Ecclesia Dei Commission to meet tomorrow to discuss liberalization of the Latin Mass

[Steve_O_Brien]

If the Pope makes the Tridentine Latin Mass more available, fine. I hope, however, that this wider availability will not fuel the errors of schismatic “traditionalism,” or hinder the authentic, and long overdue, implementation of Vatican II.

I hope, too, that an increased number of Tridentine Masses will occur in tandem with these additional initiatives: (1) encouraging the celebration of the Novus Ordo Mass in Latin, (2) fostering the singing of Latin hymns during vernacular celebrations of the Novus Ordo Mass, (3) promoting the study of Latin in Catholic seminaries, high schools, and universities, and (4) taking firm disciplinary action against those celebrants who refuse to follow the *Novus Ordo *rubrics.

Steps should especially be taken–prudently and lovingly, of course, but also assertively and uncompromisingly–to end the widespread liturgical abuse of changing the wording of the liturgy at one’s own discretion. Every celebrant should read exactly what’s printed in the missal without altering, adding, or dropping a single word.

“My two cents.” Thanks for the soapbox!

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[Rolltide]

If the Pope makes the Tridentine Latin Mass more available, fine. I hope, however, that this wider availability will not fuel the errors of schismatic “traditionalism,” or hinder the authentic, and long overdue, implementation of Vatican II.

I hope, too, that an increased number of Tridentine Masses will occur in tandem with these additional initiatives: (1) encouraging the celebration of the Novus Ordo Mass in Latin, (2) fostering the singing of Latin hymns during vernacular celebrations of the Novus Ordo Mass, (3) promoting the study of Latin in Catholic seminaries, high schools, and universities, and (4) taking firm disciplinary action against those celebrants who refuse to follow the *Novus Ordo *rubrics.

Steps should especially be taken–prudently and lovingly, of course, but also assertively and uncompromisingly–to end the widespread liturgical abuse of changing the wording of the liturgy at one’s own discretion. Every celebrant should read exactly what’s printed in the missal without altering, adding, or dropping a single word.

“My two cents.” Thanks for the soapbox!

Keep and spread the Faith.

Ask and ye shall receive!

From Catholic World News, December 15. cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=48226

Motu proprio “after Christmas,” CNA reports

Dec. 15, 2006 (CNA/CWNews.com) - Sources close to the Vatican have told Catholic News Agency that the motu propio by which Pope Benedict XVI (bio - news) would allow for the universal use of the Missal of St. Pius V may be published after Christmas, while the post-synodal apostolic exhortation on the Eucharist could come in mid-January 2007.

Sources confirmed the recent statements to reporters by Cardinal Jorge Medina Estevez, who told them after participating in a meeting of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, where the text of the motu propio was reviewed, that the document would come soon.

The declaration would allow the Mass of St. Pius V-- often called the Tridentine Mass-- to be celebrated freely, and do away with the current requirement to have the explicit permission of the local bishop. The motu propio does not address the canonical status of the Society of St. Pius X, the schismatic organization founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

The apostolic exhortation on the Eucharist, according to the same sources, has already been finished by Pope Benedict XVI and is being translated into the different languages in which it will be presented. The document, which sources say will be issued after January 15, reaffirms the Church’s commitment to a celibate priesthood, encourages the use of Latin in liturgical celebrations, and even requests that seminarians learn the language as part of their formation. It will also promote the recovery of Gregorian chant and sacred polyphonic music as a replacement to modern music, which would result in a gradual elimination of musical instruments that are “inappropriate” for the solemnity and reverence of the Eucharistic celebration.

 

[30miller]

You have documentation to show this, Miller?
Not that I can readily point to. But I have read it on several occasions. As an example, it pertains to issues like when to kneel or stand in the liturgy. NOT on issues like the current Pro Multis one - the “for all” that the Vatican II apparatchiks foisted on us (the words always did and still do mean “for many”). That issue has it’s roots in dishonesty and deception. Rome’s instructions always said that the Latin was supposed to have been translated literally into the vernacular. In instances of a difficult translation, allowances were made to stay as close to the literal as possible and still make sense to the faithful. “Pro Multis” never fell into this category. JPII started to rein this problem in with Dominus Iesus and Benedict is obviously continuing that work.
It is not something I have seen before, because I had read that a 2/3 majority is required … and not unanimity. Since you don’t know the extent of things on the list that requires a unanimous vote, I’m supposing that in other cases the majority vote is acceptable.
I would advise you not to extrapolate as you do. I think that you think the bishops either on their own or in “majority cabals” in their conferences have much more authority than they actually do. E.g. the majority votes we all observe in watching the Bishops’ Conference votes on EWTN are usually about things such as their recent "guidelines"about homosexuality as a “resource” for themselves as bishops. That statement is essentially some thoughts of theirs about the subject. It is not an exhaustive explication on the topic. Political Correctness obviously came in to play on this one as the “majority” voted not to address very much in a straightforward manner. Be that as it may, it did nothing to change in any way what the Catholic Church teaches us regarding homosexuality.
As you implied, perhaps there were a lot of letters to the Pope asking for his intervention to change it.

Benedict is not just the pope in charge of the liturgy - he is Joseph Ratzinger, one of the world’s foremost authorities on the liturgy. Benedict is not reacting to a letter-writing campaign here.
If I understood Alex correctly, too, if a bishop refuses to honor the pastor’s lawful right to celebrate the TLM, the pastor can now appeal to a higher authority.
We should wait till it comes out, then learn what it says. But if the “leaks” are correct, your understanding is not correct. Any pastor will be able to offer the TLM on his own - not requiring the bishop’s approval at all. I have heard of no provision for the bishop to “refuse to honor the pastor’s lawful right”.

 

[AlexV]

The whole logic behind this document, if it actually appears, would be a correction of the novelty of 1970: the sudden concept that you could take a liturgy of centuries and ban it.

1570 wasn’t like that. It did indeed ban some novelties. But for the flip side, consider that until the 19th century, some dioceses in France were still using Missals other than Pius V’s…and nobody was talking schism for them.

The 1570 Missal protected every liturgy that could prove existence for 200 years or more.

1970 didn’t do that. It sought to ban that which had gone before.

It speaks volumes psychologically about any institution (human or divine!) that suddenly declares that what people did for centuries is now wrong, banned, prohibited, etc.

 

[AJV]

The whole logic behind this document, if it actually appears, would be a correction of the novelty of 1970: the sudden concept that you could take a liturgy of centuries and ban it.

1570 wasn’t like that. It did indeed ban some novelties. But for the flip side, consider that until the 19th century, some dioceses in France were still using Missals other than Pius V’s…and nobody was talking schism for them.

The 1570 Missal protected every liturgy that could prove existence for 200 years or more.

1970 didn’t do that. It sought to ban that which had gone before.

It speaks volumes psychologically about any institution (human or divine!) that suddenly declares that what people did for centuries is now wrong, banned, prohibited, etc.

Wasn’t it that Dom Gueranger promoted the Roman liturgy as opposed to the diocesan ones, in 19th century and that was what ultimately led to the demise of most of the diocesan ones? Wasn’t it also that having a diocesan liturgy instead of the Roman one, was grounds under Bl. Pius IX for suspiscion of schismatic and Jansiestic tendencies, who progrressively ordered that the Roman liturgy be used where it was not?

Besides its not an entirely new idea. The preference has always been there for Roman use-which is why there are Roman interpolations into every existing Western rite that is not derived from it. Take 1064, when processes were initited succesfully for the banning of the Mozarabic liturgy, or 1080 when the Roman liturgy was firmly established in Spain, the insistance of the necessity of the Roman Canon being said and the breviary (or what can be said to consist of the breviary since they did not have the separate books), or 1842 when almost all existing Mozarabic parishes were dissolved in favour of Roman ones. Same with the Ambrosian-the Roman additions in it are a concession by St. Charles Borromeo to prevent the Roman liturgy being established (after 1570).

The difference is that it can at least be said that one ancient use is usurping another, which is a statement that can’t be made for 1970. Still, even so, the Carthusians, for example, retain their variations on the Roman liturgy after 1970 as well as their distinctive propers.

 

[kleary]

MOTU PROPIO AFTER CHRISTMAS, APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION IN JANUARY

Rome, Dec. 15, 2006 (CNA) - Sources close to the Vatican have told Catholic News Agency that the Motu Propio by which Pope Benedict XVI would allow for the universal use of the Missal of St. Pius V may be published after Christmas, while the Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation on the Eucharist could come in mid-January 2007.

