My critique on Traditiones Custodes

Status
Not open for further replies.
F

Francisco_Fernando

Member
Foreword: I was scrupulous this morning but then I found Cardinal Muller is criticizing it.

I’m not an anti-Vatican II Catholic. I want to ask the supporters of Traditiones Custodes, why are you opposed to Free Speech? People’s businesses have been targeted due to free speech. People do not need to be deplatformed from the internet and do not need to be targeted with unnecessary laws as in the case for Michigan. We don’t disrupt the Amish. Just let them live their lives.
 
Is TC technically a free speech issue? I wouldn’t call it that. The Church has had to denounce heretical ideologies that arise for the last 2000 years. Of course many traditionalists will deny the TLM is fomenting heretical ideologies but to name a few as per Fr Rippergers observations…

1.) Becoming Gnostic & Elitist

The first has to do with the fact that the traditionalist movement is slowly becoming a Gnostic movement by among some, and by Gnostic we mean that they think that only they have this secret knowledge that nobody else seems to have or get and somehow there’s something special about them because they get it and these other people don’t. How do we know it’s becoming Gnostic? They’re constantly looking down and bad-mouthing everybody who goes to the New Mass, and things of that sort. Somehow or another they’re special. But there’s a darker side to this Gnostic aspect. Aside from the fact that it’s rooted in pride and it’s rude and it’s haughty and it’s presumptuous, because they presume that it’s on their side and not on the grace of God that they can do these things, but there’s a dark side.

4.) Isolationist Attitude

Then there’s also another Gnostic side to the traditional movement, and that is this isolationist attitude in relationship to the world. Now the world can have a variety of different meanings. You don’t leave the world because it’s bad. You don’t try and avoid aspects of the world because it’s bad. You try to avoid aspects of the world principally because it’s good. But Gnostics always view everything in the world as bad and this is how traditionalists are becoming. This has never been part of the tradition, that is, this isolationist mentality with “circle the wagons, everyone’s got to hide and just keep away from I can’t let my kids talk to anybody whatsoever until they’re 25 maybe 30 years of age if then.” This has never been part of the Catholic religion to be an isolation shunning people and that kind of thing. Why? Because how are you going to evangelize people? How are you honestly going to attract people to Mass? You’re not going to attract people. Why? Because there’s a natural human psychology. People aren’t going to go to some place where they know people are looking down on them. This isolationist attitude, this isolation, occurred only in certain kinds of monasteries. This was to devote themselves full-time to God. Catholic families are not in that position. They’re supposed to be in the world, not of it. Traditionalists don’t want anything to do with the world whatsoever. That’s not their role. Their role is to transform the world by being good and holy people in the world. That’s their function. Yes, the world is bad.

Many traditionalists deny their children legitimate things because of the fact that it’s an exaggeration, it’s an excess. So what happens? Well you’re ending up with the same kind of phenomenon that you’re seeing among Amish. The kids end up just bolting from the traditional movement because they just can’t stand the fact that things that are perfectly okay are being denied from them entirely. So we’re having attrition rates among them.

Plus there are other problems that the traditional movement has. And don’t get me wrong, I’m a big fan of the traditional movement. I wouldn’t be standing here before you if it wasn’t a case. I’m just saying these are problems that are affecting the recouping of the tradition on the side of people outside of the tradition. Why? If you’re not holy, we’re not meriting the grace for the people outside the traditional movement to see the value of the tradition. So what’s the moral of the story? We’re dragging the rest of the church down. That’s what it boils down to here. You’re either part of the problem or you’re part of the solution. There’s no mean. It’s called the principle of the excluded middle. So either you’re going to be working holy and by the merits of your works are going to be helping the rest of the church, or you’re going to be dragging everyone else down. It’s part of the mystical body of Christ. It’s a unified body.

7.) Disrespect of Authority and the Magisterium

This negative attitude towards the Magisterium is one of the reasons why the Magisterium has been so slow to give us anything, because people have had such a negative attitude. They’re just like, well we have to be careful with what we’re giving these people, because they’re going to end up biting the hand that feeds them. Then they allow their filial devotion to the office of the papacy to wane; that is not making the proper distinctions between the man and the office. It doesn’t matter what the man does. The fact of the matter is we must be faithful and loyal to the office. Very often you see trads disrespecting authority and then trads wonder why—traditionalist parents will badmouth the Pope with their badmouth some priests or something and then they wonder why the children have no respect for their parents. Excuse me, but grace flows downhill. If you want your children to have the grace to be obedient and respectful of you, you have to be obedient and respectful of those above you.

