Summorum Pontificum – Alive & Well?

Summorum Pontificum - Alive & Well?

10/10/13–The CISP (International Coordination Summorum Pontificum) has announced that His Eminence Dario, Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos will be celebrating Pontifical High Mass in St Peter’s Basilica on Saturday 26 October at 11 o’clock during the pilgrimage of the people of Summorum Pontificum to Rome.

Holy Mass on 26 October will allow Diocesan and Religious Priests, Seminarians, and the faithful among the people of Summorum Pontificum to show Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos their gratitude and affection for everything he has done in the service of the Church, especially at the time of the preparation of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, during which His Eminence was a witness and of which he is the living memory.

The CISP especially wishes also to express their gratitude to His Eminence for coming to say Mass, especially since the 26th of October is the sixty-first anniversary of his ordination to the Priesthood, which he received in the Basilica of the Holy Apostles in Rome on 26 October 1952.

This Pontifical High Mass of thanksgiving at St Peter’s will be one of the central points of the Pilgrimage, during which the eternal youth of the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite will be seen by all, and by means of which the people of Summorum Pontificum will contribute to the missionary zeal of the New Evangelization.

This is the fifth pontifical in the extraordinary rite to be celebrated in St Peter’s Basilica since the promulgation of the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum in 2007, and the second one personally celebrated by His Eminence Dario Castrillón Hoyos, after his first celebration on November 5th, 2011, on the occasion of the General Assembly of Una Voce-FIUV in Rome. In his homily the Cardinal forcefully decried “the widespread practice of liturgical abuses in the aftermath of the Council” as having produced “deep wounds in the Church” and blamed what he termed the so-called “spirit of the Council” for being exploited as “a tool to uphold spurious claims often aimed at imposing disturbing ways of thinking and acting” (Cf. Vatican Insider, 5 November 2011).

This senior prelate is also on record for having been probably the staunchest supporter of Benedict XVI in his efforts to reinstate the old rite, which the Cardinal aptly said should be more correctly called the Gregorian rite. All the more so if we consider that he did not limit himself only to preach but also practiced what he was preaching, and his forthcoming celebration in St. Peter’s will be only the latest among many occasions on which he celebrated the Gregorian rite.

“It was a real nightmare putting the Summorum Pontificum into practice”, Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos painfully recalled during a book presentation on the opposition to Summorum Pontificum in late 2011 (cf. Vatican Insider, October 2011). This gives us an idea of what he had to endure and how daunting the task was, especially because opposition to the Motu Proprio is rooted in ignorance, he claimed, “of what we have lost and theologically should be viewed in light of the Holy Ghost’s action through the successor of Peter. And the Holy Father wanted to give back to the world such great treasure, the enormous spiritual richness of the ancient liturgy, a powerful tool of sanctification”.

A treasure which is a gift of God and therefore should be made available not only to traditional minded church-goers or the groups who were asking for it, but to all the faithful, and here again we should be grateful to the great courage of the Cardinal, who on 14 June 2008 forcefully told a press conference in London that Pope Benedict would not like to see only “many ordinary parishes” celebrating the Gregorian Rite, but “all the parishes”, which demands that all seminarians be taught how to celebrate it (emphasis added).

This has to be seen against the backdrop of Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, that very same day, celebrating a solemn pontifical in the Gregorian rite in the Cathedral of Westminster for the first time in three decades. To give an idea of the above “nightmare”, neither the archbishop of Westminster Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor nor any other incumbent bishops were in attendance. The cathedral itself, however, was bursting at the seams, with over 1,500 faithful including so many young families in attendance. At that time, over sixty young priests from around the country had joined a summer course offered by Merton College in Oxford to learn how to celebrate the Gregorian rite.

On another occasion, His Eminence is on record for having described as a “time of grace” the period “that we are living since the enforcement of the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum of the Holy Father Benedict XVI” (cf. Vatican Insider, 4 November 2012).

All of this is precisely the spirit in which we are called to live the second pilgrimage of the people of Summorum Pontificum to Rome, due in 24-37 October 2013, to cap the Year of Faith. Click on photo to read original source.

Is there a renwed interest now in implementing Summorum Pontificum bearing in mind the fact that the bishops were not exactly rushing to ensure that seminarians were taught the Traditional Mass or that all parishes were providing it even before Pope Benedict resigned. Perhaps then the forthcoming pilgrimage and Pontifical High Mass in St Peter’s fills you with fresh hope? Is Summorum Pontificum alive and well after all? Or, should we lose all hope now that Bishop Fellay has publicly described Pope Francis as “a genuine Modernist“?

62 responses

  1. I’m not particularly well versed on Summuorum Pontificum, so I’m afraid that I’m speaking as an outcast and therefore I dare not say anything too controversial. However, from an unbiased opinion, I believe it was not implemented as intented, as growth of the celebration of Latin Masses has been relatively sluggish since it was issued in 2007. Very few Cardinals or Archbishops have celebrated it, apart from men such as Cardinals Burke, Ranjith, Barbarin, Vingt-trois, Bagnasco and Archbishop Leonard. In the USA Latin Masses did not experience the boom. They have only increased from 60 in 1991 to 420 in 2012, and in the UK, there were 26 TLM in 2007 and 157 in 2012. In many parishes, it is impossible to implement, due to the way the altars are positioned. One can only celebrate the TLM ad orientem as far as I know. If I asked my Priest, I’d get a snort of haughty derision. Has Card. O’Brien ever celebrated a TLM. On Rorate Caeli (I think) there was a list of Cards who celebrated or assisted at a TLM, but I was unsure as to whether C. O’Brien’s name should have been there.

  2. Perhaps I did not read the list properly in the above link, for in reading again I did see Cardinal O’Brien’s name followed by Archbishop Conti. I cannot recall either of them having celebrated the Tridentine Mass at all, though have read somewhere that Cardinal O’Brien had preached at one in the past.

    I must read more carefully, or should have my eyesight tested.