Sources confirmed the recent statements to reporters by Cardinal Jorge Medina Estevez, who told them after participating in a meeting of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, where the text of the Motu Propio was reviewed, that the document would come soon.

The declaration would allow the Mass of St. Pius V—often called the Tridentine Mass—to be celebrated freely and do away with the current requirement to have the explicit permission of the local bishop. The Motu Propio does not address the canonical status of the Society of St. Pius X, the schismatic organization founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

The Apostolic Exhortation on the Eucharist, according to the same sources, has already been finished by Pope Benedict XVI and is being translated into the different languages in which it will be presented.

The document, which sources say will be issued after January 15, reaffirms the Church’s commitment to a celibate priesthood, encourages the use of Latin in liturgical celebrations, and even requests that seminarians learn the language as part of their formation.

It will also promote the recovery of Gregorian chant and sacred polyphonic music as a replacement to modern music, which would result in a gradual elimination of musical instruments that are “inappropriate” for the solemnity and reverence of the Eucharistic celebration.

 

[Rykell]

30miller:

Rykell:

It is not something I have seen before, because I had read that a 2/3 majority is required … and not unanimity. Since you don’t know the extent of things on the list that requires a unanimous vote, I’m supposing that in other cases the majority vote is acceptable.

I would advise you not to extrapolate as you do. I think that you think the bishops either on their own or in “majority cabals” in their conferences have much more authority than they actually do.

I don’t believe I am extrapolating. Being a little unsure of the whole idea about a motu proprio, I did a search at EWTN and found this “motu proprio” which states exactly what I thought regarding the authority of the bishops, and also the 2/3 vote.

X.

In addition to the residential bishops, all who are mentioned in Canon 292 of the Code of Canon Law may participate in these national conferences, with the right to vote.
In addition, coadjutor and auxiliary bishops may also be called to these conferences.
In these conferences, legitimate approval of decrees requires two-thirds majority, with the voting secret.

XI.
Finally, we wish to emphasize that—beyond what we in this apostolic letter on liturgical matters have either changed or have ordered carried out at the established time—regulation of the liturgy comes solely within the authority of the Church: that is, of this Apostolic See and, in accordance with the law, of the bishop.

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P6SACLIT.HTM

Maybe there is a different situation beyond the national conferences that does need a unanimous vote, but even in the Ecumenical Conference of V-II, a unanimous vote was not required. If anyone is able to help our understanding of these voting differences, I would appreciate your feedback. Perhaps I should pose this in Ask an Apologist, otherwise.

To my original question then concerning m.p.'s, if the bishop is considered in article XI to have regulation of the liturgy with sole authority in unison with the pope, why are their decisions set aside when made in collective agreement? I’m not arguing for the sake of argument, but I really want to learn the truth. I always felt I would accept all decisions, be what they may, from a decree of the pope, but these two m.p.‘s seem difficult to understand, specifically because of the bishops’ (name removed by moderator)ut, whom I am asked by the Church to also obey and respect.

Maybe that’s my problem? Faith doesn’t question, but my faith is seeking understanding, if that is available.

 

[tee_eff_em]

From Catholic World News, December 15. cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=48226

Motu proprio “after Christmas,” CNA reports

Dec. 15, 2006 (CNA/CWNews.com)
…]
The apostolic exhortation on the Eucharist, according to the same sources, has already been finished by Pope Benedict XVI and is being translated into the different languages in which it will be presented. The document, which sources say will be issued after January 15, reaffirms the Church’s commitment to a celibate priesthood, encourages the use of Latin in liturgical celebrations, and even requests that seminarians learn the language as part of their formation. It will also promote the recovery of Gregorian chant and sacred polyphonic music as a replacement to modern music, which would result in a gradual elimination of musical instruments that are “inappropriate” for the solemnity and reverence of the Eucharistic celebration.

Any idea what is meant by the underlined bit? Is Canon 249 not request enough?


tee

 

[AlexV]

Rykell, the problem here is you’re ignoring a simple (and important) detail.

The pope is the SUPREME arbiter of liturgy. Period.

It doesn’t matter if 2/3 of bishops in a country vote one way. It doesn’t matter if they all vote one way. If the pope says it will be the other way, that’s his prerogrative.