Giving in to the vice of curiosity by reading literature which affects our faith or affect us psychologically or spiritually is another problem you see among trads. And this is something that’s clearly demonic because of the fact that it drives people to spend large amounts of time reading every last stitch of literature on how bad everything is. We have an obligation to protect our faith and sometimes that even means avoiding people who tell us the truth for which we are unprepared psychologically, spiritually, or intellectually. If reading this stuff drags you down, you’ve got to get away from it and stop reading it. We ought to be aware of the problems in the church, but you don’t need to read too much for that. It seems like there’s a new book every week almost; or there’s some new article on how bad everything is. People say “father have you read this? father have you read that?” I’m just like, “I’ve seen it all. I don’t need to read it to know it.”

And I’ll ask these people, when was the last time you read a book on the saints? And they say “Well I find that literature boring or difficult.” When was the last time you did any spiritual reading? “Well, you know, insta-bed. By the way have you read this blast book come out? Oh yeah I’ve read that three times already! I love that book!” Well what’s that mean about your spiritual life?

8.) Loose, Reckless Argumentation

Engaging in argumentation when they are intellectually unprepared out of a desire to defend what they think is true. This is a serious problem. I’ve read so much literature by a traditionalist that has theological error in it because they raced in where they were unprepared to defend. In fact, if you really want to follow the tradition, the tradition was until recently that laypeople were forbidden to engage in public debate regarding theological and philosophical matters unless they had permission from a local bishop. But today, now granted, part of the reason that they got involved in it is because of the fact that many of the members of the Magisterium were failing in their jobs. But that doesn’t mean that all of a sudden that you race in when you’re unprepared. We should rather ask some of the proper background to defend the truth if necessary.
 
It harks back nearly 60 years when the issue first surfaced…

We should recall, however, that Francis is in many ways returning to the policy and rhetoric of Paul VI (pope from 1963–1978), who reigned during the final three sessions of the Council, and oversaw the first long phase of conciliar implementation. When the philosopher Jean Guitton asked Pope Paul why he did not grant the use of the preconciliar Mass to SSPX founder Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and his followers, the pope replied:

> Never. This Mass . . . becomes the symbol of the condemnation of the council. I will not accept, under any circumstances, the condemnation of the council through a symbol. Should this exception to the liturgy of Vatican II have its way, the entire council would be shaken. And, as a consequence, the apostolic authority of the council would be shaken.[10]

 
I agree too that TC is not really a matter of free-speech issue.

It’s an issue of liberty, and to keep the freedom to worship in a valid mass in our prefered form of liturgy. It’s also keeping a millenial liturgical and cultural heritage. It’s also continuing the relationship in a community of like-minded people, who are often, living, fruitful, with a lot of large families.
To be deprived from that experience can seriousely dammage the faith expression, if not all faith to some people. Leaving them disoriented and bitter. It’s not a small thing.

So i don’t agree with the militations imposed in TC. It’s unecessarily cruel and reactive the liturgical battle, that I believed that was over. Fr Philippe Laguérie, the head priest of IBP (which is in canonical communion with the Church), after being a leader of the SPPX said more or less that he had battle for traditional liturgy all his life and believed that he was “retired” with Summorum Pontificum. But now he will go to the battlefield again and died as a soldier.
Who really want to encourage this mentality?

For the arguments given in the previous article. The situation of the Tradition is really different in US than in Europe. The SPPX situation, in particular, had been described (like by Church Militant) as particularly unsane. It’s probably due to the american mentality who emphasize liberty, free-speech and anti-papacy more than in Europe. Their priests are often fall in sedevacanism, which is less likely in Europe.

Really, the reality of traditionalism here is that these communities stay discreet, they don’t really mixed up with others, the diocese offer no communication, so there can be a big community that is unkown by the others faithful. They have often their own codes, their own political convictions (often nationalism), their own schools, their own sociability.
 
It’s an interesting argument, yet I think that emeritus Pope Benedict XVI, who was usually quiet express reservations on the approach of Pope Francis in TC.
 
I have a particular devotion to the Traditional Latin Mass and would likely choose to attend Mass celebrated according to the Roman Missal of 1962, had I the choice. This is the ancient rite of the majority of the Latin Church; if you compare the Byzantine and Tridentine Rites, you will see they are very different - one developed in New Rome, the other in Old Rome - but they each developed incrementally over many centuries, are celebrated in a liturgical language (Latin, Greek, Church Slavonic etc.), ad orientem, amongst other things.

It is also abundantly clear that there is no contradiction between the Traditional Latin Mass and the documents of the Second Vatican Council. The so-called Spirit of Vatican II is opposed to the last Ecumenical Council; the worst enemies of Vatican II are those who claim to be its greatest proponents.

