Even Newer Mass(es) Coming Soon!

Text of the Apostolic Letter Motu Proprio “Magnum Principium” Quibus nonnulla in can.
838 Codicis Iuris Canonici immutantur


APOSTOLIC LETTER
ISSUED MOTU PROPRIO
OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF
FRANCIS
MAGNUM PRINCIPIUM
BY WHICH CAN. 838 OF THE CODE OF CANON LAW IS MODIFIED 

The great principle, established by the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, according to which liturgical prayer be accommodated to the comprehension of the people so that it might be understood, required the weighty task of introducing the vernacular language into the liturgy and of preparing and approving the versions of the liturgical books, a charge that was entrusted to the Bishops.

The Latin Church was aware of the attendant sacrifice involved in the partial loss of liturgical Latin, which had been in use throughout the world over the course of centuries. However it willingly opened the door so that these versions, as part of the rites themselves, might become the voice of the Church celebrating the divine mysteries along with the Latin language.

At the same time, especially given the various clearly expressed views of the Council Fathers with regard to the use of the vernacular language in the liturgy, the Church was aware of the difficulties that might present themselves in this regard. On the one hand it was necessary to unite the good of the faithful of a given time and culture and their right to a conscious and active participation in liturgical celebrations with the substantial unity of the Roman Rite. On the other hand the vernacular languages themselves, often only in a progressive manner, would be able to become liturgical languages, standing out in a not dissimilar way to liturgical Latin for their elegance of style and the profundity of their concepts with the aim of nourishing the faith.

This was the aim of various Liturgical Laws, Instructions, Circular Letters, indications and confirmations of liturgical books in the various vernacular languages issued by the Apostolic See from the time of the Council which was true both before as well as after the laws established by the Code of Canon Law.

The criteria indicated were and remain at the level of general guidelines and, as far as possible, must be followed by Liturgical Commissions as the most suitable instruments so that, across the great variety of languages, the liturgical community can arrive at an expressive style suitable and appropriate to the individual parts, maintaining integrity and accurate faithfulness especially in translating some texts of major importance in each liturgical book.

Because the liturgical text is a ritual sign it is a means of oral communication. However, for the believers who celebrate the sacred rites the word is also a mystery. Indeed when words are uttered, in particular when the Sacred Scriptures are read, God speaks to us. In the Gospel Christ himself speaks to his people who respond either themselves or through the celebrant by prayer to the Lord in the Holy Spirit.

The goal of the translation of liturgical texts and of biblical texts for the Liturgy of the Word is to announce the word of salvation to the faithful in obedience to the faith and to express the prayer of the Church to the Lord. For this purpose it is necessary to communicate to a given people using its own language all that the Church intended to communicate to other people through the Latin language. While fidelity cannot always be judged by individual words but must be sought in the context of the whole communicative act and according to its literary genre, nevertheless some particular terms must also be considered in the context of the entire Catholic faith because each translation of texts must be congruent with sound doctrine.

It is no surprise that difficulties have arisen between the Episcopal Conferences and the Apostolic See in the course of this long passage of work. In order that the decisions of the Council about the use of vernacular languages in the liturgy can also be of value in the future a vigilant and creative collaboration full of reciprocal trust between the Episcopal Conferences and the Dicastery of the Apostolic See that exercises the task of promoting the Sacred Liturgy, i.e. the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, is absolutely necessary. For this reason, in order that the renewal of the whole liturgical life might continue, it seemed opportune that some principles handed on since the time of the Council should be more clearly reaffirmed and put into practice.
Without doubt, attention must be paid to the benefit and good of the faithful, nor must the right and duty of Episcopal Conferences be forgotten who, together with Episcopal Conferences from regions sharing the same language and with the Apostolic See, must ensure and establish that, while the character of each language is safeguarded, the sense of the original text is fully and faithfully rendered and that even after adaptations the translated liturgical books always illuminate the unity of the Roman Rite.

To make collaboration in this service to the faithful between the Apostolic See and Episcopal Conferences easier and more fruitful, and having listened to the advice of the Commission of Bishops and Experts that I established, I order, with the authority entrusted to me, that the canonical discipline currently in force in can. 838 of the C.I.C. be made clearer so that, according to what is stated in the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium, in particular in articles 36 §§3.4, 40 and 63, and in the Apostolic Letter Motu Proprio Sacram Liturgiam, n. IX, the competency of the Apostolic See surrounding the translation of liturgical books and the more radical adaptations established and approved by Episcopal Conferences be made clearer, among which can also be numbered eventual new texts to be inserted into these books.

Therefore, in the future can. 838 will read as follows:

Can. 838 – §1. The ordering and guidance of the sacred liturgy depends solely upon the authority of the Church, namely, that of the Apostolic See and, as provided by law, that of the diocesan Bishop.

§2. It is for the Apostolic See to order the sacred liturgy of the universal Church, publish liturgical books, recognise adaptations approved by the Episcopal Conference according to the norm of law, and exercise vigilance that liturgical regulations are observed faithfully everywhere.

§3. It pertains to the Episcopal Conferences to faithfully prepare versions of the liturgical books in vernacular languages, suitably accommodated within defined limits, and to approve and publish the liturgical books for the regions for which they are responsible after the confirmation of the Apostolic See.

§4. Within the limits of his competence, it belongs to the diocesan Bishop to lay down in the Church entrusted to his care, liturgical regulations which are binding on all. Consequently this is how art. 64 §3 of the Apostolic Constitution Pastor Bonus as well as other laws are to be interpreted, particularly those contained in the liturgical books concerning their revision. Likewise I order that the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments modify its own “Regulations” on the basis of the new discipline and help the Episcopal Conferences to fulfil their task as well as working to promote ever more the liturgical life of the Latin Church.

Everything that I have decreed in this Apostolic Letter issued Motu Proprio must be observed in all its parts, notwithstanding anything to the contrary, even if it be worthy of particular mention, and I hereby set forth and I dispose that it be promulgated by publication in the daily newspaper L’Osservatore Romano, that it enter into force on 1 October 2017, and thereafter be published in Acta Apostolicae Sedis.

Given in Rome, at St. Peter’s, on 3 September of the year 2017, the fifth of my Pontificate
FRANCISCUS P.P.   

Note:  [at source, read also the Comment on the Motu Proprio by the secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments]

Comment:

The Catholic Herald sees no problem with the above – indeed, some might argue that the Herald’s assessment is somewhat naïve since few informed Catholics today have any confidence in the bishops, not to mention Pope Francis, not to damage the Mass even more than has already been achieved by the Bugnini revolution.  

The Remnant is closer to the truth:  Paragraph §4 makes it clear that the pope has now given bishops the power to determine much of the Church’s liturgical direction. “Within the limits of his competence, it belongs to the diocesan bishop to lay down in the Church entrusted to his care, liturgical regulations which are binding on all.”

This opens the door, not only to greater liberty in translating liturgical texts, but to creativity in drafting their own texts and rules. The bishops of an episcopal conference can now decide that if the faithful kneel to receive Communion, receive only on the tongue, or fail to participate in the hand shake of peace, this could be grounds to refuse them Communion.

The new motu proprio also supersedes Pope Benedict’s Summorum Pontificum, which dispensed priests from the need to obtain episcopal permission to say the Traditional Latin Mass. With the new ruling, an episcopal conference can now rule that the offering of the Latin Mass is forbidden in a given diocese, or in an entire country, so that traditional Catholics no longer have the option of appealing to Rome for help. The episcopal ruling is now Church law.” [emphasis added]

What we are seeing is a further attempt to pull the Catholic world away from the Church’s centralized authority and have a whimsical free-for-all. Francis himself, on October 17, 2015, called for a “healthy decentralization” of power in the Roman Catholic Church, including changes in the papacy and greater decision-making authority for local bishops, so this latest motu proprio is part of his plan to execute this decentralization.  END

Which commentator, in your opinion, has got it right – the English Catholic Herald or the American Remnant? (The Scottish Catholic Observer is too busy reporting on the Women’s Guild latest coffee morning to worry about incidentals like the liturgy.)   Comments invited…  

49 responses

  1. With great sadness, I must write that I believe the Remnant has nailed it. This becomes crystal clear with every word written in the Remnant, in light of Francis I’s consistent offerings of poison mixed with truth. We now receive what may be the final nail in the coffin: the destruction of Holy Mass.

    An unholy Mass will not last long. Total chaos will surround us without the grace of the Mass.

    As if isn’t bad enough now … God help us … How long, O Lord! How long …

  2. I can’t be bothered to read the CH’s opinion but am sure they’re wrong!

    It simply means that each Bishop will be able to set up his own ‘denomination’ which I suspect means we’ll at least have more denominations than the Protestant ‘Church’. I suspect a lot of these will indeed ban outright the TLM and anything at all which has a Traditional flavour.

    Cheer up, Mary Anne, the nearer we get to annihilation of the True Church, the closer we get to being rescued.

  3. It’s just like reading a cunning Protestant instruction manual on how to undermine the Catholic Mass. Note the mention of Latin retention, just as it was mentioned in Sacrosanctum Concilium, followed by a host of ways to then push the sacred language of the liturgy out of the back door under the pretext of cutural evolution. Very cleverly done, and with apparent Papal/Episcopal authority. But no one has the authority to undermine what Trent confirmed with full infallible power and which Quo Primum codified forever as the norm for the Church, that is, the sacred liturgy pre-existing and then existing in the latin language.

    It is also worthy of note that Vatican II’s Sacrosanctum Concilium, together with this Motu Proprio of Francis, proceeds from a fundamental error. The error in question is the insistence that the faithful can only participate in the Holy Mass if they understand the language and respond accordingly. This is utterly false since the Church has always taught that participation in the Holy Mass consists in being united in mind and heart with the priest as he offers Christ the Victim to the Father. Reciting the five sorrowful mysteries during Mass is one perfect example of such participation.

    This latest from Pope Francis is yet another example of the blindness, or worse, of the Modernist mind. They just can’t see the carnage they have inflicted already on the Church with their vernacular re-write of the ancient Mass of the Church. Or can they??

    • Athanasius,

      “The error in question is the insistence that the faithful can only participate in the Holy Mass if they understand the language and respond accordingly. “

      Exactly! And what about the faithful attending Mass in foreign parts? Unless they can speak fluent Spanish, French, German, Italian, blah blah, they are, by modernist standards, not participating. The whole vernacular gimmick is crackers.

      They forget that when Our Lord attended the Synagogue He did not read the Scriptures in Aramaic, the vernacular, but in Hebrew, as do many if not most Jews today. Some years ago, I met a woman who had married a Jew and she told me that she had to spend a year learning Hebrew before the wedding – that was a number of years ago, but I’m sure it’s no different now, although there are differences between orthodox and reformed Judaism, and I believe there have been debates within the Jewish community about praying in Hebrew in recent years. Still, you’ll get my drift and my drift is that it has always been the custom to avoid speaking to God in profane language. And we have the example of Our Lord Himself to prove it.

      Your concluding words are thought-provoking indeed. CAN they see the “carnage” they have inflicted on the Church in recent years, or are the Modernists serving each other high-fives right now, and whispering “job [almost] done”…

      • Editor

        “Exactly! And what about the faithful attending Mass in foreign parts? Unless they can speak fluent Spanish, French, German, Italian, blah blah, they are, by modernist standards, not participating. The whole vernacular gimmick is crackers.”

        Absolutely correct! This vernacular business was introduced to eradicate the Church’s universal sacred language and to compromise the integrity of the mystery (the sacrifice) of the Mass to accommodate false ecumenism.

        Countless local and national variations of the new Mass since 1969 have generated unprecedented numbers of liturgical abuses and sacrileges, a scandal never before witnessed in the Church’s history. 1900 years of Latin maintained unity and orthodoxy, 50 years of the vernacular has resulted in universal Babbel and heterodoxy!

        The evidence on both sides is overwhelming and that’s why I have the hardest time believing that genuinely well-meaning Churchmen from the Pope down can continue to promote the vernacular Novus Ordo in good faith. If it’s not malicious then it certainly must be a blindness that is not human in origin, dare I say a “diabolical disorientation”!

  4. This is seriously terrible news.

    I think the Scottish bishops will put an end to any more Traditional Latin Masses. They will maybe tolerate the ones already on offer, but I bet they will make moves to stop the spread of the old Mass.

    We’ll also probably see more “gay” Masses, like the Soho Masses. Things really can’t get much worse.

    • I don’t think the Scottish bishops will be that blatant as to forbid the Latin Mass. I think they would probably do nothing except there are modernist priests who will pressure them to give broad guidelines that allow more “creativity” in parishes than is around just now. That’s the real danger, IMHO.

      • Fidelis,

        You have a point and it’s a point which ought to dawn on Papa Benedict as he sees the possibility of “Summorum Pontificum” being filed under “You Must Be Kidding”.

    • Lily,

      The problem is, we don’t know what they’ll do and a key issue when new laws are introduced is not so much will they be implemented right now, but when and how will they be implemented. The current Scottish bishops might not have the stomach for more liturgical battles but the next crop may… it’s a monumental mess, like everything else penned by this horrendous pontiff.

  5. I have a point I feel is worthwhile for reflection. I notice your current poll is dominated by an obsessive jumping ‘Yes’ emoticon! I think this devalues your polls; any potential converts to tradition who visit the site would immediately see this as a bankrupt poll.

    • Michelangelo,

      Thank you for your constructive criticism. This is the first time we’ve used that particular emoticon.

      I don’t understand, though, what you mean by it “devalues” the poll(s). It’s very much just a bit of fun. And occasionally we’ve used a “no” or “yes” emoticon to signal the preferred answer, but nobody is forced to answer “yes” or “no” if that doesn’t reflect their opinion. In any event, I have made clear, often, that our polls are not scientific at all. In fact, more people visit the site than vote in the polls – by a large number, so, I really don’t take them too seriously, and advise you not to do so either. We’ve had occasions when homosexual sites and atheist sites have linked to our homepage to encourage their bloggers to take the vote in their particular direction, and that’s really quite helpful. If they’re visiting us, they’re reading the truth and that’s much more important than the poll results.

      In conclusion, I don’t like to use too many emoticons, and I certainly don’t like too many animated ones, but they serve some purpose in this time of unprecedented crisis, when if we don’t have a bit of a laugh, we cry,

      I hope you don’t mind me saying that I find it most interesting that you would log in first time in forever, to make the point about the jumping “yes” man (!) while not commenting on any of the many crucial issues listed on the sidebar, not least this particular thread. So, I hope you will accept MY constructive criticism and let us know your thoughts – will, for example, those Catholics who continue to attend the novus ordo because “the Mass is the Mass” as they keep telling me, will they continue to attend if the newer new Mass(es) which may come to pass now, come to pass?

      If you get my drift 😀

      • I appreciate your points; I actually didn’t realise that the polls were simply for fun, and appreciate that they can’t be much more than that when those who disagree with Catholic views are directed to the polls to cause disequilibrium!

        I accept that my activity is lacking at the moment; simply consumed by business! I rest easy at night however, in the knowledge that Athanasius et al are on the case!

        • Michelangelo,

          I didn’t mean that the polls are “simply for fun”; I meant the emoticons are just a bit of fun although obviously, not being scientific, the polls cannot be taken too seriously. They are of some use, however… all the research shows that they do bring folks back to the website again and again, so it’s not all bad… 😀

          Don’t work too hard and although you are very kind to praise our regular bloggers (even Athanasius 😀 ) every little helps. Remember, one of the criticisms of our enemies is that our blogging community is a small group of regulars. YOU (and thousands like you!) could prove them wrong.

          Think about it – how long does it take to log in and type “Well said, Athanasius – I completely agree!”

          You know it makes sense…

  6. They will be able to force us to take Communion in the hand … or so I understand from reading. That will be the end for me anyway. Or force us to stand during the Consecration. Force us to acknowledge the peace sign? It is truly horrifying to learn. But Francis the First does not care about us at all.

    • Mary Anne,

      I take it – from you latest comment about being forced to take Communion in the hand – that you are a novus-ordo attendee? If so, seek out the nearest traditional Latin Mass and you will never see anyone receiving Communion in the hand again – at least not in an SSPX chapel. Those priests refuse to give Communion in the hand, but I can’t guarantee that the priests in other religious groups (e.g. FSSP or ICTK) or Summorum Pontificum priests will refuse. I know that the Society priests do, so get thee to one of their chapels, pronto! They’re not perfect – plenty of scope for improvement – but in terms of faithful liturgy, they are second to none.

      • Thank you, Editor. N.O. is my last chance to get the Sacraments, being 84 and it is just down the street. I’ve been to SSPX and love it. Like heaven! I just can’t physically get there or get a ride. I love the SSPX, FSSP, FFI, and those brave priests who offer the Traditional Catholic Latin Mass in a parish. God bless them. I’m in a cast for awhile and had to ask for Communion at home. Am in a quandry as to what to tell the ‘minister’ who comes. I hate to say “I don’t want to talk to you I just want to say my prayers”‘ but guess I’ll have to.

        Before this I sat in the front row, handicapped section, sitting to receive … wearing arthritic gloves (really needed them) left no question about how I would receive. Then I would have to say ‘no’ to the Chalice.

        I noticed that there are still some brave souls in the line of Communicants who kneel before the priest and receive on the tongue. (N.O.) Never saw the priest refuse. Then there’s the mantilla. I’m the only one wearing it. I feel totally conspicuous … I’m sure they’re thinking ‘weirdo’. The parish priest never said anything to me … thank God. I think we have a good pastor, as he just moved the tabernacle from the side altar to the center again.

        The priests on the line must be suffering so!!

        • Mary Anne

          Please ask your parish priest to personally bring Holy Communion to you at home when necessary and not send a lay person in his stead. I would never receive the Blessed Sacrament from any of those would-be priests and priestesses who dare to handle the Sacred Species with their unconsecrated hands.

          If the priest refuses you then make a spiritual Communion, which will be more rewarded by Our Lord because of your reverence for His Real Presence than if you receive from one of those forbidden self-important Protestant types. Don’t let these so-called Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion over your doorstep. Throw holy water on them and shut the door!

        • Mary Anne,

          I endorse Athanasius’s advice.

          When my mother (RIP) was in her final years, I asked her Parish Priest to take her Holy Communion once a month, and hear her confession, adding that we did not wish a lay person to come. Only if the priest himself could attend, was my mother to go on the sick list, so for the last ten years of her life, the priest(s) came monthly with the Sacraments.

          I’m sure that your parish priest will do the same if you ask him.

    • Mary Anne

      If the truth be told, they have been forcing Catholics to receive Holy Communion in the hand for decades. They achieved this primarily by imposing an indult in place of the Church’s norm, thereby giving the faithful to believe that the indult is the norm and the norm is an indult. To complete the ruse, they removed altar rails and even had the priests refuse those who knelt on the floor. It has all been so cunningly and destructively implemented.

      I will never understand how any Catholic bishop or priest could even contemplate placing the consecrated host in unconsecrated hands, it contradicts everything the Church has believed and taught about the Blessed Sacrament since the earliest centuries. The whole unsavory business is a complete mystery to me, and without a doubt Protestant in spirit.

  7. This revision is nothing more than a collection of cynical lies built upon lies, and a green light for those episcopal conferences (like Germany), who are already in the forefront of the demolition of the Church, to accelerate their demonic rampage with unprecedented fury.

    I think Heloisa nailed it: this will make the Church resemble the Protestants even more. The Church will be like a checkerboard: a few conferences, like Poland, will remain white, while many more will turn black with this devious tool.

    The destruction of unity is clearly near the top of the Masonic agenda to destroy the Church. This re-write of Canon 838 will produce nothing more than an even taller tower of Babel.

    • RCA Victor,

      Terrific, clear, concise, spot on…

      Just one typo… You wrote “Heloisa nailed it” instead of “editor nailed it” but don’t worry, we can leave it this time… And don’t feel that you need to apologise…

  8. This passage from Isaias 56 was quoted in this morning’s sermon, describing quite aptly the current state of the Church, which, we were reminded, is due to God’s wrath:

    “The Lord God, who gathereth the scattered of Israel, saith: I will still gather unto him his congregation. [9] All ye beasts of the field come to devour, all ye beasts of the forest. [10] His watchmen are all blind, they are all ignorant: dumb dogs not able to bark, seeing vain things, sleeping and loving dreams.

    [11] And meet impudent dogs, they never had enough: the shepherds themselves knew no understanding: all have turned aside into their own way, every one after his own gain, from the first even to the last. [12] Come, let us take wine, and be filled with drunkenness: and it shall be as today, so also tomorrow, and much more.

  9. That quote from Isaias is very apt. How do we know that that the current state of the Church is due to God’s wrath? Why would he seek revenge on his very own creation, i.e. the Church?

  10. I’m not sure what you mean. God doesn’t seek revenge. He sometimes withdraws His grace and allows sinners to go their own way because they refuse His grace anyway or to receive the consequence of their actions (or lack thereof). The current situation is surely a consequence of that. Lukewarm Catholics (and their progeny) receiving the consequence of their lukewarmness – or downright hatred of God’s law. That’s how I understand it, anyway.

  11. What I’m confused about is that “the current situation ” only upsets good Catholics so why punish them? The ones causing the “current situation” couldn’t care less about the good of the Kingdom and so are NOT being punished!

    • Helen,

      there’s nothing to be confused about, this is the oldest question in the book. Heloisa has explained it, but perhaps you don’t realise that people can be punished whether they “couldn’t care less” or not – they’ll soon find out when they die, that they have incurred God’s wrath! I think you are thinking about this in a very human way, if you don’t mind me saying so. Anyone who is deprived of God’s grace because they have continually rejected it, is “punished” by being left to their own devices. They won’t see that in this life, but it’s true. That’s always been my understanding anyway.

  12. In a personal communication to a Professor Baumgartner in Salzburg, Cardinal Mario Luigi Ciappi, who was the personal papal theologian to Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I and John Paul II, revealed: “In the Third Secret (of Fatima) it is foretold, among other things, that the great apostasy in the Church will begin at the top”. And then I see this: https://gloria.tv/article/7FwmFGEjAnc848bAhiXj1ZsCw

    • WF,

      Thank you for this. I’m about to prepare a new thread on Luther, so I will include this in the introduction, if bloggers would like to hold fire until I get that published.

      Incredible stuff. Honestly, truly, amazing stuff.

  13. While I agree with many points on Catholic Truth I do get a little fed up with the constant moaning. It seems everything is negative, may we please have some positive news- there must be some surely?

    • Andrew,

      If you want to read “positive” stuff about the Church today, buy any of the Catholic newspapers. If you live in Scotland, make a point of buying the Scottish Catholic Observer where you will read nothing but how wonderful it all is, these days; you can read all about the latest coffee morning for SCIAF and the wonderful “social justice” work being carried out by the victims pupils in Catholic schools … etc. Listen to the nearest homily where, in no time at all (if not already) the priest will be asking for ideas on the latest craze, making up your very own Mass (see latest papal motu proprio on the subject).

      Here, at Catholic Truth, we face the reality, unpalatable though it be. Still, maybe you have a point, so here’s a challenge: apart from the promise that the Pope would consecrate Russia and there would be a period of peace in the world, “but it would be late”, can YOU think of anything “positive” in the message from Heaven which Our Lady brought to us at Fatima? Or was she a tad too negative, as well?

      PS the fact that you make no expression of concern at all about this latest motu proprio, speaks volumes. No concern whatsoever at the further assaults on the Mass by this awful pope, just a plea for us to share some “good news” for a change. Well, pop over to the current top thread here and read the account of Roderick’s conversion and my reply reminding everyone of Carole’s conversion – her instant conversion during our Fatima Conference on 13th May. Do you know that not one person, yourself obviously included, has written even the shortest of letters to express delight about that wonderful news? Nope. Only interested in shooting the messengers here at Catholic Truth. Not remotely interested in “good news” – unless of course you are an outright modernist and don’t think that conversions to the Faith IS good news. Wouldn’t be surprised.

  14. “The new motu proprio also supersedes Pope Benedict’s Summorum Pontificum, which dispensed priests from the need to obtain episcopal permission to say the Traditional Latin Mass. With the new ruling, an episcopal conference can now rule that the offering of the Latin Mass is forbidden in a given diocese, or in an entire country, so that traditional Catholics no longer have the option of appealing to Rome for help. The episcopal ruling is now Church law.” [emphasis added]”

    It was extremely obvious, from the day that Summorum Pontificum was published, that it would become a dead letter. What was not clear, was the means by which the naive souls who imagined SP was to be relied on would be disappointed. The official Church can take its theology, its ukazes, and its worthless promises, and shove them – it is completely unfit to be trusted or obeyed, and badly needs to be opposed. What Catholics wrote about the necessity of being in union with Rome was predicated on the not unnatural assumption that Rome, at least, could be counted on to keep inviolate the Faith and all things thereunto appertaining. That was a reasonable position, once. But no longer.

    How appropriate that today is the 5th centenary of the Protestant Revolt.

    • JM,

      “The official Church” – always a mistake to use the term. The great work of the Holy Spirit to preserve the indefectibility of the Church has been evident throughout these fifty years of crisis. Nowhere, in any document or statement of any modernist pope, has there been a command or penalties, to impose false teaching. Compare the (ridiculous) conclusion of this latest motu proprio from Pope Francis on the modernist liturgy with that of Pope Saint Pius V on the traditional Mass:

      From the
      APOSTOLIC LETTER
      ISSUED MOTU PROPRIO
      OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF
      FRANCIS
      MAGNUM PRINCIPIUM
      BY WHICH CAN. 838 OF THE CODE OF CANON LAW IS MODIFIED
       

      Everything that I have decreed in this Apostolic Letter issued Motu Proprio must be observed in all its parts, notwithstanding anything to the contrary, even if it be worthy of particular mention, and I hereby set forth and I dispose that it be promulgated by publication in the daily newspaper L’Osservatore Romano, that it enter into force on 1 October 2017, and thereafter be published in Acta Apostolicae Sedis.
      Given in Rome, at St. Peter’s, on 3 September of the year 2017, the fifth of my Pontificate
      FRANCISCUS P.P

      and the following from
      Quo Primum
      Promulgating the Tridentine Liturgy
      Pope Pius V – July 14, 1570

      Wherefore, in order that the Missal be preserved incorrupt throughout the whole world and kept free of flaws and errors, the penalty for nonobservance for printers, whether mediately or immediately subject to Our dominion, and that of the Holy Roman Church, will be the forfeiting of their books and a fine of one hundred gold ducats, payable ipso facto to the Apostolic Treasury. Further, as for those located in other parts of the world, the penalty is excommunication latae sententiae, and such other penalties as may in Our judgment be imposed; and We decree by this law that they must not dare or presume either to print or to publish or to sell, or in any way to accept books of this nature without Our approval and consent, or without the express consent of the Apostolic Commissaries of those places, who will be appointed by Us. Said printer must receive a standard Missal and agree faithfully with it and in no wise vary from the Roman Missal of the large type (secundum magnum impressionem).

      Accordingly, since it would be difficult for this present pronouncement to be sent to all parts of the Christian world and simultaneously come to light everywhere, We direct that it be, as usual, posted and published at the doors of the Basilica of the Prince of the Apostles, also at the Apostolic Chancery, and on the street at Campo Flora; furthermore, We direct that printed copies of this same edict signed by a notary public and made official by an ecclesiastical dignitary possess the same indubitable validity everywhere and in every nation, as if Our manuscript were shown there. Therefore, no one whosoever is permitted to alter this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Would anyone, however, presume to commit such an act, he should know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.”
      Given at St. Peter’s in the year of the Lord’s Incarnation, 1570, on the 14th of July of the Fifth year of Our Pontificate.

      It always concerns me to see the amount of hostile emotion displayed by those who are rightly (righteously!) angry at the unconscionable behaviour of this pope, because, in fact, our response should be to pray and work for an increase in our faith. Being righteously angry certainly means speaking out to correct errors etc but not to use words that might call into question Christ’s promise to be with His Church until the end of time. His only promise, remember, was that the gates of Hell will not prevail – Our Lord did not say that Hell would not attack and even win certain high ranking souls.

      I repeat, again, the quote attributed to several saints but more likely to be from the lips of St Athanasius: “the floors of Hell are paved with the skulls of bishops” – and that may well include bishop(s) of Rome, although, hopefully, not in great number, so we ought to avoid language such as “the official Church”, long used by Modernists to suggest that the “real”, the “early”, the “original” Church taught differently. The Church, remember, refers to the institution established by Christ to bring salvation to the world and we know that we are placing ourselves outside the Church if we refuse to believe what has always been believed by all Christians, everywhere and at all times. That’s all that we need to say to challenge papal errors – no need to bring the Church into disrepute, or cause added confusion by using the language of the modernists to identify a body dubbed the “official” Church as being somehow in error. The Church established by Christ is not in error, because she always teaches what Christians have always believed, everywhere and at all times. Churchmen may well be in error by deviating from that path. That’s a key distinction which should not become blurred.

      Sermon over – we will now stand and sing Faith of our Fathers 😀

  15. I thought this Catholic Herald article was very interesting
    http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2017/10/16/cardinals-marx-and-sarah-disagree-on-magnum-principium/

    It shows the debate about “pro multis” has been reignited and bishops can now change that back to “for all”.

    It does say that the Holy See can still throw out texts they disapprove of, but I don’t see that happening with this pope. He doesn’t care about the liturgy as long as it’s of the liberal variety IMHO.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: