Summorum Pontificum Under Attack

[Oneofthewomen]

Definitions ?

“Indeed, the true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries, nor innovators: they are traditionalists.”
Pope St. Pius X

“Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a hand
ful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.”
St. Athanasius

Forgot to add, with all of the never ending arrows shot at trads on this forum, by those who have a beef with their target, my comments are more like a reply in that context.

It’s not a one way street, no matter how much those who initiate the attacks wish it were.

You know, I do have a beef with groups like Call To Action. But I don’t go into their foums and taunt them. Better to pray for them, and, if I’m wrong about them, God will ignore my prayers.

I am still not exactly sure what your problem is with me.

Who are you to say that I do not fit into the catergory of either of the quotes you posted?
Do you know me?

I have attacked no one.
I only cautioned someone that one must be very careful about taking on the opinions of blog writers as that of the Magesterium.
I am not taunting anyone, and I really resent the insuation that I am.

Who is taunting now?

 

[At_Trent]

I am still not exactly sure what your problem is with me.

Who are you to say that I do not fit into the catergory of either of the quotes you posted?
Do you know me?

I have attacked no one.
I only cautioned someone that one must be very careful about taking on the opinions of blog writers as that of the Magesterium.
I am not taunting anyone, and I really resent the insuation that I am.

Who is taunting now?

You asked for a definition and I replied with quotes. Only you can answer if you fit the description.

Show me the specific text to my posts that lead you to make the claims you have made. My first post here was directed at a general attitude some here hold, not anyone specifically.

You replied and seem bent on making it into something you want it to be. Something that was never there. I don’t see how answering a question in such a direct a manner as I did can be seen as an accusation. Those are the words of Saints, not my own. You don’t have to embrace them. Or if you do, that’s fine too.

Again, you are bent on dragging me into an argument and I’m not buying it. Please try elsewhere.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I am sorry, but I see no one being “self-righteous”.

If you are referring to me using quotes around the word traditional, it was not meant to be disrespectful, that is actually how the blog I was referring to identifies itself.

Also, I have never seen a definition of what a traditional catholic is.
I may not be a devotee of the TLM, but that does not mean I am not traditional.

So, At Trent, what exactly is you beef?!

For this forum the main working definition of the word “traditional” is a preference for the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. If you do not have this preference then most “traditional” users at this forum will not acknowledge you as “traditional”.

This is why I use quotes around the word at times here at CAF especially in this sub-forum.

 

[OurLadyPerpHelp]

For this forum the main working definition of the word “traditional” is a preference for the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. If you do not have this preference then most “traditional” users at this forum will not acknowledge you as “traditional”.

This is why I use quotes around the word at times here at CAF especially in this sub-forum.

Thank you, Brother. Honestly, I’ve never had such trouble agreeing with a definition. One person here doesn’t consider the dictionary a reliable source.

 

[OurLadyPerpHelp]

A Georgetown University survey found that among active Catholics, 45% would attend the Latin Mass if offered at a convenient time. Only 12% of Catholics oppose the Latin Mass. I wonder how many of them post here?

cara.georgetown.edu/NewsandPress/PressReleases/pr082409.pdf

 

[OurLadyPerpHelp]

Forgot to add, with all of the never ending arrows shot at trads on this forum, by those who have a beef with their target, my comments are more like a reply in that context.

It’s not a one way street, no matter how much those who initiate the attacks wish it were.

You know, I do have a beef with groups like Call To Action. But I don’t go into their foums and taunt them. Better to pray for them, and, if I’m wrong about them, God will ignore my prayers.

I’m confused by this too. Does it go on in other forums here? Do people go into the Eastern Rites forum to offer contrary perspectives on their culture?

 

[malphono]

I’m confused by this too. Does it go on in other forums here? Do people go into the Eastern Rites forum to offer contrary perspectives on their culture?

It’s totally off-topic, (as is this entire tangent), but yes, there are those who do.

 

[OurLadyPerpHelp]

It’s totally off-topic, (as is this entire tangent), but yes, there are those who do.

I’m sorry to hear that. On behalf of all Catholics I apologize for those who have nothing better to do with their time than challenge Church approved liturgies. I doubt this is what Jesus wants from within his flock.

Respectfully, I totally see this as on topic. By this rumour there are people within the Church seeking to curtail and eliminate an established and approved liturgy. If it can happen to the Latin Mass it can happen to the Eastern Rites.

 

[malphono]

Respectfully, I totally see this as on topic. By this rumour there are people within the Church seeking to curtail and eliminate an established and approved liturgy. If it can happen to the Latin Mass it can happen to the Eastern Rites.

Oh, no argument from me about SP. What I meant about being “off-topic” was simply this tangent about the word “traditional” etc, not the discussion about SP. That is quite on topic.

 

[At_Trent]

I’m confused by this too. Does it go on in other forums here? Do people go into the Eastern Rites forum to offer contrary perspectives on their culture?

I apologize for the friction my initial post caused. malphono is correct, it was off topic.

Not sure how much goes on in Eastern, as I seldom lurk there

 

[ProVobis]

Respectfully, I totally see this as on topic. By this rumour there are people within the Church seeking to curtail and eliminate an established and approved liturgy. If it can happen to the Latin Mass it can happen to the Eastern Rites.

The rumor itself has probably undermined, if not damaged, the spirit of SP significantly. However, I can’t see the Holy Father undermining his own motu proprio in the true sense. If he gives more power to the bishops, so what, if the bishops truly want to follow the spirit of the SP. There have been too many positives (OF improving in the now OF-EF parishes, Latin and the classics are becoming more extensively taught in universities, there is more interest in the Catholic liturgy, the excommunions of the SSPX have been lifted, etc.) that it just wouldn’t make sense to have Catholics undergo the 60’s and 70’s all over again.

But prayers wouldn’t hurt.

 

[Santi2]

Thank you for the links, I have them in my Favorites.

I have learned a lot from blogs so far. Father Z’s I read daily. I posted this particular blog post as it was requesting action from those who attend the Latin Mass, namely to write to the Vatican in favour of SP. I would be very disappointed is the Latin Masses were cancelled before I have the opportunity to experince one. I can only imagine the heartbreak those who love the Mass would feel if they could no longer attend one. So, it was out of charity to my fellow Catholics that I posted that blog, to answer your question. If you have any other links you think would help me in my learning process I will be very appreciative.

I live in the UK and referred to our Latin Mass Society when rorate coeli’s blog entry was published in the Telegraph. Hope it helps.

The LMS article reads:-

Summorum Pontificum – Rumours and Counter Rumours
17 FEBRUARY 2011
On Tuesday and Wednesday rumours began to circulate on Traditional websites and blogs that the clarificatory document being prepared by Pope Benedict on Summorum Pontificum had been ‘hijacked’ by determined clerical opposition in Rome and had been seriously watered down to the point where it reduced Summorum Pontificum to little more than an ‘indult’ and the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite to little more than a tolerated museum piece for people with antiquarian tastes.

It seems incredible that these rumours can be accurate. Firstly, it would mean the Holy Father contradicting the clear meaning of the wording of Summorum Pontificum. Secondly, such a retreat would be the defining moment of his papacy – previously, the very publication of Summorum Pontificum was regarded by the Pope’s friends and foes alike as its defining moment. Thirdly, it would probably destroy the doctrinal talks ongoing with the Society of St Pius X (SSPX). All the positive actions towards the Extraordinary Form of Pope Benedict’s papacy have been designed to make it possible for the SSPX to enter into dialogue with the Vatican, i.e. they have been confidence-building measures. To publish a document which in effect retreats from Summorum Pontificum would destroy that confidence and make it very difficult for the SSPX publicly and unambiguously to ‘return’ to unimpaired communion with Rome.

LMS members and supporters should bear in mind Pope Benedict’s words in his Letter to the Bishops which accompanied Summorum Pontificum in July 2007. The words reflected on the maelstrom of rumour and supposition which swirled through the media before the Motu Proprio was finally published: “The document is the fruit of much reflection, numerous consultations and prayer. News reports and judgments made without sufficient information have created no little confusion. There have been very divergent reactions ranging from joyful acceptance to harsh opposition about a plan whose contents were in reality unknown”.

Let us hope and pray that the Holy Father’s words apply to the new situation of rumour and confusion in which we find ourselves. Dr Joseph Shaw, LMS Chairman, gives his own thoughts here.

lms.org.uk/news-and-events/news-blog#summorum-pontificum-instruction

 

[malphono]

For those who are interested, I came across an on-line appeal to PP Benedict XVI for the preservation of the integrity of Summorum Pontificum.

motuproprioappeal.com/

 

[ProVobis]

For those who are interested, I came across an on-line appeal to PP Benedict XVI for the preservation of the integrity of Summorum Pontificum.

motuproprioappeal.com/

Excellent. I signed.

And I didn’t use the name Agatha Christie this time.

Just kidding, I never did.

 

[Brooklyn]

Rorate Caeli has more on this on a blog entitled “Ghettoization must start in Ordination.”