As for Traditiones custodes - this is a motu proprio issued by the Sovereign Pontiff. Even though it is for some of us a great trial, I believe the Lord calls us to prayerfully accept this, especially as many bishops have lawfully issued dispensations from its provisions. I do not believe the norms of this motu proprio will remain in place forever as the Traditional Latin Mass is so important for many of the Christian faithful, and it makes no sense to repress it. Our job is not to argue, or to say “Pope Francis is hateful and evil” and such and such. Our job is to accept this document - realising it does not abrogate the Tridentine Mass nor forbid its celebration - and pray that it will be applied in accord with the need of those of us who love the ancient rite of the Latin Church.

One positive side of this is that it may encourage an increase in celebrations of the Mass according to the Missal of Paul VI in Latin and ad orientem. His Eminence Vincent Cardinal Nichols of Westminster recently celebrated such a Holy Mass at Corpus Christi Church in London.
 
Last edited:
catholic03 said:
As for Traditiones custodes - this is a motu proprio issued by the Sovereign Pontiff. Even though it is for some of us a great trial, I believe the Lord calls us to prayerfully accept this, especially as many bishops have lawfully issued dispensations from its provisions. I do not believe the norms of this motu proprio will remain in place forever as the Traditional Latin Mass is so important for many of the Christian faithful, and it makes no sense to repress it. Our job is not to argue, or to say “Pope Francis is hateful and evil” and such and such. Our job is to accept this document - realising it does not abrogate the Tridentine Mass nor forbid its celebration - and pray that it will be applied in accord with the need of those of us who love the ancient rite of the Latin Church.
Click to expand...
I can respect that position. It’s an honest testament.
 
According to Pope Benedict XVI, the OF is also based on ancient rites as well as practices:


Meanwhile, throughout the centuries the Church translated the EF because many did not understand Latin:


This plus other reasons explain why the OF has been used for decades.

Meanwhile, the EF was allowed because according to Pope Benedict XVI some grew up with it. TC fulfills that by correctly granting exemptions to those who know only the EF and for valid reasons don’t know how to celebrate in the OF.
 
Last edited:
ralfyman said:
TC fulfills that by correctly granting exemptions to those who know only the EF and for valid reasons don’t know how to celebrate in the OF.
Click to expand...
There is not a single person on the face of the earth who couldn’t “know how to celebrate in the OF” and couldn’t easily learn. It’s not that difficult.

None of the relevant documents say anything like this.

Our TLM discussions, both here and elsewhere, have pretty much run their course, but I have to respond to this one particular comment.
 
Yes, I agree, learning to celebrate in OF is very easy and quickly done in seminaries.

It’s another issue with the EF. It’s pretty difficult to learn.
 
Read TC and the letter that followed it carefully. I explained that you in detail elsewhere.

They also point out that the exemption is temporary, which supports my argument.

Given that, the only reason why our discussions have run their course is because you keep forgetting what has been explained to you.
 
Rather than commenting myself, here are both documents:

APOSTOLIC LETTER
ISSUED “MOTU PROPRIO”
BY THE SUPREME PONTIFF

FRANCIS

«TRADITIONIS CUSTODES»

On the Use of the Roman Liturgy
Prior to the Reform of 1970

Official translation

Guardians of the tradition, the bishops in communion with the Bishop of Rome constitute the visible principle and foundation of the unity of their particular Churches. [1] Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, through the proclamation of the Gospel and by means of the celebration of the Eucharist, they govern the particular Churches entrusted to them. [2]

In order to promote the concord and unity of the Church, with paternal solicitude towards those who in any region adhere to liturgical forms antecedent to the reform willed by the Vatican Council II, my Venerable Predecessors, Saint John Paul II and Benedict XVI, granted and regulated the faculty to use the Roman Missal edited by John XXIII in 1962. [3] In this way they intended “to facilitate the ecclesial communion of those Catholics who feel attached to some earlier liturgical forms” and not to others. [4]

In line with the initiative of my Venerable Predecessor Benedict XVI to invite the bishops to assess the application of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum three years after its publication, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith carried out a detailed consultation of the bishops in 2020. The results have been carefully considered in the light of experience that has matured during these years.

At this time, having considered the wishes expressed by the episcopate and having heard the opinion of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, I now desire, with this Apostolic Letter, to press on ever more in the constant search for ecclesial communion. Therefore, I have considered it appropriate to establish the following:

Art. 1. The liturgical books promulgated by Saint Paul VI and Saint John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II, are the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.

Art. 2. It belongs to the diocesan bishop, as moderator, promoter, and guardian of the whole liturgical life of the particular Church entrusted to him, [5] to regulate the liturgical celebrations of his diocese. [6] Therefore, it is his exclusive competence to authorize the use of the 1962 Roman Missal in his diocese, according to the guidelines of the Apostolic See.

