion with the Pope cannot be Catholics.

    But I do hope that our prolific commenter is a bit tired of his missionary work, because he doesn’t take rest even on Sabath; no wonder that sometimes he spells out what he is sorry later.

  • Anonymous

    Yours is a statement from someone who knows nothing about the theology of the holy Mass. It is religious illiteracy at its worst, I’m afraid, typical of the superficial times in which we now live.

  • Profidebookstore

    ” ecumenical “unity in diversity” ” – Can anyone explain what is this mystery all about ? Or find it in conciliar documents.

  • Anonymous

    You’re quite right, but I would add that it was the Protestant Reformers who first turned what they called “the Presider” to face “the assembly.”

    In the Old Testament, the Jewish priests faced God at the altar with their backs to the people. In fact, the sacrifice was considered so sacred that the high priest entered alone into that part of the Temple called the Holy of Holies. In the New Testament, the Catholic priest always had his back to the people facing God at the altar right up to the new Mass of 1969, which adopted the novel idea of the Protestants, the idea being that the priest was not there in the person of Christ the high priest offering Christ the Victim to the Father for the remission of sins, but rather just a “Presider” over the “assembly” sharing a spiritual meal. It was very cleverly done!

  • Anonymous

    You’re not Catholic and I did not agree with you. The comment you responded to was your own, not mine.

  • Anonymous

    You are not sufficiently objective for further debate. Do your own research.

  • Anonymous

    Don’t ever believe that a Pope can just disregard what his predecessors have said or written on so important a matter as the holy Mass. Pope’s may make certain organic changes, but they have no authority to scrap the liturgy of the centuries and adopt a Protestant one in its place. The Pope is still a man prone to error like the rest of us. He is not God!

  • Anonymous

    Frs. Kung, Rhaner, Schillebex and Bea are just four of many. To my knowledge, the first three were on the holy Office watch list of those “suspected of Heresy,” as was, I’m afraid to say, Fr. Joseph Ratzinger.

  • Anonymous

    The same can be said of Pope Paul VI, who never used infallibility to impose the New Mass. Strange that!

  • Anonymous

    There are many examples in history of apostate priests offering black Masses to Satan. Sometimes the words of consecration are used to transubstantiate during the black Mass and other times a consecrated host is secreted from a Catholic Church (via Communion in the hand) for the purpose. Go look the subject up.

  • Anonymous

    Cardinal Suenens who introduced Communion in the hand to Belgium without Papal permission, and every other bishop who introduced it after Paul VI forbid the spread of the practice, restricting it to countries only where it was already established by custom. In other words, almost every bishop in America and Europe, since the custom was never established anywhere until the rebels established it.

  • Anonymous

    Hallucinagenic drugs.

  • Anonymous

    The ancient Canon was scrapped and replaced with Anglican Eucharistic prayers. Nothing like it has happened in two thousand years. Is that sufficient for you? No, probably not.

  • Anonymous

    Troublesome trolls do tend to bring the worst out in us all.

  • Anonymous

    Read what I said in its proper context. By “illegitimate” I meant not following from the Tridentine rite, but entirely new. The New Mass is not the child of the Tridentine Mass, it is built around the Protestant reformed service. That’s what I meant by illegitimate. I did not say it can’t be valid.

    Now I’m beginning to get just a little tired of the multiple email messages that just keep pouring in from you, so give it a rest unless you have something constructive to say. Thank you.

  • Pro Vobis

    How “forward” do you intend to get? Can’t something like the Latin language, one of the languages of the cross, remain sacred?

  • Pro Vobis

    BB, I don’t understand what you’re so happy about. The 2007 SP defined Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms of the Mass. If there is any change to the 2007 SP it will no doubt affect the Ordinary Form as well. Oh wait, it already has, the new translation(s) which has already been announced, that will ultimately lead to schism on the left.

  • RJ

    “There was only one liturgical rite in Western Catholicism before the Council”

    You say there was only one rite. Surely there was the Ambrosian rite, the Sarum rite, Mozarabic rite, Maronite rite, Syro-Malankar and numerous others.

  • RJ

    Not a reply unfortunately.

  • RJ

    So you can make an error.

  • Anonymous

    I did say “Western Catholicism,” not Eastern.

  • Profidebookstore

    Glad to agree, but with amendment: in many places the Blessed Sacrament is elsewhere, and also the priest is not bound to offer facing people. For example the Oratorian communities have never put up a table, but still offer facing the East or “East”, and even where the table has been put up the priest can take the facing- East position.

  • Profidebookstore

    I haven’t ask for what is not in the OF, but what is wrong in the text itself, because the people attend the Mass as it is, they do not attend what is not in it. Nor do I dispute that what you say is relevant, but I did not ask for it, for the time being. Let’s first find what is wrong in the text.

  • RJ

    Yes, I now see that, although the Ambrosian and the Sarum would be western.

  • Profidebookstore

    Where can I find the point when we stopped about DV etc. Incidentally, another example how the doctrine is derived from liturgy, for example, that the Church has no authority to ordain women. The Inter Insignores explains that in this case the liturgical practice of ordination is – normative.

  • Profidebookstore

    Exatly, and should be considered all the time. I was provoked, but the Pope cannot reply to provocations.

  • Profidebookstore

    I suggest that the space which you have been taking in these blogs, and their numbers, exceeds the 50% of the lot.
    Also, that you should consider in its full context everyting that the “conciliar” Church proposes, not what I happened to say and you responded.
    Also, I meant cannonical illegitimacy, not validity which refers to whether a sacrament is actually effected, as different to being a mere sham. But taken in your sense, it is simply not true that the OF is in essential matters entirely new.
    And I am affraid that you do realize the full implication of validity properly so called, i. e. that in every valid Mass it is the Self-Sacrifice of an infinite worth, be it Nestorian, Armenian, Russian or Catholic Mass. And also that the fruits of this Sacrifice in all those who attend it with right disposition, be they heretics through no fault of their own, or fully Catholic is – the same. So, to attack the OF in sweeping way, instead to address each time only a specific point, and explicitly exluding what the Mass (valid) essential is, is an attack on the latter, and therefore the sacrillage.

  • Anonymous

    Yes, the Ambrosian and Sarum rites are Western but not greatly different from the Tridentine. The Novus Ordo, on the other hand, is a definite take on the Protestant Reformation meal service. It bears no similarity to any of the aforementioned rites. Thta’s why its architect, Mgr. Bunini, could confidently announce in 1974 “a great conquest of the Catholic Church.”

  • Profidebookstore

    It is simply not true,that “only in the Tridentine rite of Mass is the theology of the Catholic sacrifice perfectly expressed.” The EP III is perfect, and in my view clearer than the Roman Canon.
    But that apart, in Byzantine and in Arrmenian Liturgies – the two that I am familiar with, in both “schismatic” versions, and in the Catholic version of the former, the theology of Catholic sacrifice is perfectly if not better expressed.

    I suggest that the space which you have been taking in these blogs, and their numbers, exceeds the 50% of the lot.
    Also, that you should consider in its full context everyting that the “conciliar” Church proposes, not what I happened to say and you responded.
    Also, I meant cannonical illegitimacy, not validity which refers to whether a sacrament is actually effected, as different to being a mere sham. But taken in your sense, it is simply not true that the OF is in essential matters entirely new.
    And I am affraid that you do realize the full implication of validity properly so called, i. e. that in every valid Mass it is the Self-Sacrifice of an infinite worth, be it Nestorian, Armenian, Russian or Catholic Mass. And also that the fruits of this Sacrifice in all those who attend it with right disposition, be they heretics through no fault of their own, or fully Catholic is – the same. So, to attack the OF in sweeping way, instead to address each time only a specific point, and explicitly exluding what the Mass (valid) essential is, is an attack on the latter, and therefore the sacrillage.

  • Anonymous

    “…it is simply not true that the OF is in essential matters entirely new.”

    Why, then, did Mgr. Bugnini, its architect, announce it to be “a major conquest of the Catholic Church?”

  • Profidebookstore

    O no, my fried: In any single point that you said or implied I can demolish you, but now I am busy killing Martyo’s proliferating work. Somebody else might take it up.

  • Profidebookstore

    Those who are cornered mistakenly believe that turned toward the corner they see reality, and start with offences against – the corner.

  • Profidebookstore

    Let God judges and his Holy Church who is and who is not Catholic. I never claim that right even regarding myself.
    It isn’s clear to which comment you refer.

  • Profidebookstore

    They cannot disregard, but can take into re-consideration a doctrine that is not proposed infallibly, and are certainly not bound by his predecessor’s discipinary demands, or better: the latter can have demand on his own subjects, but not on those who are under the jurisdiction of a new pope.
    The “the liturgy of the centuries” of course he cannot “scrap” but it is up to him to judge what is essential and non-essential. The Tridentine Mass is still lawful form of Roman Liturgy, and the OF is essentially the same, although, in my view, inferior to the EF.
    Even in civil government which is far from infallible, one is not only legally bound to be obedient, unless the violation of moral norms is involved; but morally too. The difference is that under the civil government, one can be punished if he ventures to violate the law, and once under a particulat government one cannot get out.
    But we are the members of the Church freely, can get out at any time, can violate the low or dissent from doctrine without material penalties. So, the Church can only rely on our free cooperation. If we are submitting to decision of our govenment, regardless of whether we agree or not; otherwise, the country would be ungovernable; much more must we submit to the Church, even if we don’t agree, to make it governable. All the more, because we can opt out, but we can’t easily opt out of our country.
    To disobey the Church is destructive to the whole community, and utterly selfish act.

  • Profidebookstore

    No, RJ, he can’t – we have already demonstrated it.

  • Profidebookstore

    .I have asked for one only because more would be too many for you to prove that they all “had succumb to Modernism”. Fr. Kung has been already dealt with, and deprived of the right to teach. He would have liked to be excommunicated, because that would have given him a chance to argue that the excommniction was “unjust, null and void” – we know this from experience, don’t we?; the media whould have jumped on the pope, and Devil would be delighted.
    So, I want to hear about the “suspected heresy” of Bea. What his Modernism is all about?

  • Profidebookstore

    Let’s not try to escape the trap by watering down the subject. Could we have an answer to the question, please.
    I don’t mind replying to your point, but let’s finish with Ottaviani first, I did not start with him but responded to your claim.

  • Profidebookstore

    For a sacrament to be valid, the minister must have a proper intention of doing what the Church does; which is not the case in the example given.
    So, what they are doing is an empty ritual – noting happens but the great offence to God.
    Communion in the hand has nothing to do with validity. It has to be deplored for other reasons, and rightly so. So, I still need an example of invalid mass, before turning to the lex orandi lex credendi. Or may I take it that there is none?

  • Profidebookstore

    Here you are teaching the converted. I am not sure about Cardinal Suenens and it would be a calumny of me if I accused him without palpable evidence. But that apart, I agree. The popes – all three within the reach of their real power – not theoretical one – have done what they could to stop it. But they can’t more without positive cooperation. It may well be that the bishops themselves have the same problem with their priests, and the priests with their parishioners. The problem is anything but simple, if we have in mind that the Pope entirely depends on positive cooperation of all.
    Let’s give it: he depends on you and me as well. Not as we want individually, but by wanting what he expects from us.
    To return to calumny, even if is from the viewpoint of truth justified, it is not justified in all circumstances, but only in those in which one can reasonably expect some good results, because we are not alowed to ruin our neighbour’s good name merely for the purpose of ruining it.

  • Profidebookstore

    I meant the dope “in your context”, and received no answer.

  • Anonymous

    “To disobey the Church is destructive to the whole community, and utterly selfish act.”

    Your last sentence perfectly sums up the post-conciliar revolution.

    By the way, this OF and EF of the Mass is a complete nonsense. The Latin Church cannot have two competing liturgical rites based on two different theologies. There has always been, and can always only be, one theologically correct liturgy, which is the Ordinary Form (TLM) that was handed down for a thousand years without serious alteration, and which has its origins in Apostolic times.

    The true Extraordinary Form that has been thrust upon the Church is the Novus Ordo, which has its origins in the Protestant Reformation. It was a stroke of genius on the part of someone to attribute the term “Extraordinary Form” to the Mass of all time, and the term “Ordinary Form” to a usurper liturgy.

    As an aside, did you know that the TLM contains prayers in the three languages in which was hung Our Saviour’s “Cause” upon the Cross? The Novus Ordo is just a brute vernacular with no such providential significance. Just another sign that the Novus Ordo has broken links with Sacred Catholic Tradition. Little wonder, then, that Mgr. Bugnini could announce: “a great conquest of the Catholic Church.”

  • Anonymous

    Rather, you have been unable with objective argument to prove anything theologically erroneous in what I have written about the Mass. Loose statements do not count as reasoned debate against established facts. I have shown through Mgr. Bugnini’s own announcements, and by other proofs, that the Novus Ordo is of Protestant origin. You have produced no contrary evidence. Your personal opinions don’t count as evidence. Nor, sadly, does a false and repeated claim to Papal impeccability change the truth.

  • Profideookstore

    Abp. Bugnini (we are supposed to use proper titles not restrict the latter to Bishop Williamson) is not all-powerful. Could we specifically see in the text of the Mass where he actually managed to ruin the essential matters. We are not supposed to take for granted his assessment of what he has done.

  • Anonymous

    I named three, not one, whose names appeared on the Holy Office list of those “suspected of heresy.” If you read my post again you will find that Fr. Bea was not one of those named, although I could have named Fr. Joseph Ratzinger and others. If you want more information on this, then do what I do and research. I’m not your religious education instructor!

  • Anonymous

    What claim was that?

    By the way, I would avoid using the word “trap” if I were you. The Pharisees set traps for Our Lord. Surely you’re not adopting their methods?