Not that his power is unchecked, of course, since he must be faithful to the Deposit of Truth and Sacred Tradition, etc., etc., and not that he’s always infallible.

But would the Church really teach that if 2/3 of bishops agree, suddenly the Holy Spirit has blessed them and they must be correct, but if only 1/3, no, etc., etc.? Of course not. That’s nonsensical.

Bottom line: the pope can overturn any decision of any number of other bishops.

 

[Rykell]

Alex:

It doesn’t matter if 2/3 of bishops in a country vote one way. It doesn’t matter if they all vote one way. If the pope says it will be the other way, that’s his prerogrative.

All the more troubling, if it would happen that they all agreed one way. I have heard of many persons on pastoral councils deliberate in a team with the pastor on serious matters, come to consensus, and then be overruled by the pastor. How many remain on the council, I ask myself, when these people labor prayerfully over an issue for the common good of a parish, and find it set aside. Some resign.

We still suffer the tragedy of Roe v. Wade due to a simple handful of people ruling against the majority. I pray you are right Alex, that the pope does not overrule simply due to his personal preference, and that he considers it to be for the common good. I have never read in any motu proprio rendered in the past that it was in opposition to the decision of the bishops. If anyone can point me to where this has occurred in previous m.p.'s, it would really be welcome to read.

Again, it matters very little to me that the content is altered. I can accept the two m.p.'s in faith. I will continue to pray, however, that this will not cause disunity with the bishops and their clergy. That’s all I can do, besides trust.

 

[AJV]

All the more troubling, if it would happen that they all agreed one way. I have heard of many persons on pastoral councils deliberate in a team with the pastor on serious matters, come to consensus, and then be overruled by the pastor. How many remain on the council, I ask myself, when these people labor prayerfully over an issue for the common good of a parish, and find it set aside. Some resign.

We still suffer the tragedy of Roe v. Wade due to a simple handful of people ruling against the majority. I pray you are right Alex, that the pope does not overrule simply due to his personal preference, and that he considers it to be for the common good. I have never read in any motu proprio rendered in the past that it was in opposition to the decision of the bishops. If anyone can point me to where this has occurred in previous m.p.'s, it would really be welcome to read.

Again, it matters very little to me that the content is altered. I can accept the two m.p.'s in faith. I will continue to pray, however, that this will not cause disunity with the bishops and their clergy. That’s all I can do, besides trust.

Well, ultimately it is the pastor who is the head of the parish, and he is the spiritual leader, not the pastoral council, and responsible for their welfare. Perhaps, though, if he did have his mind set on one course of action he should not consult them. But according to Canon law it is his descision that counts. I don’t think he is even obliged to have a pastoral council.
Even, and I hope I’m not be obnoxious and presumptous, sometimes prayerful decisions of the council could be wrong.

I believe though that it is the USCCB result that you were referring to? How did the other English-speaking bishops of the world decide?

 

[Rykell]

Hi AJV,
Honestly, I do understand the position of the pastor, for he has training that the lay person cannot know, meaning in matters of doctrine or liturgy. What I meant was other decisions that are neutral with respect to parish life and do not infringe upon areas of theology.

But with the Bishops, it is somewhat different with their relationship, for they are shepherds who have been appointed by the Pope, assumably due to being more eminently capable of guiding the faithful than their fellow clergy. Their appointment is never given lightly, and this is probably what disturbs me about a Pope not considering their deliberations — not just in this case, but potentially others that may arise. It is their deep knowledge of liturgy, canon law, theology and any other kind of --ology that I may not be naming. I trust too, that they are spiritual and love the Church and those entrusted to their care. Who knows more about their own flock than the Bishop? More so, I would think, than does the Pope.

If it was not for arbitrariness, but for valid reasons that they did not permit widespread celebrations of the TLM, I think their wisdom should have had a voice and been made known to the Holy Father … and maybe it WAS. Who knows. I don’t hide in the sand that some of them were adamant in this regard of withholding TLM permissions, but I doubt they are the majority.

Being a little one with no universal experience, I can only know that there is no support from the faithful in my particular area to require our Bishop to grant this. That says much. Hopefully, some clergy who dislike the N.O. will not impose this on their parishioners without their having requested the TLM, all in the name of freedom to do so through the m.p. What leg would the Bishops now have to intervene in this situation? Their voice has been silenced.

I believe though that it is the USCCB result that you were referring to? How did the other English-speaking bishops of the world decide?

Yes. I really don’t know how to explore other countries, and was not aware that they speak English, other than maybe Australia? My understanding from some of the documents was that each country was to present from the Bishops a request for recognito for their translation into the vernacular, whatever it be. It would be interesting to know whether these are having the same problems as we are here in the US. The recognito was approved initially … whether or not it was right or wrong.

Due to the upheaval from those protesting the usage of “pro multis,” deliberations were again made by the Bishops in session, and it was determined that there was a validity in keeping the “for all” wording. They voted to keep it, and sent again for another *recognito *in November 2005. So if ICEL could be blamed for the initial error, the second time the Bishops agreed with it for reasons beyond the scope of this thread. It doesn’t matter to me what or why they decided, only that they were in majority agreement. I respect their integrity and conscientiousness, that they did not just intend to destroy the Church as some will assert.

 

[30miller]

All the more troubling, if it would happen that they all agreed one way. I have heard of many persons on pastoral councils deliberate in a team with the pastor on serious matters, come to consensus, and then be overruled by the pastor. How many remain on the council, I ask myself, when these people labor prayerfully over an issue for the common good of a parish, and find it set aside. Some resign.

We still suffer the tragedy of Roe v. Wade due to a simple handful of people ruling against the majority. I pray you are right Alex, that the pope does not overrule simply due to his personal preference, and that he considers it to be for the common good. I have never read in any motu proprio rendered in the past that it was in opposition to the decision of the bishops. If anyone can point me to where this has occurred in previous m.p.'s, it would really be welcome to read.

Again, it matters very little to me that the content is altered. I can accept the two m.p.'s in faith. I will continue to pray, however, that this will not cause disunity with the bishops and their clergy. That’s all I can do, besides trust.

To my observation, you are falling into the trap our “Amchurch” has carefully laid over the past 40 years. That being that the Catholic Church (they say) is or should be a horizontal organizational structure as opposed to the vertical heirarchical organizational structure it has indeed been from it’s inception. I.e. - that my "prayerful"opinion or my “prayerful choir ministry”‘s opinion, for example, has some equivalence to my pastor’s “prayerful opinion” or my bishop’s “prayerful opinion” or the pope’s “prayerful opinion”. That is simply not true. That is not the Catholic Church. Never was nor will be. That is, though, exactly what the protestant churches are - witness their recent majority votes legitimizing the sins of Sodom. No motu proprios there to correct their “majority”.
Actually, throuhout the entire history of the Church - the problem of popes’ NOT doing their duty to overrule errant subordinates has allowed almost all of the major setbacks of the Church to occur. E.g. the conduct of the pre-protestant reformation popes. Beyond not keeping their faithful on the right track - they not only allowed but participated in much of that decadence. (note - I am not referring to ALL of these popes. But there were more than enough to allow the reformation to occur - read Belloc).
So, I am extremely thankful that we now have a pope who is taking up his duty to “overrule” “majority opposite opinions” when he himself has “prayerfully” come to that conclusion.

 

[AlexV]

The trap Rykell has fallen into is mistaking listening for obeying.

The pope has listened. Listening and consulting and collaborating does not mean accepting or obeying what the American bishops want.

As for liturgy knowledge, keep in mind that the average American bishop knows pretty little about liturgy. He might not even know Latin, let alone Greek.

 

[Rykell]

Respectfully speaking, 30miller, I’m not attempting to fall into any trap, which is the very reason I’m asking questions. Hopefully, someone will take me seriously rather than offer derision. I’ll assume for the moment that you did not read my last post, since you were probably composing at the same time as me. You may note that I do not put laity on the same scale as a priest in any way. But I do understand from the document I quoted a few posts ago, that the Bishops are lawful guardians of liturgy and expected by the faithful to know a thing or two.

As I requested, can you or anyone point to a m.p. in history where a Pope opposed the decisions of an entire council of Bishops? I have not seen it, and since this may be the first incidence of it, my questions are valid, I believe.

 

[AJV]

Their appointment is never given lightly, and this is probably what disturbs me about a Pope not considering their deliberations — not just in this case, but potentially others that may arise. It is their deep knowledge of liturgy, canon law, theology and any other kind of --ology that I may be overlooking. I trust too, that they are spiritual and love the Church and those entrusted to their care. Who knows more about their own flock than the Bishop? More so, I would think, than does the Pope.

I don’t think the wishes of the bishops always are the wishes of their flocks (not that they are required to be or should), and sometimes, may even a teeny-weeny bit may be what THEY feel is best but not necessarily is so. Though far be it from me to insinuate what kind of consideration was given to the decision of the bishops. But majority vote is not always the best-and as AlexV very well put it, who is to say that the other 1/3 bishops did not listen to the Spirit and only the 2/3 did?

In a central matter like the Words of Consecration no adaptation can be given.

I think the Pope does indeed take into account the authority of the local bishop and as well the needs of the faithful.

 

[AlexV]

We have answered your question, Rykell.

The pope is the supreme arbiter of the liturgy. He can overrule the decision even of every other bishop in the world united against him.

 

[30miller]

Respectfully speaking, 30miller, I’m not attempting to fall into any trap, which is the very reason I’m asking questions.
Respectfully speaking, Rykell, I know of no one who “attempts to fall into any trap”. I only know those who attempt to AVOID traps.
Hopefully, someone will take me seriously rather than offer derision.
No derision whatsoever was intended. EDIT
I’ll assume for the moment that you did not read my last post, since you were probably composing at the same time as me. You may note that I do not put laity on the same scale as a priest in any way.
“I have heard of many persons on pastoral councils deliberate in a team with the pastor on serious matters, come to consensus, and then be overruled by the pastor”. These are your words, Rykell. These are the words I was responding to. You certainly did throw this issue into the mix.
I can only know that there is no support from the faithful in my particular area to require our Bishop to grant this. That says much.
Maybe it does “say much” - but then again, you made it up yourself, so I guess you should think that.
How can you possibly know that there is “NO” support in your “particular area”? Was your diocese polled on the issue? I have followed my diocese closely and I would have no clue what support there is for the TLM.
Hopefully, some clergy who dislike the N.O. will not impose this on their parishioners without their having requested the TLM, all in the name of freedom

I see you were born in '75. Well for those of us born somewhat earlier, your statement describes EXACTLY how we got the N.O. to begin with from the “spirit of Vatican II”. It was “imposed” and I actually did not know anyone who “requested” that imposition - in the name of freedom or any other name.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Actually, I’m not sure how it would work. Would your priest KNOW how to offer it? Maybe seperate parishes would be best, along the lines of ethnic parishes or parishes of different rites along side the Latin rite Pauline parishes.

One note I must make. There is no such thing as “parishes of different rites”. They are actually parishes of different Churches.

The Byzantine Ruthenian Catholic Church is a Church in its own right and has its own hierarchy separate from the Latin Catholic Church. Just as the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, the Melkite Greek Catholic Church, and the Maronite Catholic Church, just to name a few others.

But I could see this done as you say, like the old ethnic parishes were set up.

 

[palmas85]

Rykell, the problem here is you’re ignoring a simple (and important) detail.

The pope is the SUPREME arbiter of liturgy. Period.

It doesn’t matter if 2/3 of bishops in a country vote one way. It doesn’t matter if they all vote one way. If the pope says it will be the other way, that’s his prerogrative.

Not that his power is unchecked, of course, since he must be faithful to the Deposit of Truth and Sacred Tradition, etc., etc., and not that he’s always infallible.

But would the Church really teach that if 2/3 of bishops agree, suddenly the Holy Spirit has blessed them and they must be correct, but if only 1/3, no, etc., etc.? Of course not. That’s nonsensical.

Bottom line: the pope can overturn any decision of any number of other bishops.

Yes he can. Paul VI proved it with Humanae Vitae. Look what happened as a result. Open rebellion by the Bishops, by the Clergy by the Religious and by the Laity to a great part. And what happens today? Catholics procure abortions and Catholic Doctors perform them. Catholic couples practice birth control and actively use contraceptives, openly. Heck Jesuit and Salesian Missionaries hand out condoms.

Yes the Holy Father can overrule the Bishops and he does so at his own peril as well. They might listen and just might not. And if they don’t, what is the Holy Father going to do? Excommunicate the lot of them? I doubt it.

It is a sad sad situation.