Art. 3. The bishop of the diocese in which until now there exist one or more groups that celebrate according to the Missal antecedent to the reform of 1970:

§ 1. is to determine that these groups do not deny the validity and the legitimacy of the liturgical reform, dictated by Vatican Council II and the Magisterium of the Supreme Pontiffs;

§ 2. is to designate one or more locations where the faithful adherents of these groups may gather for the eucharistic celebration (not however in the parochial churches and without the erection of new personal parishes);

§ 3. to establish at the designated locations the days on which eucharistic celebrations are permitted using the Roman Missal promulgated by Saint John XXIII in 1962. [7] In these celebrations the readings are proclaimed in the vernacular language, using translations of the Sacred Scripture approved for liturgical use by the respective Episcopal Conferences;

§ 4. to appoint a priest who, as delegate of the bishop, is entrusted with these celebrations and with the pastoral care of these groups of the faithful. This priest should be suited for this responsibility, skilled in the use of the Missale Romanum antecedent to the reform of 1970, possess a knowledge of the Latin language sufficient for a thorough comprehension of the rubrics and liturgical texts, and be animated by a lively pastoral charity and by a sense of ecclesial communion. This priest should have at heart not only the correct celebration of the liturgy, but also the pastoral and spiritual care of the faithful;

§ 5. to proceed suitably to verify that the parishes canonically erected for the benefit of these faithful are effective for their spiritual growth, and to determine whether or not to retain them;

§ 6. to take care not to authorize the establishment of new groups.

Art. 4. Priests ordained after the publication of the present Motu Proprio, who wish to celebrate using the Missale Romanum of 1962, should submit a formal request to the diocesan Bishop who shall consult the Apostolic See before granting this authorization.

Art. 5. Priests who already celebrate according to the Missale Romanum of 1962 should request from the diocesan Bishop the authorization to continue to enjoy this faculty.

Art. 6. Institutes of consecrated life and Societies of apostolic life, erected by the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, fall under the competence of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies for Apostolic Life.

Art. 7. The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments and the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, for matters of their particular competence, exercise the authority of the Holy See with respect to the observance of these provisions.

Art. 8. Previous norms, instructions, permissions, and customs that do not conform to the provisions of the present Motu Proprio are abrogated.

Everything that I have declared in this Apostolic Letter in the form of Motu Proprio, I order to be observed in all its parts, anything else to the contrary notwithstanding, even if worthy of particular mention, and I establish that it be promulgated by way of publication in “L’Osservatore Romano”, entering immediately in force and, subsequently, that it be published in the official Commentary of the Holy See, Acta Apostolicae Sedis.

Given at Rome, at Saint John Lateran, on 16 July 2021, the liturgical Memorial of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, in the ninth year of Our Pontificate.

FRANCIS

[1] Cfr Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church “ Lumen Gentium”, 21 november 1964, n. 23 AAS 57 (1965) 27.

[2] Cfr Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church “ Lumen Gentium”, 21 november 1964, n. 27: AAS 57 (1965) 32; Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Decree concerning the pastoral office of bishops in the Church “ Christus Dominus”, 28 october 1965, n. 11: AAS 58 (1966) 677-678; Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 833.

[3] Cfr John Paul II, Apostolic Letter given Motu proprio “ Ecclesia Dei”, 2 july 1988: AAS 80 (1988) 1495-1498; Benedict XVI, Apostolic Letter given Motu proprio “ Summorum Pontificum”, 7 july 2007: AAS 99 (2007) 777-781; Apostolic Letter given Motu proprio “ Ecclesiae unitatem”, 2 july 2009: AAS 101 (2009) 710-711.

[4] John Paul II, Apostolic Letter given Motu proprio “ Ecclesia Dei”, 2 july 1988, n. 5: AAS 80 (1988) 1498.

[5] Cfr Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Costitution on the sacred liturgy “ Sacrosanctum Concilium”, 4 december 1963, n. 41: AAS 56 (1964) 111; Caeremoniale Episcoporum, n. 9; Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacrament, Instruction on certain matters to be observed or to be avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist “ Redemptionis Sacramentum”, 25 march 2004, nn. 19-25: AAS 96 (2004) 555-557.

[6] Cfr CIC, can. 375, § 1; can. 392.

[7] Cfr Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Decree “ Quo magis” approving seven Eucharistic Prefaces for the forma extraordinaria of the Roman Rite, 22 february 2020, and Decree “ Cum sanctissima” on the liturgical celebration in honour of Saints in the forma extraordinaria of the Roman Rite, 22 february 2020: L’Osservatore Romano, 26 march 2020, p. 6.

(second document follows)
 
LETTER OF THE HOLY FATHER FRANCIS
TO THE BISHOPS OF THE WHOLE WORLD,
THAT ACCOMPANIES THE APOSTOLIC LETTER MOTU PROPRIO DATA
“TRADITIONIS CUSTODES”

Official translation

Rome, 16 July 2021

Dear Brothers in the Episcopate,

Just as my Predecessor Benedict XVI did with Summorum Pontificum, I wish to accompany the Motu proprio Traditionis custodes with a letter explaining the motives that prompted my decision. I turn to you with trust and parresia, in the name of that shared “solicitude for the whole Church, that contributes supremely to the good of the Universal Church” as Vatican Council II reminds us. [1]

Most people understand the motives that prompted St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI to allow the use of the Roman Missal, promulgated by St. Pius V and edited by St. John XXIII in 1962, for the Eucharistic Sacrifice. The faculty — granted by the indult of the Congregation for Divine Worship in 1984 [2] and confirmed by St. John Paul II in the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei in 1988 [3] — was above all motivated by the desire to foster the healing of the schism with the movement of Mons. Lefebvre. With the ecclesial intention of restoring the unity of the Church, the Bishops were thus asked to accept with generosity the “just aspirations” of the faithful who requested the use of that Missal.

Many in the Church came to regard this faculty as an opportunity to adopt freely the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and use it in a manner parallel to the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Paul VI. In order to regulate this situation at the distance of many years, Benedict XVI intervened to address this state of affairs in the Church. Many priests and communities had “used with gratitude the possibility offered by the Motu proprio” of St. John Paul II. Underscoring that this development was not foreseeable in 1988, the Motu proprio Summorum Pontificum of 2007 intended to introduce “a clearer juridical regulation” in this area. [4] In order to allow access to those, including young people, who when “they discover this liturgical form, feel attracted to it and find in it a form, particularly suited to them, to encounter the mystery of the most holy Eucharist”, [5] Benedict XVI declared “the Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and newly edited by Blessed John XXIII, as a extraordinary expression of the same lex orandi”, granting a “more ample possibility for the use of the 1962 Missal”. [6]

In making their decision they were confident that such a provision would not place in doubt one of the key measures of Vatican Council II or minimize in this way its authority: the Motu proprio recognized that, in its own right, “the Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the lex orandi of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite”. [7] The recognition of the Missal promulgated by St. Pius V “as an extraordinary expression of the same lex orandi” did not in any way underrate the liturgical reform, but was decreed with the desire to acknowledge the “insistent prayers of these faithful,” allowing them “to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass according to the editio typica of the Roman Missal promulgated by Blessed John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as the extraordinary form of the Liturgy of the Church”. [8]It comforted Benedict XVI in his discernment that many desired “to find the form of the sacred Liturgy dear to them,” “clearly accepted the binding character of Vatican Council II and were faithful to the Pope and to the Bishops”. [9] What is more, he declared to be unfounded the fear of division in parish communities, because “the two forms of the use of the Roman Rite would enrich one another”. [10] Thus, he invited the Bishops to set aside their doubts and fears, and to welcome the norms, “attentive that everything would proceed in peace and serenity,” with the promise that “it would be possible to find resolutions” in the event that “serious difficulties came to light” in the implementation of the norms “once the Motu proprio came into effect”. [11]

With the passage of thirteen years, I instructed the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to circulate a questionnaire to the Bishops regarding the implementation of the Motu proprio Summorum Pontificum. The responses reveal a situation that preoccupies and saddens me, and persuades me of the need to intervene. Regrettably, the pastoral objective of my Predecessors, who had intended “to do everything possible to ensure that all those who truly possessed the desire for unity would find it possible to remain in this unity or to rediscover it anew”, [12] has often been seriously disregarded. An opportunity offered by St. John Paul II and, with even greater magnanimity, by Benedict XVI, intended to recover the unity of an ecclesial body with diverse liturgical sensibilities, was exploited to widen the gaps, reinforce the divergences, and encourage disagreements that injure the Church, block her path, and expose her to the peril of division.

At the same time, I am saddened by abuses in the celebration of the liturgy on all sides. In common with Benedict XVI, I deplore the fact that “in many places the prescriptions of the new Missal are not observed in celebration, but indeed come to be interpreted as an authorization for or even a requirement of creativity, which leads to almost unbearable distortions”. [13] But I am nonetheless saddened that the instrumental use of Missale Romanum of 1962 is often characterized by a rejection not only of the liturgical reform, but of the Vatican Council II itself, claiming, with unfounded and unsustainable assertions, that it betrayed the Tradition and the “true Church”. The path of the Church must be seen within the dynamic of Tradition “which originates from the Apostles and progresses in the Church with the assistance of the Holy Spirit” ( DV 8). A recent stage of this dynamic was constituted by Vatican Council II where the Catholic episcopate came together to listen and to discern the path for the Church indicated by the Holy Spirit. To doubt the Council is to doubt the intentions of those very Fathers who exercised their collegial power in a solemn manner cum Petro et sub Petro in an ecumenical council, [14] and, in the final analysis, to doubt the Holy Spirit himself who guides the Church.

The objective of the modification of the permission granted by my Predecessors is highlighted by the Second Vatican Council itself. From the vota submitted by the Bishops there emerged a great insistence on the full, conscious and active participation of the whole People of God in the liturgy, [15] along lines already indicated by Pius XII in the encyclical Mediator Dei on the renewal of the liturgy. [16] The constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium confirmed this appeal, by seeking “the renewal and advancement of the liturgy”, [17] and by indicating the principles that should guide the reform. [18] In particular, it established that these principles concerned the Roman Rite, and other legitimate rites where applicable, and asked that “the rites be revised carefully in the light of sound tradition, and that they be given new vigor to meet present-day circumstances and needs”. [19] On the basis of these principles a reform of the liturgy was undertaken, with its highest expression in the Roman Missal, published in editio typica by St. Paul VI [20] and revised by St. John Paul II. [21] It must therefore be maintained that the Roman Rite, adapted many times over the course of the centuries according to the needs of the day, not only be preserved but renewed “in faithful observance of the Tradition”. [22] Whoever wishes to celebrate with devotion according to earlier forms of the liturgy can find in the reformed Roman Missal according to Vatican Council II all the elements of the Roman Rite, in particular the Roman Canon which constitutes one of its more distinctive elements.

A final reason for my decision is this: ever more plain in the words and attitudes of many is the close connection between the choice of celebrations according to the liturgical books prior to Vatican Council II and the rejection of the Church and her institutions in the name of what is called the “true Church.” One is dealing here with comportment that contradicts communion and nurtures the divisive tendency — “I belong to Paul; I belong instead to Apollo; I belong to Cephas; I belong to Christ” — against which the Apostle Paul so vigorously reacted. [23] In defense of the unity of the Body of Christ, I am constrained to revoke the faculty granted by my Predecessors. The distorted use that has been made of this faculty is contrary to the intentions that led to granting the freedom to celebrate the Mass with the Missale Romanum of 1962. Because “liturgical celebrations are not private actions, but celebrations of the Church, which is the sacrament of unity”, [24] they must be carried out in communion with the Church. Vatican Council II, while it reaffirmed the external bonds of incorporation in the Church — the profession of faith, the sacraments, of communion — affirmed with St. Augustine that to remain in the Church not only “with the body” but also “with the heart” is a condition for salvation. [25]

Dear brothers in the Episcopate, Sacrosanctum Concilium explained that the Church, the “sacrament of unity,” is such because it is “the holy People gathered and governed under the authority of the Bishops”. [26] Lumen gentium, while recalling that the Bishop of Rome is “the permanent and visible principle and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the multitude of the faithful,” states that you the Bishops are “the visible principle and foundation of the unity of your local Churches, in which and through which exists the one and only Catholic Church”. [27]

Responding to your requests, I take the firm decision to abrogate all the norms, instructions, permissions and customs that precede the present Motu proprio, and declare that the liturgical books promulgated by the saintly Pontiffs Paul VI and John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II, constitute the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite. I take comfort in this decision from the fact that, after the Council of Trent, St. Pius V also abrogated all the rites that could not claim a proven antiquity, establishing for the whole Latin Church a single Missale Romanum. For four centuries this Missale Romanum, promulgated by St. Pius V was thus the principal expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite, and functioned to maintain the unity of the Church. Without denying the dignity and grandeur of this Rite, the Bishops gathered in ecumenical council asked that it be reformed; their intention was that “the faithful would not assist as strangers and silent spectators in the mystery of faith, but, with a full understanding of the rites and prayers, would participate in the sacred action consciously, piously, and actively”. [28] St. Paul VI, recalling that the work of adaptation of the Roman Missal had already been initiated by Pius XII, declared that the revision of the Roman Missal, carried out in the light of ancient liturgical sources, had the goal of permitting the Church to raise up, in the variety of languages, “a single and identical prayer,” that expressed her unity. [29]This unity I intend to re-establish throughout the Church of the Roman Rite.

Vatican Council II, when it described the catholicity of the People of God, recalled that “within the ecclesial communion” there exist the particular Churches which enjoy their proper traditions, without prejudice to the primacy of the Chair of Peter who presides over the universal communion of charity, guarantees the legitimate diversity and together ensures that the particular not only does not injure the universal but above all serves it”. [30]While, in the exercise of my ministry in service of unity, I take the decision to suspend the faculty granted by my Predecessors, I ask you to share with me this burden as a form of participation in the solicitude for the whole Church proper to the Bishops. In the Motu proprio I have desired to affirm that it is up to the Bishop, as moderator, promoter, and guardian of the liturgical life of the Church of which he is the principle of unity, to regulate the liturgical celebrations. It is up to you to authorize in your Churches, as local Ordinaries, the use of the Missale Romanum of 1962, applying the norms of the present Motu proprio. It is up to you to proceed in such a way as to return to a unitary form of celebration, and to determine case by case the reality of the groups which celebrate with this Missale Romanum.

Indications about how to proceed in your dioceses are chiefly dictated by two principles: on the one hand, to provide for the good of those who are rooted in the previous form of celebration and need to return in due time to the Roman Rite promulgated by Saints Paul VI and John Paul II, and, on the other hand, to discontinue the erection of new personal parishes tied more to the desire and wishes of individual priests than to the real need of the “holy People of God.” At the same time, I ask you to be vigilant in ensuring that every liturgy be celebrated with decorum and fidelity to the liturgical books promulgated after Vatican Council II, without the eccentricities that can easily degenerate into abuses. Seminarians and new priests should be formed in the faithful observance of the prescriptions of the Missal and liturgical books, in which is reflected the liturgical reform willed by Vatican Council II.

Upon you I invoke the Spirit of the risen Lord, that he may make you strong and firm in your service to the People of God entrusted to you by the Lord, so that your care and vigilance express communion even in the unity of one, single Rite, in which is preserved the great richness of the Roman liturgical tradition. I pray for you. You pray for me.

FRANCISCUS
[1] Cfr. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church “ Lumen Gentium”, 21 november 1964, n. 23 AAS 57 (1965) 27.

[2] Cfr. Congregation for Divine Worship, Letter to the Presidents of the Conferences of Bishops “Quattuor abhinc annos”, 3 october 1984: AAS 76 (1984) 1088-1089

[3] John Paul II, Apostolic Letter given Motu proprio “ Ecclesia Dei”, 2 july 1988: AAS 80 (1998) 1495-1498.

[4] Benedict XVI, Letter to the Bishops on the occasion of the publication of the Apostolic Letter “Motu proprio data” Summorum Pontificum on the use of the Roman Liturgy prior to the reform of 1970, 7 july 2007: AAS 99 (2007) 796.

[5] Benedict XVI, Letter to the Bishops on the occasion of the publication of the Apostolic Letter “Motu proprio data” Summorum Pontificum on the use of the Roman Liturgy prior to the reform of 1970, 7 july 2007: AAS 99 (2007) 796.

[6] Benedict XVI, Letter to the Bishops on the occasion of the publication of the Apostolic Letter “Motu proprio data” Summorum Pontificum on the use of the Roman Liturgy prior to the reform of 1970, 7 july 2007: AAS 99 (2007) 797.

[7] Benedict XVI, Apostolic Letter given Motu proprio “ Summorum Pontificum”, 7 july 2007: AAS 99 (2007) 779.

[8] Benedict XVI, Apostolic Letter given Motu proprio “ Summorum Pontificum”, 7 july 2007: AAS 99 (2007) 779.

[9] Benedict XVI, Letter to the Bishops on the occasion of the publication of the Apostolic Letter “Motu proprio data” Summorum Pontificum on the use of the Roman Liturgy prior to the reform of 1970, 7 july 2007: AAS 99 (2007) 796.

[10] Benedict XVI, Letter to the Bishops on the occasion of the publication of the Apostolic Letter “Motu proprio data” Summorum Pontificum on the use of the Roman Liturgy prior to the reform of 1970, 7 july 2007: AAS 99 (2007) 797.

[11] Benedict XVI, Letter to the Bishops on the occasion of the publication of the Apostolic Letter “Motu proprio data” Summorum Pontificum on the use of the Roman Liturgy prior to the reform of 1970, 7 july 2007: AAS 99 (2007) 798.

[12] Benedict XVI, Letter to the Bishops on the occasion of the publication of the Apostolic Letter “Motu proprio data” Summorum Pontificum on the use of the Roman Liturgy prior to the reform of 1970, 7 july 2007: AAS 99 (2007) 797-798.

[13] Benedict XVI, Letter to the Bishops on the occasion of the publication of the Apostolic Letter “Motu proprio data” Summorum Pontificum on the use of the Roman Liturgy prior to the reform of 1970, 7 july 2007: AAS 99 (2007) 796.

[14] Cfr. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church “ Lumen Gentium”, 21 november 1964, n. 23: AAS 57 (1965) 27.

[15] Cfr. Acta et Documenta Concilio Oecumenico Vaticano II apparando, Series I, Volumen II, 1960.

[16] Pius XII, Encyclical on the sacred liturgy “ Mediator Dei”, 20 november 1947: AAS 39 (1949) 521-595.

[17] Cfr. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Costitution on the sacred liturgy “ Sacrosanctum Concilium”, 4 december 1963, nn. 1, 14: AAS 56 (1964) 97.104.

[18] Cfr. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Costitution on the sacred liturgy “ Sacrosanctum Concilium”, 4 december 1963, n. 3: AAS 56 (1964) 98.

[19] Cfr. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Costitution on the sacred liturgy “ Sacrosanctum Concilium”, 4 december 1963, n. 4: AAS 56 (1964) 98.

[20] Missale Romanum ex decreto Sacrosancti Oecumenici Concilii Vaticani II instauratum auctoritate Pauli PP. VI promulgatum, editio typica, 1970.

[21] Missale Romanum ex decreto Sacrosancti Oecumenici Concilii Vaticani II instauratum auctoritate Pauli PP. VI promulgatum Ioannis Pauli PP. II cura recognitum, editio typica altera, 1975; editio typica tertia, 2002; (reimpressio emendata 2008)

[22] Cfr. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Costitution on the sacred liturgy “ Sacrosanctum Concilium”, 4 december 1963, n. 3: AAS 56 (1964) 98.

[23] 1 Cor 1,12-13.

[24] Cfr. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Costitution on the sacred liturgy “ Sacrosanctum Concilium”, 4 december 1963, n. 26: AAS 56 (1964) 107.

[25] Cfr. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church “ Lumen Gentium”, 21 november 1964, n. 14: AAS 57 (1965) 19.

[26] Cfr. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Costitution on the sacred liturgy “ Sacrosanctum Concilium”, 4 december 1963, n. 6: AAS 56 (1964) 100.

[28] Cfr. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church “ Lumen Gentium”, 21 november 1964, n. 23: AAS 57 (1965) 27.

[28] Cfr. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Costitution on the sacred liturgy “ Sacrosanctum Concilium”, 4 december 1963, n. 48: AAS 56 (1964) 113.

[29] Paul VI, Apostolic Constitution “Missale Romanum” on new Roman Missal, 3 april 1969, AAS 61 (1969) 222.

[30] Cfr. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church “ Lumen Gentium”, 21 november 1964, n. 13: AAS 57 (1965) 18.
 
The FSSP’s constitutions reference the teachings of the Second Vatican Council, and the fraternity says that it “has always sought to be in accord with what Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI called in 2005: ‘the hermeneutic of reform in the continuity of the Church.’”

“Grateful to the Holy Father, the members of the Fraternity of St. Peter are in thanksgiving for this confirmation of their mission,” the FSSP said on Feb. 21.
Click to expand...
 
It’s too different things.

The Pope Francis documents target use of the TLM inside parishes and diocesan priests. One goal, they are temporal anormality that vocation are to disappear.

The FSSP is another thing, and as you linked in your article, they were confirmed in their mission by Pope Francis.
 
Anicette said:
It’s too different things.

The Pope Francis documents target use of the TLM inside parishes and diocesan priests. One goal, they are temporal anormality that vocation are to disappear.

The FSSP is another thing, and as you linked in your article, they were confirmed in their mission by Pope Francis.
Click to expand...
If Pope Francis wants to leave the FSSP as it is, and make it the universal home of the TLM (with possibly drawing in SSPX priests and adherents who wish to merge with it), that’s fine with me. Seems kind of divisive, but it could function as a kind of de facto personal ordinariate (even if it did not actually become that). In time to come, I might arrange my life so as to relocate somewhere close to an FSSP community.

But then you have the situation of not having the interchangeable use of Hosts consecrated at both the Novus Ordo and the TLM. That ensures that anyone assisting at a diocesan TLM affirm the validity of post-Vatican II priestly orders, as most diocesan priests who offer the TLM have been ordained in the new rite. It acts as a self-cleansing mechanism to deter those who challenge the validity of post-Vatican II orders. You’d think the Church would want to guide people in that direction.

Suits me fine.
 
I understand that mooving to an area to have an access to mass that suits us may be be very tempting.

I am not sure however how this option is safe. Bishops have the power to cancelled the TLM, diocesan or from a community if they want. As in Chicago, Corpus Christi…

I guess it depends to what degree we can moove again or are ready to take a risk.

FSSP has a vertical culture and is very discreet from the outside. Not sure that it is the values Pope Francis would want to promote.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top