Very few points of the current draft of the Instruction for the Application of Summorum Pontificum seem to be available to us. The first we mentioned, on blocking the application of the liberality of the motu proprio to all non-Roman Western rites and uses may seem minor - yet it is quite significant in what it reveals: an interpretation of the rights recognized by Summorum as privileges or “indults” that can be curtailed.

Our revelation today, made jointly with Messa in Latino, could seem even more limited in its extension - but it certainly is much, much, more serious and insidious in the extent it shows that the anti-Summorum field has infiltrated the composition of the Instruction. In short, the Instruction, in its current draft, will explicitly prevent Bishops from using the Traditional Rite of Holy Orders.

There will be two exceptions. One, dedicated to the those institutes (the ‘Ecclesia Dei’ institutes) and particular Churches dedicated exclusively to the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite. The other exception is that the Bishop that desires to ordain a certain seminarian in the ancient Rite will have to ask prior permission to Rome (to the Pontifical Commission ‘Ecclesia Dei’), which will then evaluate if said permission should be granted or not.

rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/search/label/The%20Instruction

Pope Benedict XVI in the Summorum Pontificum said that the Extraordinary Rite and the Ordinary Rite are of equal validity and value: “The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the ‘Lex orandi’ (Law of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. Nonetheless, the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Bl. John XXIII is to be considered as an extraordinary expression of that same ‘Lex orandi,’ and must be given due honour for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church’s Lex orandi will in no any way lead to a division in the Church’s ‘Lex credendi’ (Law of belief). They are, in fact two usages of the one Roman rite.”

Why is there a need to revisit this matter? I read on one blog that this has been in the works since the Moto Proprio was first issued. I have personally met priests who hate the TLM. My question is, why is it hated? No one is forcing anyone to go to it, as we, who prefer the Extraordinary Rite, are sometimes forced to attend the Ordinary Rite.

Where is all the prejudice coming from? Why do people want to shut this Mass down?

 

[malphono]

There’s also some further information at New Liturgical Movement.

 

[archangel04]

You know I’ve yet to get a good clear answer as to why some people hate the EF. The only reason I’ve heard is because of Latin or the “lack of participation” but the laity.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

You know I’ve yet to get a good clear answer as to why some people hate the EF. The only reason I’ve heard is because of Latin or the “lack of participation” but the laity.

I am sure that there are some who “hate” the EF.

One of the issues I have, is that if one, (especially in this particular sub-forum) happens to say that they are not fond of the EF, it automatically makes one modernist, progressive, hater!

I have no attachment what-so-ever to the EF. I have been, a handful of times, have watched numerous videos that have been posted here and from my diocese and have read and have a pretty good understanding of the Missal of 1962 and the rubrics.
The Masses I attended where very beautiful, and very moving & powerful, but in the end, none of them (2 High masses, including Gaudette Sunday, which I have been told is one of the “best”, 3 Low) moved me as deeply as a Mass in the OF. I can’t explain it, and it is way off topic.

I think that the EF should be offered for those who want it. I also think that we need to be very careful about pitting one form against the other, which I am sad to say is something that I see quite often. In my area, we have had a weekly EF since the 90’s. There have never been more that about 250 people in attendance, and the average is about 150. I have heard many in my area say that having only one EF and at 1:30pm on Sunday unacceptable, it should be offered more- SP & the Pope says so, the OF is “banal & Protestant” etc,… (you get the point)

So this is what I do not understand, the people in my area have available to them the EF, on a weely basis, and for Holy Days, yet this does not seem to be enough for some of them, they want every Mass to be the EF, so should I surmise from that that they “hate” the OF.

Now, I will concede, that maybe things are different in my diocese than they are in others. But I will tell you that we also have what is considered one of the most liberal Bishops in the US, and it did not take SP to get the EF here.

If the EF is what works for you, I say go for it. If you don’t have it available in your area, find some people who have similar views, find a priest who is willing & able and work to get one.

 

[malphono]

I didn’t start this thread, but it has a topic which some of us find to be of great interest and importance. I hope it’s not going to go off on another tangent, particularly the usual (and, at this point, very stale) “mine is better than yours” business. If that’s what some people want to do, fine, but start another thread, please; leave this one for its intended purpose.

 

[Warrenton]

With all due respect to the Rorate Coeli this article is below standard

• no details just insinuation
• ask for political style canvassing the Roman Curia; the Church is not democracy

In Vatican 2, the bishops solicited lay involvement. Lay people can practically do anything, except ask for the Tridentine mass, it sometimes seems.