  3. I was torn between posting this thread on Summorum Pontificum OR a thread asking why Bishop Fellay remained silent in the face of the worsening crisis in the Church. Just as well I held fire – Bishop Fellay has spoken now out, loud and clear. Just exactly what we need at this point in time: clear episcopal leadership. Thanks be to God. Click here to read more…

    I should add that I decided to post this discussion on Summorum Pontificum rather than on the subject of Bishop Fellay’s silence, because I felt we needed a break from discussing Pope Francis! Ironic, then, that this news arrived not long after posting this thread. So, now we have a slightly different angle on which to focus as we reflect on the question of whether Pope Francis, whom Bishop Fellay describes as “a genuine Modernist”, will enforce Summorum Pontificum. As any chain-smoking Glaswegian will tell you, I have my doubts

    I had, in fact, to toss up between headlining this post SP Dead & Buried? or SP Alive & Well? and having had so many lectures on the importance of “being positive”, I plumped for the latter. What am I LIKE? (Strictly rhetorical question, as ever…)

    Bishop Fellay’s insightful remarks are perhaps summed up in these words:

    “From the start,” he said, “we have the impression that we have something wrong with this Pope. From the start, he wanted to distinguish himself to be different from anybody else.”

    That is, absolutely, what caused me such disquiet from the beginning, from the very moment he walked onto the balcony after the conclave. And I’ve read and heard others say precisely the same thing.

    Well? Is a Pope who is a “genuine Modernist” likely to enforce Summorum Pontificum? No way, in my humble opinion. No way.

    And, very importantly, we have to ask the question will the clergy who have shown some interest in learning the TLM continue in their efforts or will they not bother now? The careerists certainly won’t bother, but what about those who had developed a genuine interest – are they likely to give up?

    • “Francis also tells us he is a greater admirer of the ultra liberal Jesuit Cardinal Martini (now deceased). Martini wrote a book calling for a total revolution in the Church. “And that is what Francis wants. And he told us the eight cardinal he chose to help him ‘reform’ the Church think like him.”

      Bishop Fellay has hit every nail on the head with that one statement. I’m so glad he has spoken out. I wonder if Cardinal Hoyos will now do the same since he is very sympathetic to the Society of St Pius X and was a big force behind Summorum Pontificum.

      As for SP being implemented now – IMHO, not a chance.

    • Bishop Fellay is quoted as follows:

      The same for the Mass. The want us to recognize not only that the [New] Mass is valid provided it is celebrated correctly, etc., but that it is licit. I told them: we don’t use that word. It’s a bit messy, our faithful have enough [confusion] regarding the validity, so we tell them, ‘The New Mass is bad, it is evil’ and they understand that. Period!’” Of course the Roman authorities “were not very happy with that.”

      How can he believe that the “New Mass is bad, it is evil” How can a Mass offered with respect, reverence, in good faith and with love for Our Lord ever be considered “evil”?

      • .How can a Mass offered with respect, reverence, in good faith and with love for Our Lord ever be considered “evil”?

        The problem is that respect and reverence are missing from many (most?) vernacular masses these days.

        In the Novus Ordo parish which is closest to me, it is a matter of routine that mobile phones ring throughout the mass, people talk amongst themselves, people fail to genuflect.

        I don’t mean to be judgemental or – worse, legalistic,(Heaven forbid), but then I don’t feel that objecting to such blatant thoughtlessness – and laziness – is judgemental.

        No-one would sit and talk through a film at the cinema, or allow their phone to ring at the theatre, and yet Catholics fail to demonstrate the same level of respect / awareness for Gods House as they do for secular places of entertainment?

        As for “in good faith” – how many of these people even believe in the real presence? If they did, would the general standards on show not be significantly higher?

        Would they not genuflect towards the tabernacle, would they not receive communion on the tongue? Would they not make the supreme sacrifice of switching their phone off for one hour, or leaving it at home?

        The irony is that this is one of the better parishes. At least the priests there have not been seen dancing during the liturgy (as Ive seen elsewhere) or camping it up like Graeme Norton to amuse his parishioners (as Ive also seen elsewhere).

        • I’m sorry that your experience of the Novus Ordo parish closest to you has been so negative. I must be very fortunate in my experience of the Novus Ordo Masses both in my own parish on a Sunday and weekday Masses at the Cathedral or Sacred Heart, Lauriston in Edinburgh. There have been very few occasions on which I’ve heard a mobile phone ring or any other disturbance has taken place. Respect and reverence have always been evident and I have witnessed this both here and abroad over the years.

        • That’s true Gabriel, people do not genuflect during the Angelus. I, along with 3 or 4 others, am the only one to bend the knee. And I’m not a Catholic yet. That, to me speaks volumes.

      • Magdalene,

        We’ve had this discussion many times. In Catholic theology, “evil” means the absence of the good we may expect from something. It’s a bit like the “fit for purpose” argument of consumer watchdogs. If an item purchased to do X is found to be wanting in doing X, then you can claim your money back. In so far as the new Mass does not do what it is intended to do – give due and true worship to God (top cardinals have described it as “a grave departure from Catholic Theology of the Mass) – then it may be described as “evil” – personally I never use that word since the majority of people only associate “evil” with murder, terrorism etc. For me, it’s quite simple. Since the Vatican* has refused to state unambiguously that the new Mass is “totally orthodox and otherwise NOT displeasing to God”, I cannot attend it for the purpose of fulfilling my Sunday obligation, nor can I recommend it to others.

        * We reported on another thread about the two dubia (doubts) submitted to the Vatican by a bishop from South America, on behalf of a layman. Details below:

        A bishop who wishes to remain anonymous recently submitted two dubia to the Pontifical Ecclesia Dei Commission, regarding the interpretation of “legitimacy” in the 2011 instruction Universae Ecclesiae, n. 19.

        Two Dubia Submitted To The Pontifical Commission

        In article 19 of the commission’s instruction of April 30, 2011, Universae Ecclesiae (UE), it is laid down that those Catholics who desire celebrations of the Eucharist in the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite (using the 1962 Missal) may not support, or be members of, any groups which “challenge the validity or legitimacy” (validitatem vel legitimitatem impugnent) of the ordinary form.

        While very few still question the validity of Mass celebrated with the reformed Roman Missal, certain prominent “traditionalist” groups, individuals, and publications have been openly and defiantly challenging its legitimacy.

        However, there often appears to be confusion and conflicting assumptions in these circles as to how, precisely, the latter word is to be understood. As a result, it is not always clear to those priests wishing to serve Catholics attached to the traditional liturgy whether or not some of these folks are in fact in compliance with this requirement of the Apostolic See enunciated in UE, n. 19.

        In order, therefore, to clarify this matter and facilitate a consistent pastoral application of article 19, could the Commission graciously consider and respond to the following two dubia?

        1. Whether legitimitas in UE, article 19, is to be understood as meaning:
        (a) duly promulgated by appropriate procedures of ecclesiastical law (ius ecclesiasticum);

        or

        (b) in accord with both ecclesiastical law and divine law (ius divinum), that is, neither doctrinally unorthodox nor otherwise displeasing to God.

        2. If (b) above represents the mind of the Commission in regard to the meaning of legitimitas, whether UE, n. 19 is then to be understood as allowing access to Mass in the extraordinary form:

        (a) only to those Catholics who do not challenge the legitimacy of any specific text or practice whatsoever that has been duly approved by either universal or local ecclesiastical law for use in celebrating the ordinary form;

        or

        (b) to those faithful mentioned in (a) and also to those who acknowledge in principle the legitimacy of Masses celebrated according to the reformed Roman Missal and its General Instruction, but not the legitimacy of certain specific practices which, while not mandated therein, are permitted as options by universal or local liturgical law.

        The second dubium has in mind those many traditionally inclined Catholics who accept the legitimacy (in sense l[b] above of ordinary-form Masses in which more traditional options are used, but who regard as wrong and displeasing to God certain practices which were for many centuries universally disapproved and forbidden by the Church but which are now permitted by the local liturgical law of many or most dioceses or episcopal conferences (e.g., Communion given in the hand, female altar service, and the use of extraordinary lay ministers of Communion).

        Rome’s Response

        Pontificia Commissio Ecclesia Dei
        Prot. 156/2009
        Vatican City, 23 May 2012

        Your Excellency,

        This Pontifical Commission has received, via your Excellency’s good offices, a copy of a correspondence from [name blacked out] placing before the Commission two dubia as to the interpretation of article 19 of this Commission’s Instruction Universae Ecclesiae.

        The first [dubium] asked whether legitimas in UE, article 19, is to be understood as meaning:

        (a) Duly promulgated by appropriate procedures of ecclesiastical law (ius ecclesiasticum);

        or

        (b) In accord with both ecclesiastical law and divine law (ius divinum), that is, neither doctrinally unorthodox nor otherwise displeasing to God.

        This Pontifical Commission would limit itself to saying that legitimas is to be understood in the sense of 1(a).

        The second [dubium] is responded to by this answer.

        With the hope that Your Excellency will communicate the contents of this letter to the individual concerned, this Pontifical Commission takes this opportunity to renew its sentiments of esteem.

        Sincerely yours in Christ

        Mons. Guido Pozzo
        Secretary

        • Editor,

          Thank you for explaining the Catholic theological definition of “evil”. I have to admit that “evil” to me equates with all that is “satanic” and I could not understand why Bishop Fellay would describe the Novus Ordo Mass as such.

          I still hold out hope that the new Mass, offered with respect, reverence, good intention and with a loving heart, will be pleasing to God. I find it really difficult to cope with the thought that what I have been practising all these years would be offensive to God.

          I had not read the previous threads and I thank you for taking the time and trouble to post (again) the information re the two dubia. I will read this with interest.

          God Bless.

          • Pleasure, Magdalene.

            I fully understand and sympathise with your difficulty in coping with the idea that the new Mass “would be offensive to God”. This is a very difficult area for a number of reasons but I think the following points must be kept in mind.

            Sincere Catholics like yourself who are attending the new Mass through trust in the Church not to expose your souls to any danger, and priests who have never known anything else and were trained to say the novus ordo, will not offend God by their participation. That’s for sure. And, it must be stressed, the usual conditions presumed, the new Mass can be valid (albeit the danger of invalid Masses being on the increase due to various and ever more imaginative liturgical abuses, as acknowledged by Monsignor Klaus Gamber in his famous book on the subject of The Reform of the Roman Liturgy: it’s problems…. At the time of the Reformation, priests often had to dispense with the rest of the prayers of the Mass and pronounce only the words of Consecration – in such a time of crisis, that was a valid Mass, pleasing to God.

            I attended the new Mass myself for twenty years, but, unlike you, I did suffer a great deal in witnessing what was happening in sanctuaries. Attending Mass became a really painful event, with no easy access to a traditional Mass for a long time. Like most other Catholics, I presumed it was a perfectly legitimate new Mass. Not being a “theologian” I trusted the Pope not to tamper with the Mass unless he was authorised so to do. It never occurred to me that there was anything untoward in that respect – I blamed individual priests for introducing novelties. It took me quite some time to realise that the new Mass is, itself, a novelty. And it took me even longer to read those key words of Pope Saint Pius X: “Far, far from our priests be the love of novelty!”

            I do believe, however, Magdalene, that once we study the genesis, the history of the new Mass, our conscience must respond. For me, as soon as I read those terrifying words of Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci (“the new Mass is a grave departure in whole and in part from Catholic theology of the Mass”) I knew I could not continue to attend. How on earth could that new Mass be pleasing to God if it had departed from the Catholic understanding of the Mass? I was stunned that Pope Paul VI had ignored that letter from the Cardinals, now known as The Ottaviani Intervention.

            One last thing: the argument that the novus ordo Mass can be offered “with reverence” is something of a distraction. Only a couple of weeks ago, I attended a novus ordo Saturday night vigil Mass in a parish in Glasgow. It would definitely fit the description “reverent” – the priest was very reverent when praying the Mass and his homily was terrific. The best homily I’ve heard in ages. But during that Mass the following took place:

            1) The usual ad libbing introduction, smiles, welcoming etc. from the priest (a departure from Catholic theology of the Mass – compare with what happens when the priest approaches the sanctuary in the TLM)

            2) Sign of peace – lots of movement around the Church, shaking hands. (a departure from Catholic theology of the Mass – after the Consecration there should be silence).

            3) Lay woman reading x 3 times. Each time she gave a deep bow in the direction of the priest sitting on the right hand side of the sanctuary, walked past the Tabernacle and read/sang psalm/read again (a departure from Catholic theology of the Mass)

            4) Several laity, men and women, entered the sanctuary to help distribute Holy Communion. A slight mix-up when the priest was distributing the Host to them caused giggles. (laity distributing Communion – let alone giggling in the process – is a grave departure from Catholic theology of the Mass)

            5) At no point before, during or after the Mass, did any lay person genuflect to the Blessed Sacrament. Most of the time the priest didn’t do so either, but gave a deep bow. (a grave departure from Catholic theology of the Mass.)

            6) The entire ethos within the church building was relaxed, before during (when, at one point, there was applause) and after Mass. I often notice when in cinemas or theatres that the audiences are generally quiet, subdued even. Notably in the theatre there is a hushed atmosphere of expectation. Only in diocesan churches have I experienced noisy chatter and laughter, sometimes calling out across aisles before and after Mass.

            So, Magdalene, in summary – no matter how sincere the priest, no matter his efforts to show reverence, the entire ethos of the new Mass is not conducive to reverence. Everything about it is aimed at encouraging activity in the name of “participation” where, in fact, it is highly unlikely that many, if any at all, are truly participating in the Mass because the only participation which pleases God is interior prayerful participation. Praying the Mass does not require any activity beyond turning the pages of our missal.

            Anyway, thank you for your very kind and humble acceptance of my original post on this. I know it is all very unsettling, but we must keep reminding ourselves that it has all been foretold. The crisis in the Church through which we are living and suffering, was foretold during at least three separate apparitions of Our Lady; at Quito (under the mantle of Our Lady of Good Success) in the 17th century, at Fatima in Portugal in 1917 and at Akita in Japan in 1973. God sent His Mother to warn us about what we are now witnessing, the diabolical disorientation to come, so it is incumbent upon us to educate ourselves and to seek to make sure that we do all in our power to worship God in a way that we know is pleasing to Him. Given the many martyrs who have given their life’s blood to defend what we now term the Traditional Latin Mass, we can be certain that we please God by adhering to that Mass. And ensuring that our worship is truly pleasing to God has, surely,to be our central aim.

            Sorry to be so long-winded, but why use ten words when thirty will do?!

            God bless you.

            • Editor,

              Thank you for your reply which has certainly given me considerable ‘food for thought’ which I suspect I will be digesting for several days to come!

              I certainly admit to finding it all very scary. I wonder why and how Vatican II could have been so misinterpreted by so many for so long.

              • Magdalene,

                I think that the answer to that question lies in the suppressed part of the Third Secret of Fatima. Sr Lucia spoke of Our Lady warning of a “diabolical disorientation” to come, and I think a huge part of that is the spiritual blindness which we are witnessing in our bishops and priests. In Glasgow, our then Archbishop (Conti) was in the habit of inviting Protestant ministers and an Episcopalian “Bishop” to preach in Catholic churches – can you imagine if the suggestion had been put to him to invite an SSPX priest to preach? Or any other traditional-leaning priest known to teach only sound doctrine. Everything is turned upside down (“diabolical disorientation”) and it will remain that way until the Pope consecrates Russia to Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart, as she requested when God sent her to Fatima.

      • Bishop Fellay’s comments on the Holy Eucharist being evil are totally unacceptable.. They bring into serious doubt his integrity as a priest of any sort. Any diabolical disorientation is emanating from the leader of SSXP.
        These remarks only show that the society should be disbanded and suppressed with immediate effect. The Holy Eucharist, – The Sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ, for our redemption – is the highest form of praise and thanksgiving that we can offer to The Divine.
        I now consider that SSXP have under these circumstances totally cut themselves from the ONE HOLY CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH.
        SSXP are an anathema, no longer to be considered in good standing.

        Any persons associating with this group are themselves to be considered outside the church and in serious danger of losing their souls to eternal damnation

        SHAME SHAME and DAMNATION to those of this site who have published these remarks and promoted them as being TRUTH. SHAME on you all.

          • Editor, on October, 14 .2013 at 10.08 pm gave a link on which the following statement by Bishop Fellay was quoted:

            “The same for the Mass. The want us to recognize not only that the [New] Mass is valid provided it is celebrated correctly, etc., but that it is licit. I told them: we don’t use that word. It’s a bit messy, our faithful have enough [confusion] regarding the validity, so we tell them, ‘The New Mass is bad, it is evil’ and they understand that. Period!’” Of course the Roman authorities “were not very happy with that.”

            It states he is referring to the New Mass.

          • Sixupman, he did make that statement: Bishop Fellay is recounting his dealings with the Vatican the previous year, regarding the hoped for “Agreement” – here’s the exact quote:

            “The same for the Mass. The want us to recognize not only that the [New] Mass is valid provided it is celebrated correctly, etc., but that it is licit. I told them: we don’t use that word. It’s a bit messy, our faithful have enough [confusion] regarding the validity, so we tell them, ‘The New Mass is bad, it is evil’ and they understand that. Period!’” Of course the Roman authorities “were not very happy with that.”
            He continues, “It has never been our intention to pretend either that the Council would be considered as good, or the New Mass would be ‘legitimate’”. END OF EXTRACT

            • Firstly, I made a gross typo in stating “TLM” instead of “NOM” for which I have apologised elsewhere.

              My point refers to the precision of language [typos excluded]. There appears to be veritable chasm between calling the “Holy Eucharist” a evil, as opposed to the ‘NOM’ being evil, as the former can encompass all rites and the latter a specific rite.

        • Domchas,

          Why do you think the Vatican refused to affirm the new Mass as being “totally orthodox and otherwise NOT displeasing to God”?

        • Domchas,

          To an extent I agree with you. I do not believe that the Holy Father intented for clown or balloon masses when he created the New Mass in 1969. Certainly, I have attended NO Masses that have a great degree of reverence and humility. But, compare them to a TLM. There is no comparison. The NO is not evil itself, but it promotes evil practises. For example, communion under both kinds (denies Christ is present under just one species- so people are receiving him twice) altar girls (promotes immoral behaviour, weakens male vocations), lay people dispensing holy communion (denies the role of the Priest in the person of Christ the Head). I could go on. It also denies the supremacy of St Pius V who instated the Tridentine Mass during the Council of Trent, and he said to anyone then and in the future, that if they tried to alter it, let him be anathema. People who attend the NO Mass cannot be held to blame and nor can the Priests, but one should approach it with caution. Needless to say +Fellay is right to criticise where criticism is due, and if he thinks it is evil, then that is his opinion.

          Careful with the damnation.

    • Bishop Fellays criticism is accurate and well-considered in that article, I hope his remarks are widely reported on and considered. I particularly like his criticism of the Popes statements which were essentially a proclamation of relativism.

      I would like seeing some official Vatican response to it, addressing the points +Fellay makes, but then they have the luxury of just ignoring anything inconvenient or challenging.

      I suppose the best we can hope for for the various internet blogs / personalities to digest it and make a response. However, I suspect even many of those will ignore it, given how direct and effective +Fellays criticism is – e.g. “That is not Catholic”.

      I would hope these “Super Cardinals” are noting the widespread discontent with Francis among Catholics – and criticism such as that from the Bishop and prominent Catholic writers – and seek a change in Papal style at these “small councils” they are holding.

    • Isn’t Bishop Fellay such a wonderful man? My admiration for him knows no bounds. He speaks the truth. I do not want him to unify with Rome, because I think that the SSPX may become diluted, and I applaud His Excellency for refusing to reject all things conciliar. The two men (either or) whom I would like to see become Pope after the disastrous Pontificate of Francis are Raymond Burke or Malcolm Ranjith. These two are staunch supporters of the Tridentine Mass and sympathise with the SSPX, and the latter wanted to put the SSPX in charge of his seminaries. If you want to return to tradition, these are your men.

      The Gerald Warner article was fantastic: ‘The alleged pretext for banning the Tridentine Mass was that it was accompanied by criticism of the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s. Criticism? These prelates cannot get out much. The world and his dog knows that the Second Vatican Catastrophe was the worst disaster ever to afflict the Church. It led to the abandonment of their vocations by half a million priests, monks, nuns and religious, the apostasy of countless millions of laymen, the loss of any familiarity with basic doctrine and, due to the rejection of all moral discipline, a massive sexual scandal. This they called “Renewal”. Vatican II renewed the Church in the way that the atomic bomb improved the environment of Hiroshima’.

      I have never heard a truer word spoken, and like Mgr. Fellay, I believe Satan is very powerful in the Vatican, and he may be on the Chair itself.

      Why would Francis ban the FFI from using the TLM. That is why it is experiencing a vocations boom. The young love the TLM, hence the massive vocations in the SSPX, FSSP, ICKSP, Institut de la Bon Pasteur, and Institute of St Jean Vianney. Mark my words, the latter will have the TLM suppressed.

      Meanwhile, I’m off to read Apocalypse Ch. 8-13. I want to prepare.

      Do you share the sentiment that Francis reigns and the Devil rules?

      Praised be Jesus Christ and Mary, Ever Virgin.

  4. Catholic convert – 26 jumps to 157 in the space of 5 years in UK is quite considerable given the training of clergy and perhaps reeducation of the laity.

    In actual fact the unfortunate re-ordering (vandalism) of many sanctuary’s does not make it possible to implement. I have not seen an altar anywhere in Scotland where ad orientem would not be possible.

    With regards to the list of prelates who have celebrated the traditional Mass, I am unaware of Cardinal O’Brien actually celebrating, however on more than one occasion he did ‘assist in choir’ at a traditional mass.

    Archbishop Conti did infrequently celebrate in the traditional rite while Bishop of Aberdeen, I don’t know if he has since 2007.

    • In order to enable a celebration ad orientem, couldn’t the new altars be moved and positioned directly against the wall?

      • The altar does not need to be against the wall for mass to be celebrated ad orientem. Many great cathedrals and basilicas (many of the Roman ones as well) never had altars against a wall and could still celebrate Mass for centuries in the ad orientem style.

        • The TLM could not be celebrated in my Church because if the Priest was to do so, he would fall down the steps if he stepped backwards. Although it might help if he moved the flowers.

  5. Regarding the record of Cardinal O’Brien and ++Conti with the TLM, my understanding is:

    I have been told (so, 2nd hand knowledge) that one of the first things Conti did on arriving in Glasgow was celebrate a high mass (in St Mungos, Townhead, I think). He then seems to have hardened his opinion regarding the traditional mass and latterly actively attempted to dissuade clergy and discourage lay people from any interest in it. Latterly, his known animus for the latin mass was covered in the UK national press (Telegraph) and by global Catholic bloggers. Fr Z described ++Contis response to Summoroum Pontificum (articulated in an offical document, unilaterally saying there was “no call” for the mass) as being ‘the most cold and negative’ which he had encountered.

    Cardinal O’Brien seems to have been more favourable to SP, although I have never heard of him celebrating a latin mass himself (though thats not to say he didnt). His record was (as far as I know) one of kindness and accomodation to the FSSP – granting them the use of an Edinburgh Church (St Andrews, Ravelston) on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation. He also gave permission for a Pontifical High Mass to be celebrated there, by Bishop Rifan of Campos, during a visit to the UK. Indeed, the Cardinal and Bishop posed together for a photo, although I bet Bishop Rifan regrets that now, following O’Briens disgrace!

    • Gabriel Syme,

      It took quite some time for Cardinal O’Brien to allow a Sunday Traditional Mass in Edinburgh despite having an FSSP priest resident in the archdiocese. We published, at the time, (a) his pastoral letter which indicated plans for the wider use of Eucharistic services on Sundays where priests were in short supply and (b) a letter from the Cardinal to a member of the Una Voce committee in which he rejected their appeal for a Sunday TLM (reminding the Cardinal that they had a priest resident in the archdiocese) on grounds that it would interfere with his plans for the archdiocese.

      I’m not sure what changed his mind, possibly the glowing praise from the FSSP priest in an interview published in the Catholic Herald (which we also reported in some detail at the time) – I cannot be sure of the chronology here, so it may not be cause and effect – but whatever the reason, it took a while before the Mass in St Andrew’s Ravelston had the Cardinal’s permission let alone blessing.

      As for Archbishop Conti’s recorded participation in the TLM – do not confuse his acceptance of invitations from Una Voce for personal love of the old Mass. Far from it. Again, I have a copy somewhere in my files, of a letter he wrote to Una Voce accepting an invitation to offer the old rite Mass in which he said that he wished to emphasise that, while accepting their invitation, he wanted to make clear that he preferred the “community-centred” (new) Mass to the “God-centred” traditional Mass.

      In summary, neither of these prelates is any friend of the TLM. Not remotely.

    • I believe that Archbishop Conti personally celebrated a TLM once for Una Voce Scotland (not sure which year) and was once in choro for a celebration of the TLM by Mgr Hugh Boyle back in 2006.

      I had only been a Catholic 6 months when I attended the latter and I remember thinking “how wonderful that I have converted during this great period of restoration”.

      7 years on, I feel very sad when I compare things in 2013 to the excitement I felt in 2006 and 2007. There was a sense in which at least some of the damage that had been done over the preceding three decades was at least beginning to be repaired.

  6. On Summorum Pontificum in general in Scotland:

    I have been disappointed by the Scottish Diocesan Bishops overall response. With the exception of Cardinal O’Brien and the FSSP, (mentioned above), they have done essentially nothing and what has been achieved appears down to the efforts of Una Voce group, not the Episcopate.

    I keep hearing there are significant numbers of younger (Scottish) diocesan priests interested in the Latin mass, but whom are very reticent to promote it or even reveal their interest, for fear of sanction. I think that speaks volumes about the prevailing Espicopal attitudes to latin.

    However, as the Church in Scotland is at a time of renewal – in terms of the old guard of Bishops and priests moving on – I hope the replacements have better vision (or at least be more open-minded) to identify the treasure and the potential of the latin mass in this day and age.

    There seems to be (or has been) a great resistance to trying something different, (like the TLM), it seems many Bishops seem content to sit and watch their flocks declining and confusing increasing, doing or trying nothing out of the ordinary to stop the rot. I think Bishops have their priorities all wrong and are obsessed with ecumenism and protestants – i.e obsessed with dead ends.

    We are not short of modern examples of how tradition flourishes whenever it is given a chance. The dynamism of the traditional orders, the success stories of traditional-only dioceses and the obvious interest which latin worship generates, whenever Bishops (like Mark Davies in Shrewsbury) have the nous to roll it out to the people.

    • “I keep hearing there are significant numbers of younger (Scottish) diocesan priests interested in the Latin mass, but whom are very reticent to promote it or even reveal their interest, for fear of sanction. I think that speaks volumes about the prevailing Espicopal attitudes to latin.”

      Gabriel Syme,

      These younger priests, about whom I used to hear a lot, need to examine their consciences big time.

      If it is true (and I have my doubts, frankly) that they really do want to learn the TLM, then they should not allow “fear of sanction” for which read “lack of promotion” to stop them.

      They should apply to themselves those frightening words of Archbishop Lefebvre, faced with his decision to consecrate the four bishops without papal mandate, in order to ensure the preservation of the traditional Mass and Faith:

      “And if you wish to know the real reason for my persistence, it is this. At the hour of my death, when Our Lord asks me: “What have you done with your episcopate, what have you done with your episcopal and priestly grace?” I do not want to hear from His lips the terrible words “You have helped to destroy the Church along with the rest of them.”

      As this dreadful crisis reaches ever more serious levels under this shocking pontiff, each of us has to decide whether we are part of the solution or part of the problem. Happily, I met two men on Sunday after Mass who don’t usually attend the SSPX chapel in Glasgow. They normally attend the TLM supplied by the archdiocese. When I expressed pleasant surprise at seeing them, one of them replied that they now realised that by supporting the archdiocese they are supporting Modernism.

      Until these alleged TLM supporting young priests come to the same conclusion, they remain part of the problem, NOT part of the solution.

      • I feel that the Church in Europe and the West is growing, and growing strongly, because it is growing in the right place. Traditionalist orders are booming. The SSPX has the largest number of vocations in the world, when compared to the size of the organisation. The same applies to similar groups who solely celebrate the tlm. The same can be said for mainstream quasi-traditional groups such as Opus Dei and the Legion of Christ. The mainstream wishy washy Church is in collapse, but that is only what the secular press cares about and that is only what we hear about. If you combine the traditionalist groups in France and ordinary priests who celebrate the tlm you have several thousand priests with hundreds of thousands of followers, who will be the faithful remnant.

  7. Eponymous Flower reports on Moto Proprio Summorim Pontificum Conference 10th. October, +++s Burke & Pozzo walked out when Sandro Magister criticised Franciscus. One comment, regarding NOM, thereat was the the translation, from Latin, into national languages resulted in heretical statements.

    As to the NOM and +Fellay’s comments: “evil” might be a bit strong relative to the Mass itself, but the fruits of the NOM are clearly verging on evil and in some instances may well be.

    Rome can promote any [new] Mass it wishes, but the NOM was clearly promulgated in ‘bad faith’, there can be no other construction. If it was a matter of the vernacular, as, inter alia, was implied at the time, the problem did not exist, such was already in the extant missals. At a stroke those extant missals were rendered redundant – by virtue, inter alia, of the calendar changes. Leaving aside the absence of clarity of the propitiatory aspect of the NOM, the excision of those prayers at the foot of the altar, together with those after Mass, was a mean exercise in disorientation of the faithful.

    The other week-end I watched an ‘X-Rated’ video, well it would be so in the halls of ARCIC, named “Faith of our Fathers” [St. Anthony Communications]. It is very well made. but by virtue of the statements, therein, by both ++s NIchols and Brain, somewhat incongruous and ironic. ++Nichols statement was mealy mouthed in that he made an underlying but unstated, argument, that the Faith of those times, had been superceded by time and events [Vatican II]. ++Brain bemoaned that the story of the English Martyrs was no longer promoted – but who created that problem. Catholicism and its recent history has been expunged from both school curricula and the pulpits. There was ]recently] erected a plaque, for one local martyr in Chorley, which stated that he died for his “Christian Faith” – not his Catholic Faith mark you – which states a lot. The martyrs, in question, died for the ‘Old Mass’ not the mess of potage we are now facing.

    ++Longley [Birmingham] is promoting inter-reception of communion with Protestants. That says it all!

    • How can Catholics receive Communion from Protestants and vice versa? They don’t even believe in the Real Presence, it’s only symbolic to them. If it’s only symbolic, and not a renewal of the sacrifice a Calvary, why would you bother? Nickolaus Schneider, the head of the lutheran social workers firm in Germany, met with Francis to discuss inter church relations- http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2013/04/09/lutheran-pastor-meets-pope-francis-in-rome/ I wouldn’t put anything past Francis. Ecumenism and it’s supporters are emissaries of Satan.

    • I don’t think evil is too strong. It’s exactly what the New Mass is. The intention was to strip the Mass of it’s Catholicity and remove every stumbling block for Protestants – that is evil in the theological sense. The editor provided an outstanding description of the theology of evil – much better than I could ever describe it.

  8. The Bishop of Aberdeen has sanctioned Tridentine Masses to be said in his diocese. There will be a Mass at Blairs College on the 19th of this month and again on the 16th of November. There will also be 4 Masses a year in Shetland. These Masses will be offered by the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer from Papastronsay.

    • Olaf419,

      It’s all well and good that the Bishop of Aberdeen is permitting Masses (not that his permission or sanctioning is required – Summorum Pontificum specifically removed the requirement to seek episcopal permission) but is he “sanctioning” Traditional Masses on Sunday?

      I think Una Voce, presumably the organisers of these Masses, have forgotten that we are not required to attend Mass EXCEPT on Sundays. Are there any Sunday Masses being provided in the Diocese of Aberdeen?

      I presume that the 4 Shetland Masses – why so few? – being offered by the priests from Papastronsay are Sunday Masses – surely?

  9. Olaf 419,

    I wonder what has brought about the Bishop of Aberdeen sanctioning the Tridentine Masses to be said in his Diocese. Too few though.

    Today I listened to a talk given by Thomas Gabriel, a New York police detective titled Crime and Punishment: The devastating effects of the Novus Ordo Mass on society. First he explains how his parents and himself and young family found their way to the Tridentine Mass. Secondly, how crime has spiralled in America, pornography – in particular child ponography, murder and includes abortion in that, identity theft.

    Hopefully the link still works – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifdXbly4X_U

  10. What do the Redemptorists think of the TLM. Are they free to celebrate it? Can anyone name a mainstream order that celebrates the TLM?

    • The Oratorian Fathers Birmingham, London and Oxford) celebrate the TLM as do other mainstream orders, but not exclusively. There are many orders in France as well. They even have traditional orders of nuns, jammy dodgers! I once came across a group of monks in Riaumont (near Caen) who are traditionalists and mainstream. I wonder how they got away from it prior to Summorum Pontificum?

  11. I don’t know if someone has already posted the link to the audio of Bishop Fellay’s full sermon. You can listen to it on the US SSPX website.

  12. Catholic convert- technically any catholic priest is free to celebrate the TLM (since SP)

    Would you not count the FSSP as a ‘mainstream’ order?

  13. How fast is the Institut du Bon Pasteur or the Institute of Christ the King growing? I don’t know if they took off like the SSPX, but I have been unable to find statistics and they have not responded to my numerous emails.

    • As far as I am aware, both of those Orders are growing strongly.

      Ive only seen vague statistics in English for the Institute of the Good Shepherd:

      2006 – Founded, 5 Priests
      2008 – 18 priests, 30 seminarians – wikipedia
      2011 – 57 priests (seminarians not mentioned) – Rorate Caeli

      Sources:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_of_the_Good_Shepherd
      http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2011/07/statistics.html

      I havent seen a post-2011 figure yet.

      ICKSP:

      I *think* these stats are also from 2011:
      (it says only “after little more than 20 years” after founding)

      1990 – founded
      2011 – 65 priests, 80 seminarians

      http://www.institute-christ-king.org/institute/who-we-are/

      I know both Orders already have a tandem Order of Sisters too.

      Regarding your emails – I dont know how many English speakers these Orders currently have, but I dont think many. Though it must be noted there is at least one ICSKP parish in England (Shrewsbury Diocese) and I think in Ireland too.

  14. Has anyone who posts here studied Cardinal Martini? If so was he a Modernist or just an old liberal? I read some of his quotes and they sound like Pope Francis. I wouldn’t read his books without permission from a priest so it’s kind of difficult to grasp where he falls in the liberal spectrum. He was referred to as a progressive. I can’t find any lengthy critiques of his works.

    • “I wouldn’t read his books without permission from a priest”

      Are you an adult?? What else do you have to seek clerical permission before you do???

      • Nolite Timere,

        I find your comment in response to 3LittleShepherds very interesting indeed. Your apparent belief that being an “adult” means doing exactly what you want, what you think is best for yourself, is certainly the popular view – which doesn’t make it right. Indeed, when we reflect that “adult entertainment” or “adult” anything these days is usually a euphemism for “sinful behaviour” your remarks about reading materials becomes significant. I always tape films, so that I can fast forward if there is anything “adult” in there. We were clearly taught at school that reading “bad” (i.e. impure) books or watching impure films would be matter for confession and might well be an occasion of sin, leading to more serious sin. Old fashioned stuff, eh, Nolite Timere? Even worse, Nolite, before the film I’d taped begins, if the advance warning includes “adult themes” I delete without watching. “Adult” does not always equal “good” or “right”. Usually, these days, the opposite. Didn’t Our Lord Himself say something like that? Oh yes, I remember now: “Unless you become as little children, you shall not enter the Kingdom of Heaven.” Not something you hear Modernists quote often, if at all.

        However, that’s not what interest me most. What interests me most about your post is that it strikes me that it fits with your general attitude to just about everything on this blog. You are always on the offensive, it seems, looking for faults in us. And a key reason for that has to be that you have implicit trust in the modernism endemic in the Church at the present time. You follow, blindly, (although you will throw up your hands in shock horror at the very idea) the modernism being fed to you by modernist churchmen, whether priests or bishops, while criticising us for our defence of what are always elementary Catholic teachings. You cling to ignorant propaganda, forgetting that there is a foretold crisis in the Church and thus, failing to see the importance of making sure that what you DO read is not dangerous baloney.

        Not long ago, I was appalled, but not surprised, to discover that on their website, some nuns with whom I’m in touch occasionally are advertising for sale the writings of just about every heretic whose books were banned before Vatican II but which are now promoted. I say I’m “not surprised” because in matters theological and ecclesiastical, those nuns have moved from being perfectly orthodox to being classic modernists. Who was it said: “you ARE what you read?”

        The founder of the Daughters of St Paul (now Pauline Sisters – in true feminist fashion) said that he founded his Order to promote solid Catholic writings because he could not sleep at night thinking of the souls being lost through writings against the Faith. What would he think of his Order now? To find the answer to that question, rearrange the following words into a well know phrase or saying: he/grave/in/twirling/his/be/must.

        So, while it may not always be necessary or even possible to ask a (sound) priest for advice on certain reading materials, it is ALWAYS necessary and possible to check what we read against authentic Catholic doctrine and morals.

        Do you do that, Nolite Timere?

  15. Pope St. Pius X warns in Pascendi:

    It is also the duty of the Bishops to prevent writings of Modernists, or whatever savors of Modernism or promotes it, from being read when they have been published, and to hinder their publication when they have not. No books or papers or periodicals whatever of this kind are to be permitted to seminarists or university students. The injury to them would be not less than that which is caused by immoral reading– nay, it would be greater, for such writings poison Christian life at its very fount. The same decision is to be taken concerning the writings of some Catholics, who, though not evilly disposed themselves, are ill-instructed in theological studies and imbued with modern philosophy, and strive to make this harmonize with the faith, and, as they say, to turn it to the profit of the faith. The name and reputation of these authors cause them to read without suspicion, and they are, therefore, all the more dangerous in gradually preparing the way for Modernism.

  16. 3littleshepherds… You still haven’t answered the question…what else do you seek clerical permission for before doing?

    Dearest Ed

    I don’t believe being adult means doing exactly what I like, however I do believe being adult means that I have the freedom to make choices, choices that hopefully I make with due regard to my conscience and faith.

    I think it’s unfair to say that I am always on the defensive, I try to contribute as best as I can to the blog topics, I have learned many things on here and enjoyed the healthy debate.

    Im sure there is very little that I have read that could be considered against our Doctrine or morals

    • Well, Nolite Timere, if I’ve got it wrong about your “attitude” to us, I apologise. You certainly have made some very good contributions, that I do admit, she said through gritted teeth (kidding – by the way, where are you on the Jokes thread? Come on!)

      However, it is not fair to interfere with another’s good conscience. If 3LittleShepherds was telling us he/she was reading porn, for example, then you would be entitled to question his/her integrity. But a sensitive conscience should not be disturbed.

      I wouldn’t personally ask a priest for permission to read anything but I say that against the background of having had a good Catholic education in my schooldays (although I’m told by one of their number that the Sisters of Mercy have declined to take any credit for me!) and against the background of the crisis in the Church which has forced me to make sure that I keep myself properly informed about who is writing what, and why.

      Prior to this crisis such dangerous to the Faith books were banned from sale on Catholic premises. Others, with less time, perhaps, to devote to researching what is safe and what is not, must, however, be allowed the freedom of conscience to check with a priest first. We are not living in normal times, Nolite, not at all. I’m guessing you are a member of the younger generation (can you actually SEE my green eyes from there?) so you will, naturally, take it for granted that it’s OK to browse through the books in the Pauline Bookshop in Glasgow, and, having imbibed the contemporary culture of “adults make their own independent decisions” you will assume that it’s fine to buy whatever books you choose and decide for yourself what is good for your faith and what is not, what will please God and what will not. It’s an attitude that has led the majority, it seems, of Catholics to cohabit and contracept. One track mind? Moi? Never – just an easy example – one, sadly, of the easiest.

      Now get over there to Jokes and post some cheeky pupils’ one-liners or exam howlers for us!

  17. I also ask because I’m unfortunately willful. Our priests always told me I didn’t even know what obedience was. Not because I refused to do what they said but because I would say, “Wow, thanks Padre, that’s a good idea.”
    Meaning I usually took their advice
    not out of obedience, against my will, but because I agreed and it was to my liking. And if I didn’t like their advice, occasionally, I’d try to change their opinion with all sorts of (pious) arguments. That’s the major reason I never joined the third order.
    So for someone like me it’s better to ask permission and put my own will in my pocket. ouch.

%d bloggers like this: