Pope Francis Strikes At Summorum Pontificumeditor
For the First Time, Francis Contradicts Benedict
He has touched upon the sore spot of the Mass in the ancient rite. Ratzinger permitted its celebration for all. Bergoglio has prohibited it for one religious order that favored it.
“…the Holy Father Francis has directed that every religious of the congregation of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate is required to celebrate the liturgy according to the ordinary rite and that, if the occasion should arise, the use of the extraordinary form (Vetus Ordo) must be explicitly authorized by the competent authorities, for every religious and/or community that makes the request.”
The astonishment stems from the fact that what is decreed contradicts the dispositions given by Benedict XVI, which for the celebration of the Mass in the ancient rite “sine populo” demand no previous request for authorization whatsoever:
Is this a huge surprise or, given his silence on the Mass to date, a case of our worst fears realised?
This pontiff has preached about Hell and appears to have a devotion to Our Lady. So, why is he disappointing us so much?
I’m not surprised. If he had been a fan of the old rite, we’d have heard by now. This is just one more piece of proof that Pope Francis is a modernist.
This proves that the two Masses cannot live side by side. I think there’s a hatred of the Tridentine Mass and it is sad that this seems to be in the Pope himself. I wonder if Pope Benedict will respond to this, although I doubt it because churchmen seem to want to be diplomats these days.
If only the Pope would consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, but I find it hard to believe that he is the pope to do this, despite Father Kramer’s prediction that it would be the pope after Benedict.
It’s no more desirable to have two Popes coexisting than two rites of Mass. Pope Benedict was entirely clear that his continued presence would not undermine his successor and I’m certain that this will hold good, regardless that he may disagree profoundly.
I think it is Pope Francis who is undermining his predecessor (while he is still alive) rather than the other way around.
At any rate, it is not a question of whether Pope Emeritus Benedict is undermining Pope Francis, or vice versa, but rather the scandal of two Popes in the Vatican at the same time which is undermining the papacy. The entire business is unprecedented and disgraceful, another manifestation of Modernists dismantling the institutions of the Church with great subtlety.
What happened to the laissez faire Pope Francis who wants the Church to take risks and not worry too much about what the Church authorities (i.e. the CDF) say?
To paraphrase Henry Ford * . I think its something along the lines of, “You can have any Mass that you want, as long as it is the New Mass.”
* Henry Ford – “Any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants so long as it is black”
Will this embargo apply to other traditional communities such as the FSSP?
Crofterlady, your answer is here:- http://www.devilsfinalbattle.com/ch9.htm
The months following the June 26 press conference witnessed an acceleration in the campaign to impose the new orientation on the Message of Fatima and the Church at large.
For example, on June 29, 2000, only two days after the Gorbachev farce, a seemingly unrelated but actually quite relevant event took place. Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos issued a letter in his capacity as the head of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, which is supposed to insure access to the traditional Latin Mass for those who seek it. The letter announces something quite remarkable at a time of general lack of discipline in the Church: The General Chapter (meeting) of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (chartered by Pope John Paul II to serve the needs of traditional Catholics who have not welcomed the changes in the Church) will be suppressed. Its election will not be held. The Fraternity’s priestly members will not be allowed to re-elect as their superior Father Josef Bisig, who was expected to be nominated and re-elected by an overwhelming majority at the Chapter. Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos would simply impose upon the Fraternity a candidate more to his liking. Further, the rectors of the Fraternity’s two seminaries would be removed and replaced with more liberal-minded priests.
The rationale for the Cardinal’s actions is stated in his letter:
You know quite well that your seminary is observed by many people in the Church and that it must be exemplary in all respects. In particular, it is required to avoid and combat a certain spirit of rebellion against the present-day Church, which spirit easily finds followers among the young students, who like all young people already are inclined to extreme and rigorous positions.1
In a later interview in 30 Days magazine, the Cardinal further explained that he was only helping the Fraternity “to strike a balance between their original charism and the outcome of their insertion within the ecclesial reality of today.”2
Consider these two phrases together: “a spirit of rebellion against the present-day Church”, and “their insertion within the ecclesial reality of today”. Now, the seminarians of the Priestly Fraternity are baptized Catholics. They were born and raised in the “mainstream” Catholic Church. They were not members of the supposedly “schismatic” Society of St. Pius X founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, known for his resistance to the post-conciliar changes. No, they were young men who came from the “mainstream” of the Church and joined the Fraternity’s seminaries to be formed in a traditional manner and to celebrate the traditional Latin Mass.
And yet these young men, who have never gone into schism (so-called), are being told that nonetheless they must be inserted into the “present-day Church” and “the ecclesial reality of today”. But if they are already Catholics, then what is this thing into which they are being “inserted”? Is it the Holy Catholic Church? Clearly, it is not. What the Cardinal is speaking of—whether he knows this explicitly or not—is the Church of the Adaptation; the Church of the new orientation. We know this because the priests and seminarians of the papally chartered Fraternity of Saint Peter are indubitably Catholics, so that if they are being inserted into anything it is not the Holy Catholic Church but something else . . .
Thank you, Westministerfly. I’ve just read all the pages you suggested and it is truly shocking. I read that book some years ago but I think things sink in at different times for different people. As Augustine said on a different topic, Catholic obedience to authority is so ingrained that it takes a long time for awareness of the truth to finally dawn. That act of Pope Francis has shocked me to the very core and I’m now bound for the SSPX lifeboat. If what I read re the attack on Summorum Pontificum is correct, then the likes of the Papa Stronsay monks have well and truly shot themselves in the foot.
There are fundamental differences between the FFI on the one hand and the Sons and the FSSP on the other with respect to the matter in hand. The FFI did not start out as a Traditional Order, unlike the Sons and the FFSP for example and additionally their Statutes of Erection were not “Traditional Rite Only” (for want of a better phrase). This, therefore left the FFI in a much weakened position. Even today it is not wholly Traditional with Novus Ordo Masses being offered regularly throughout its communities.
Having said that there was a point in time when the FSSP were internally challenged in 1999 which resulted in the infamous Protocol 1411 from Ecclesia Dei. Westminsterfly gives a good account of its similarities with the current FFI problems in her post. Cardinal Hoyos, like many others, changed his tune after the election of Pope Benedict XVI and often offered the Mass in the Traditional Rite (I attended one inside the Vatican in 2011).
It should also be remembered that Pope Emeritus called for the Visitation last year and I am willing to stick my neck out and say I do not believe he would call for such an extreme measure just because of the Traditional v Novus Ordo conflict within the FFI. Perhaps the whole story will be known in the fullness of time.
Yes, the night of the long knives has started and many, both religious and lay, will be casualties – especially when Bishop of Rome Francis keeps sending confused signals to Catholics such as his statement on gays yet his affirmation of no to wummen priests in the next breath.
Finally, no, I am not denying this is a VERY serious assault on SP and regretfully many Bishops will be happy about that.
We must remember though that we only have a short lifespan whilst the Church is eternal so if we don’t see our goal attained we should continually pray that our children or grandchildren do.
I think it would be wise for you to refer to Francis as Pope rather than to pander to the Gallican heresy (Modernist Collegiality) by calling him “Bishop of Rome.” He is of course Bishop of Rome, but first and foremost Supreme Pontiff of the universal Church.
Oh, how wrong can you be!!! Fact: the essential title of any Pope is BISHOP OF ROME…EVERYTHING else stems from this.
Pope Francis has not “merely” struck at SP but his ridiculous comment Who am I to judge gay people” now all over the news, means he’s also struck at so much of Catholicism, including fraternal correction, that it’s almost impossible to imagine how things can get worse.
I missed a call from the BBC news at ten journalist, seeking a comment on this. I only found it a few minutes ago so returned her call to apologise. She was fine and said “next time” – I responded that, yes, there would no doubt be a next time because Pope Francis looks set to continue being a terrible pope. She hung up laughing. I’m not even smiling.
Bad enough to correct this fundamental gaffe when it comes from ignorant laity, but when it comes from the Pope, then God help us all.
I wonder precisely when he is planning to burn the Code of Canon Law? And presumably he’s written his first and last encyclical? Unless we’re in for more baloney about “love”… But if he doesn’t understand the distinction between “judging” behaviours and definitive judgment (consigning to Hell) then he sure ain’t equipped to be pontiff…
Which brings me to my final point: has anyone else noticed what I’ve noticed? Everyone and their granny (notably Mons Basil Loftus) insist on calling him Holy Father Francis. Not “the Holy Father” or “the Holy Father, Pope Francis” just Holy Father Francis – is this in deference to his own apparent unwillingness to be pope? He seems to prefer the title Bishop of Rome?
If he didn’t want to be pope, he should jolly well have said so at the conclave on election. Nobody is forced to accept the office. I’d better sign off now in case I say something that I shouldn’t – such as I said to that journalist – I mean, Pope Francis “a terrible pope”? Just who do I think I am?
Editor, for once in your God forsaken life be obedient to Holy Father
Francis. Show that you are capable of some humility, which may just save your eternal soul woman
Well anonymous, that’s laugh! Surely the Pope should be obedient to the perennial teachings of the Magisterium of the Church and to Her infallible teachings. He cannot just be a loose cannon! Apparently, according to the BBC he also said that atheists can get to heaven provided they live good lives on earth. Now nobody knows the mercy of God and who he saves, baptised or not, but by saying that the Pope is seriously misleading “atheists” who might otherwise have converted.
If it kills me, I’ll work out how to ban Anonymous posts. Especially those which accuse me of “disobedience” without providing a single example of disobedience,where obedience is owed.
What you call humility, the Church calls cowardice.
A word of advice, which I wouldn’t usually be so rude and presumptious to address to an individual on a public forum, but following your own uninhibited example – worry about your own soul, first and foremost. By the sound of you, that should be enough to keep you very busy.
Yes, this Pope is becoming a real worry. Perhaps the praise he is receiving from all the worldly magazines and news outlets, not to mention the likes of Elton John, says more about his Pontificate than we ever could. It is a very bad sign indeed to be praised by the world and the enemies of the Church.
Damian Thompson thinks the Pope’s promise not to judge gays means an end to the “witch hunt” in the Catholic Church. I didn’t know there was a witch hunt – what is he on about?
Here’s the link to his article and he’s on the video clip as well.
Damian Thompson has done this before. Namely when Pope Benedict made his ill charged remarks about condoms. Our Catholic blogger hailed this as a reversal of ‘Catholic teaching’ on sexual morality.
It would appear that Damian Thompson doesn’t believe in the dogma of Infallibility with regard to universal Church teaching on faith and morals.
I just cannot take to this man at all. I must accept that he is the pope, but he doesn’t look like a pope and he certainly doesn’t act like a pope.
I agree, editor. “Holy Father Francis”? It sounds idiotic. From the moment the name”Bergoglio” was announced I had a sinking feeling. Bring back Benedict XVI all is forgiven!
I reckon it’s about time to face facts. Modernism (& Americanism btw) were declared Heresies by Pius X. Pope Francis has only been notable for his heresies, for his condemnation of piety, such as when devout souls thought it might comfort him to let him know how many Rosaries were offered for his intention. Oh how heretical he told us they should be seen as.His use of the word ‘gay’ is his capitulation to the Worldly haters of truth. When a heretic is Pope we have an Antipope. A pope who goes out of his way to show he is not remotely bothered by homo priests, but then shows how much he despises the Mass of ages. Something aint quite right here. I think it’s about time more people faced facts. The Modernism that Pius condemned was the Masonic ‘Enlightenment’ even Emeritus (Anti) Pope Benedict had a tendency to work into his theology. My God My God why have you forsaken us?
I agree with much of what you say but I stop short with the “Anti-Pope” part. Heresy can be either material or formal. The former is less culpable, the latter is malicious. The Church alone must decide these matters. It is sufficient for us to recognise the errors (heresies even) and reject them while still maintaining our respect for the person of the Pontiff and praying for him.
We are not judges of the souls of Popes, or anyone else for that matter. We are just Catholics judging actions in accordance with the teaching of the Church throughout the ages. We have every right, yes, the duty in fact, to judge this Pope’s words and actions in accordance with Traditional Magisterial teaching. But we have no right whatever to extend that judgment to the Pope himself (the disposition of his soul and the status of his office). These kinds of judgments, if they are made at all, are made by those appointed by God to declare in such matters, such as another Pope or an ecumenical Council of the Church (see Pope Honorius I).
I well understand the anger at what this Pope is doing to the Church, but, as St. James rightly declares, “the anger of man worketh not the justice of God.” Our sole remit is to keep the Traditional Catholic Faith by respectfully rejecting the Modernism of these Conciliar Popes, but always in charity and always with prayers for them.
I am very upset by this. And shocked. The Friars of the Immaculate are a decent lot. They sincerely desire to live out the spirituality and example of Saint Maximilian Kolbe, the Louis de Montfort of the 20th Century. They have a great love for Our Lady and from what I have seen from their videos, they have a strong predilection for the Traditional Mass. I think they use it almost exclusively in some of their houses, and the old Breviry as well. This will be very painful for a lot of them. This will be a great disappointment to those novices who joined them specifically because of the Traditional Mass. I am sure they will lose vocations because of this. They are the only remotely traditional group of Franciscans left.
My sources, highly placed and usually very well informed, tell me that this decision has to do with a long-running feud within the religious order in question (which, not being a ‘traditionalist’ order, comes under the jurisdiction of the Congregation for Religious and not the Ecclesia Dei Commission) as to the celebration of the old Mass. Apparently many of the friars do not like the Extraordinary Form and have not taken well to it being imposed on them as it has been in certain contexts. Remember, this is not an order that was set up to celebrate the old liturgy. What may happen in the future is that a group of friars in favour of the Extraordinary Form will break away from the main body and seek independence under the Ecclesia Dei Commission.
Concerning Pope Francis, my sources tell me that he is not at all hostile to the Summorum Pontificum settlement.
Concerning those who treat Sandro Magister as if he was the word of God, you get, dear friends, what you deserve.
Thank goodness for Crossraguel, ever the voice of reason in a sea of hysteria based on false premises.
Perhaps your “highly placed and usually very well informed sources” got their information about the “long running feud within the religious order in question” from, er, Sandro Magister in the article posted on this blog which you seek to denigrate: “…this (provision of the Traditional Latin Mass) – was contested by a core group of internal dissidents…”
So, Firmiter, another swipe at Catholic Truth bites the dust. Still don’t let that put you off. Keep trying.
However, you’ll understand, I trust, why I would prefer to wait for more reliable evidence that the Pope “is not at all hostile to the SP settlement” – your “sources” are, with respect, somewhere between less than reliable and forget it.
Did I miss something? Sandro Magister reported on the Congregation for the Clergy’s suppression of the ancient Mass within the FFI and the replacement of its 80-year old superior, who is reputed to be a spiritual son of St. Padre Pio and whose parents have been named ‘Servants of God’ by the Church.
The basis of the suppression, let me take a deep breath here, is that this hallowed rite of Mass, the Mass of the ages, the Mass of the saints and martyrs, the only Mass the Church had for nearly 2000 years, is considered to be a source of division within the order, which, incidentally, is the fastest growing religious order in the Church with many young vocations.
Think about it: The Mass that sanctified the saints and martyrs has become a source of division?
And do you truly believe that Traditional Catholic outrage over this clear liberal attack on the ancient Mass is little more than “hysteria based on false premises”?
You wrote: “Oh, how wrong can you be!!! Fact: the essential title of any Pope is BISHOP OF ROME…EVERYTHING else stems from this.”
Then please be good enough to show me any Encyclical Letter or other official Papal documentation from before the Council that shows the Pope signing himself “Bishop of Rome.” And please be good enough to instance the use of that title by any Pope pre-Vatican II in his everyday addresses, etc. Some evidence must be shown by you to back up your claim that Bishop of Rome is the essential title of the Pope before all else.
Maybe I read the Gospels wrong. Maybe Our Lord actually said: “Thou art Peter, primarily the Bishop of Rome, but also the Rock upon which I will build my Church. I smell Gallicanism in this modern supplanting of Supreme Pontiff with Bishop of Rome as the primary title of the Pope.
I suggest you look at the page of the “annuario pontificio”, which list the many official titles of the pope…in order of importance.
Nope, a much better source is Lumen Gentium 25 (Vatican II, shock horror) where the supremacy of the role of the… er… Supreme Pontiff is spelt out.
Even so, the only reason for the present shift from Pope/Pontiff/Holy Father to Bishop of Rome is to undermine the aforesaid titles. Catholics have never, ever referred to the Pope in the first instance as Bishop of Rome. As I said, the mentality behind this recent novel alteration is Gallican. It is designed to undermine the authority of the Supreme Pontiff.
Ban anonymous posts editor?? Are you really so frightened of being challenged in your bigotry, lack of charity and malevolent attitude towards others and those in the church working for the Kingdom that you cannot accept criticism from others especially when you are WRONG.
Your blatant homophobia, obsession with all things sexual, and inability to acknowledge that others may be right and you wrong borders on the mentally unstable.
You are after all only a woman, ‘created’ by God to be subject to MAN, to be his helper and always subject and obedient to him……….. the sooner you realise this and start acting in the manner to which your state calls you the better you will come to understand your position in the DIVINE order of created beings
Posting anonymously does not suggest you are particularly proud of, or confident in, your arguments.
Spot on, Gabriel Syme. Absolutely spot on.
I tend to find that most responsible Catholic forums ban anonymous comments, usually because they are malicious in nature. We all know who operates from the shadows as the anonymous one, do we not?
We all know who operates from the shadows as the anonymous one, do we not?
1) I am not frightened at all of being challenged on what I write or say. Nobody, however, including your good self, ever does that. Instead you create straw men (or should that be “women”) to get at li’l ole moi…
2) Quote any evidence of bigotry in anything I’ve ever written or said. One example will do.
3) Ditto, any evidence of “lack of charity” and “malevolent attitude” towards others in the Church etc.
4) Any example of me being wrong. (biggest challenge of all)
5) Any example of me being wrong and not acknowledging that I am/was wrong
6) Any example of “blatant homophobia” (the very use of the word strongly suggests that you are in favour of this grave disorder, a sin “which cries to Heaven for vengeance” – please state clearly if this is not the case. If you oppose this grave disorder, please say so without ambiguity)
Now, your concluding sentences, even more than all the above nasty nonsense, reveals why you wish to remain in cowardly anonymity. Obviously, if you are Joe or Josephine Bloggs I wouldn’t know your email address from firstname.lastname@example.org so my guess is that you are possibly, only possibly, I admit, a cleric of some (modernist through to apostate) description.
Whatever, you are not a nice person. You are as unjust in your judgments of me as you are arrogant to make them public.
The reason I do not want to encourage Anonymous posts is precisely because of their unsavoury and nasty nature. We love hard-hitting cut and thrust debate here. But, the junk you have posted is in a different league.
I suspect that the reason these pesky Anonymous posts are getting through is because I’ve enabled the facility for people to log in without being registered with WordPress. That’s made it easier for genuine bloggers to get logged on and I don’t want to change that. And if there is a good reason for someone remaining anonymous (for example, a supportive priest – or Bishop! Not after they read the current edition, now online, folks!) then I don’t mind at all not knowing the identity. But I won’t tolerate nasty posts like you’ve published above.
Henceforth, all Anonymous posts will go through the Moderation process. One has an ethos to maintain on this here blog, and one is determined to maintain it…
Motto: it’s nice to be nice and not to be nasty. Or, put another way, gerragrip.
Ye’re ‘having a larf, in’t ya?
Hmm, “homophobia”. Explain please? Seems to me that it is homosexuals who are “obsessed with all things sexual”, but do, please, enlighten me. You seem to be an expert on this matter, or at least, you don’t seem to have a Catholic understanding or conscience, anyway, for which thank God fasting, or you’d be in real trouble.
You can write your name in the space where it says name if you choose to log in using the form at the foot of the page. Otherwise your posts come up as “Anonymous”.
Here are some points of view from the Franciscans themselves:
Personally I resent the move which has been made to restrict the traditional mass.
But I can see that it relates specifically to the situation of these Franciscans, not Summorum Pontificum in general. Scant consolation though.
However, what I find really grates is the knowledge that there would have been no restricting letter, had the complaints related to individuals incorporating “The Birdie Song” into the Liturgy.
Church authorities undermine their own authority when they are shown to act in such a biased and obviously calculated way.
I hope the pro-tradition part of the community breaks away from the anti-tradition element and that the vocations follow them (they surely will).
So does the Pope have the authority to tell religious priests in a congregation such as the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate to not say the True Mass? I really don’t think he does, except for disciplinary reasons such as taking away their faculties. I honestly had never heard of these priests until now.
What’s really disturbing is that this pope seems to think that you cannot be poor or appreciate the poor or give to the poor AND have a beautiful church with a beautiful liturgy – the Traditional Latin Mass. That’s exactly what these priests seemed to have been doing all along, which is what St. Francis surely would have wanted…
I think what we’re seeing with this Pope is a fixation with the poor which is purely worldly in origin. The real poor are those whose souls are in mortal sin, or those who do not have the true faith, yet he apparently cares little about this. He has not spoken out to condemn recent immoral legislation, he has altered the rubrics of the Church at will for reasons of innovation, he has distributed Holy Communion to First Communicants without requiring them to kneel and without use of the Paten, he has hinted that those of other religions can be saved and he has denigrated Traditional Catholics as “fools” who subscribe to “Pelagianism.” Yes, St. Francis would have been appalled.
What this stripping of the dignity of the sacred offices of the Church in the name of the poor amounts to is no more or less than the dethroning of Christ the King. It has been ongoing since Vatican II and now it’s reaching its final end. I just hope Pope Francis is not fully aware that the doctrine of the poor he preaches is actually subtle Marxism.
Athanasius, I don’t understand how the Pope can say that Traditional Catholics subscribe to Pelagianism as I understood that to be a 5th century heresy which denied Original Sin as well as Christian grace.
Here are Pope Francis’ own words on the subject, from his address to CELAM in Brazil:
“The Pelagian solution. This basically appears as a form of restorationism. In dealing with the Church’s problems, a purely disciplinary solution is sought, through the restoration of outdated manners and forms which, even on the cultural level, are no longer meaningful. In Latin America it is usually to be found in small groups, in some new religious congregations, in tendencies to doctrinal or disciplinary “safety”. Basically it is static, although it is capable of inversion, in a process of regression. It seeks to “recover” the lost past.”
I see the point you’re making and I agree with it. Besides, if these words of the Pope apply to anyone, they apply to the Modernists who, against the explicit advice of Pius XII in Mediator Dei, replaced the altar with the ancient table form and removed black from the clerical vestments.
They also apply to the restoration of the ancient (and banned) practices of Communion in the hand, lay administration of holy Communion, intinction, removal of altar rails, etc., all of which things were re-introduced without Papal permission despite no longer being meaningful. As the Americans would say – Go figure!
Lumen Gentium 25 defines the supremacy of the role of the ROMAN Pontiff, precisely because the Bishop of Rome is the Roman Pontiff (with jurisdiction over the universal Church). I have no quarrel with the definition of substance, my point is that chronologically the title Bishop of Rome precedes and gives birth to the others. Indeed, the East-West schism was also caused by the refusal to accept the claim of the Bishop of Rome to jurisdiction over the universal Church. In the days long before encyclicals, Popes would begin their Bulls with the words…NN, Episcopus, Servus servorum Dei… In short, the Pope is Supreme Pontiff because he is, first and foremost, the Bishop of Rome. Although Lumen Gentium makes abundant references to the Supreme Pontiff throughout the document, I find it interesting that, when defining his principal duties, it uses the term Roman Pontiff. God bless!
Pure semantics. Clue from your post above: Indeed, the East-West schism was also caused by the refusal to accept the claim of the Bishop of Rome to jurisdiction over the universal Church.
That is to say, the east/westschism (like all schisms) was caused by the refusal to accept papal supremacy.
Are you saying that, because he wasn’t based in Rome, St Peter was not the Supreme Pontiff? Gerragrip!
Not pure semantics, but pure history and fact! Re. Peter, the fact that I adhere to the notion of the Petrine ministry (another definition of the Papal function) should answer your question. I apologize for my ignorance, but I do not understand “gerragrip”.
Incidentally, the expression “Supreme Pontiff was not in use when Peter was alive”. Historia magistra vitae!! God bless!
We simple Catholics just call him Pope or Holy Father, as our forebears did.
You do well, they are both terms that express the filial affection and veneration shown to the Papacy throughout the ages. However, that does not exempt us from the duty to be accurate in debates of a historical and ecclesiological nature, which was the point under discussion previously, unless I am mistaken.
Indeed we must maintain absolute accuracy in all things relating to the Church, particularly in those things which pertain immediately to the glory of God and the salvation of souls. With that in mind I would suggest that we strain on the gnat of technicality with these exchanges relating to Papal titles when we should be examining, with great sorrow, the camel of Modernism that our Popes have swallowed since “the New Pentecost.” It’s really a case of priorities!
I agree with you Athanasius. Anonymous seems to think editor objects to the term Holy Father but the way I read it she is saying the word POPE is missed out. Usually it’s “Our Holy Father, the Pope” or “the Holy Father Pope Francis” like she says, and I must say thinking about that, it’s true. He IS being called Holy Father Francis without the word Pope being in there and that is interesting, since he doesn’t seem to like the office of pope – I could be wrong, but since he emphasises he doesn’t want the “trappings” of office and refers to himself as “Bishop of Rome”, that is a bit unsettling.
If he was acting like a pope it wouldn’t matter too much but I found it absolutely shocking that he said what he said about “not judging gays”. Even to use the word “gays” – I mean for a pope to use it – is unsettling.
Hi, Josephine, I just wish to stress that I have no objection whatsoever to the use of “Holy Father”, etc (see my previous post to Athanasius: they are both terms [Pope and Holy Father] that express the filial affection and veneration shown to the Papacy throughout the ages). The essence of my point is that, historically, the office/title Bishop of Rome existed before all the other subsequent and legitimate titles given to the man in question. As to the intentions of the present incumbent when he refers to himself as Bishop of Rome, that is a matter of opinion, to which we are all entitled, unless he has said explicitly why he does so. I am not aware of any such statements, if you have any info I would be glad to have it. Best wishes!
Leo posted a comment in reply to your at 10.18 on July 31 but it disappeared. He emailed this morning to ask me to post the following:
I’m not sure it is realistic to expect any imminent explicit statements from the Holy Father on the issue of his portrayal as the Bishop of Rome. I’m sure you noticed, however, that Pope Francis did not sign his name to his recent encyclical Lumen Fidei with the latin abbreviation for Pope, PP before his name. As we all know, actions, and omissions speak louder than words. And the evidence has been available to us all since Pope Francis appeared on the loggia on the evening of his election.
You may or may not see any dangers to how the Church’s divinely ordained hierarchical structure, under the successor of Peter, is perceived both inside and outside the Church. I would suggest that it is a moral certainty that the vast majority of those who give any thought to the issue of collegiality have had their antennae twitching for quite some time. You can bet the farm that all the wrong people are having trouble containing their glee.
At this stage a clarifying statement from Pope Francis along the following lines is becoming more a necessity than an option, in my opinion.
“But the power of the Roman Pontiff is supreme, universal, and definitely peculiar to itself: but that of the bishops is circumscribed by definite limits, and definitely peculiar to themselves.” – Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, #15
“It is an article of faith that the Roman Pontiff, successor of blessed Peter the prince of the Apostles, not only has a primacy of honour, but also of authority and jurisdiction over the universal Church, and that, consequently, the bishops, too, are under his authority.” – Pope Gregory XVI, Commissum Divinitus, # 10
I don’t expect Hans Kung is too unhappy with what he has seen of this pontificate so far. Here are some quotations from his 1970 book, A Igreja, vol. 2, taken from Atila Guimaraes’ highly informative book Animus Delendi I (p. 164-165):
“…This reform has already begun and it will suffice here to present an outline (of what the Pope ought to do):
“1. Evangelical humility: to renounce the non-biblical honorific titles befitting only to God or Christ (Sanctissimus Dominus, Beatissimus Pater, His Holiness, Holy Father, Head of the Church) or to all Christians or all Bishops (representative of Christ, etc.)…These are some appropriate titles: Bishop of Rome, Servant of the servants of God, Supreme Shepherd…
“2. Evangelical simplicity: not to yield to a romantic idealism in matters of poverty; to renounce the pomp and luxury from bygone eras of pontifical power above all in relation to dress, domestic servants, the (papal) court, guards of honour, and even more so with regard to the liturgy.
“3. Evangelical fraternity: to fully renounce the absolutist style of government, the baroque Byzantine imperial style in speeches and letters, secret legal process, private decisions without Church collaboration or her representation (collegiality, the Episcopate, episcopal and lay councils)…
“4. Evangelical liberty: to foment the autonomy of the (local) churches and their pastoral services according to the principality of subsidiarity; the internalization and dismantling of the Curia’s power apparatus….”
So that’s a brief glimpse of the agenda of a dissident who has spent decades scrawling heretical graffiti on the pillars of Catholic Truth. It’s not being in any way cynical or disrespectful to the Vicar of Christ to say that I think it is pretty certain that many of the actions that we have seen over the past four and a half months are not simply some spontaneous, unconsidered reflections of Pope Francis’s personality. As with the issue of poverty (which I addressed in a previous thread) it is quite evident that the ideas and attitudes of Pope Francis on the matter of ecclesiology have been manifestly influenced by Vatican II progressivists.
I know we are well off topic here, but on this Bishop of Rome business, as I recall, there was no clear, specific statement from Pope Francis to the Irish people or politicians in advance of the recent legalisation of abortion. Ditto every country that has introduced the state sanctioned celebration of sodomy in recent months. Is it because the Bishop of Rome doesn’t want to appear to be “butting in” when it comes to events elsewhere? Just asking. God in Heaven help us, whatever the reason.
Indeed we must pray much for the Holy Father.
Here’s Gerald Warner – in scathing top form – on the subject of Pope Francis’ attack on Summorum Pontificum in today’s Scotland on Sunday: Ban on Latin Mass has put Pope beyond the pale…
WOW! Gerald says it all, really. Says it all.
“The Modernists will rue the day they provoked this war.”
God bless Gerald Warner
A first class article by Gerald, first class!
Now we need to see the faithful prelates and priests of the Church finally stand up and be counted. They need to come out into the open and say: No, we will tolerate these apostate Modernists no longer. These destroyers of the Faith at the highest levels of the Church must be identified and rooted out.
“It is absurd, and a detestable shame, that we should suffer those traditions to be changed which we have received from the fathers of old.” – Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II-I, Q. 97, Art. 2, citing The Decretals (Dist. Xii, 5)
Gerald Warner’s superb article should be framed and hung on the walls of episcopal offices throughout the world. What a welcome relief to read such wise words in the secular press, too.
We have of course been presented, in recent days with some, frankly, very lame and irrational defences of this lamentable action against the Mass of All Time and the Franciscans of the Immaculate. No dissent, disagreement or problem of any description is going to be solved by restricting, hindering or suppressing the Mass of All Time. The very idea is illogical and indefensible.
I was hoping there might be typing errors in this edict. Put simply, the wrong Mass has been suppressed. Bugnini’s fabrication is the one that has to be banned, universally and permanently, if any meaningful restoration in the Church is to get underway.
Who’s to say that the words of Evelyn Waugh in his letter to Cardinal Heenan on 3 January 1965, wont in the future, resonate with many amongst the Franciscans of the Immaculate.
“Every attendance at Mass leaves me without comfort or edification. I shall never, pray God, apostatize but church-going is now a bitter trial.”
Pope Francis is the successor of Peter, the Vicar of Christ, the Supreme Pontiff, and holds the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. We know with absolute certainty that the Holy Ghost will not allow any Pope to exercise his Extraordinary Magisterium in defining error as infallible doctrine.
That said, there is no denying the ever increasing likelihood, if not virtual certainty, that Conciliar kenosis i.e. progressivist inspired auto destruction will be turbo boosted during this papacy. The subject of this thread is just one example, of many, of the justifications for unease.
Actions such as the subject of this thread, are a deplorable thing. That is only to state the obvious. Nevertheless it’s not inconceivable that good will come of this. The more the modernist madness wreaks havoc in the Church, the more Catholics faithful and well-informed will be faced with a crisis of conscience, and forced to do a bit of studying on the issue of true obedience versus servility. I would hazard a prediction that before long, more and more of the dwindling band of orthodox Catholics are going to be compelled to make their way to Tradition.
Right now, many are happy to march in the victory parade and enjoy the fruits of the battle for Tradition, while leaving the Society to do the hard fighting. How many Catholics are actually prepared to do more than stand and look on from afar?
How many bishops will stand up and be counted in order to protect the true Mass, or speak out publicly and clearly against false ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue that promote nothing but indifferentism and apostasy? How many bishops are willing to proclaim the Social Kingship of Christ and the rights of His Church in unequivocal terms? How many Bishops, apart from those of the Society, have done so over the last twenty five years? Answers on a postcard (a very small postcard should do).
Here’s more from Evelyn Waugh’s correspondence to Cardinal Heenan, this time from a letter dated 14 January 1966:
“I cannot hope that either of us will live to see its (Vatican II’s) multitude of ills put right. The Church has endured and survived many dark periods. It is our misfortune to live in one of them.
Please pray for my perseverance and for that of the many English Catholics who are distressed and bewildered by the changes imposed on them.”
If alive today, I doubt that the great wordsmith would be able to fully express the depths of his sentiments and those of many others.
It is becoming ever clearer, with each passing week, that the Society have a providential role in the Church. Some day that will be universally recognised. In the meantime, let no one doubt that Our Lord is in the back of the boat, and will calm the storm exactly when He chooses to.
The issue of obedience and servility is a tricky subject for faithful Catholics. No doubt. Regulars here don’t need to be reminded. I’m sure the following words of Saint Robert Bellarmine have been posted on this blog before. “Destroy” is a very strong word of course, and hopefully, by the grace of God, the worst fears of Catholics who hold to the Faith as practised by “everyone, always and everywhere” before the Council will not be realised. That said, with all due respect to Pope Francis, the Vicar of Christ, these words might just be getting a wider distribution in the months and years to come. Papolatrists have had their cards marked.
“Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff who aggresses the body, it is also licit to resist the one who aggresses the souls or who disturbs civil order, or above all, who attempts to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed; it is not licit, however, to judge, punish or depose him, since these are acts proper to a superior.” (De Romano Pontifice, lib. Il, chap. 29, in Opera Omnia, vol. I, p.418)
The great Doctor of the Church and patron saint of catechists wasn’t alone. Here’s the renowned sixteenth century Dominican theologian and philosopher, Francisco de Vitoria:
“…If he (the Pope) wanted to destroy the Church or the like, he should not be permitted to act in that fashion, but one would be obliged to resist him. The reason for this is that he does not have the power to destroy; therefore, if there is evidence that he is doing it, it is licit to resist him. The result of all this is that if the Pope destroys the Church by his orders and acts, he can be resisted and the execution of his mandates prevented…We do not affirm…that someone could have competence to judge the Pope or have authority over him, but…it is licit to defend oneself. Indeed, anyone has the right to resist an unjust act, to try to prevent it and to defend himself.” (Obras de Francisco de Vitoria, pp. 486-487)
Talking about “obedience and servility” being a tricky subject, I’ve just finished reading a conference given by Arch. Lefebvre to priests during the annual retreat in 1988. It is in the latest issue of Mater Dei and it is an excellent read. It sets out the case perfectly.
“The more the modernist madness wreaks havoc in the Church, the more Catholics faithful and well-informed will be faced with a crisis of conscience, and forced to do a bit of studying on the issue of true obedience versus servility. I would hazard a prediction that before long, more and more of the dwindling band of orthodox Catholics are going to be compelled to make their way to Tradition.”
More than one person has said this to me recently – I hope it proves to be true, and quickly. Right now, there are still too many people trying to keep a foot in both camps and it just isn’t possible.
A terrific post – many thanks, especially for quoting from the correspondence between Evelyn Waugh and Cardinal Heenan – one of my favourite books. I keep meaning to feature it in the newsletter but get overtaken with events. Maybe next time!
I second editor’s applause of your post, which is excellent. I think this time around the Modernist destroyers of the Church are in for a good hiding, we are no longer living in the 1970s!
The Traditional Mass and practices of the Church have spread far and wide in recent years, so any attempt on the part of a clique of old hippies in Rome and elsewhere to deprive the faithful once more of their patrimony will result, I believe, in a huge outcry. The days of the Conciliar revolution are well and truly over.
Athanasius, I couldn’t agree more. It seems that our pastors are fiddling whist Rome burns. Just look at the latest ecumania about to take place in Aberdeen. Check out page 2:
Horrific! It’s just heresy, plain and simple. The Popes before Vatican II forbade any joint prayer gatherings with non-Catholics. Their magisterial teaching is very clear that such ventures are a betrayal of divine truth. I really don’t know how these bishops are going to face Our Lord at their judgment, having led so many Catholic souls with them into grave error.
Thank you for reminding us of that Conference of Archbishop Lefebvre’s on true and false obedience. It’s certainly worth reading.
I hope you are right about the Modernist revolutionaries. There is no doubt that novus ordoism is self-liquidating. The tragedy is that even as of now, the danger inflicted on three generations of souls has been truly frightening.
It looks as though the biological solution is going to take a long time. The Vatican II generation is dying off, but there are a couple of generations of Conciliar bishops following behind. I’m not brimming with confidence as regards episcopal appointments in the foreseeable future, either.
The “old hippies” are going to be around for a while. I have to say that that clip of the bishops at Rio was almost unwatchable. If they were holding Celtic scarves above their heads it might not have been so bad! I’m sure Gerry Marsden could have been flown over, to sing “You’ll Never Walk Alone”. God help us. The Saints and Martyrs must be weeping.
As for the future, I wouldn’t for one second underestimate the ruthlessness and determination of the modernists. One only has to think of the slurs thrown by so-called conservatives at Catholics who hold to Tradition. One only has to think about the studied and deliberate way that backs are turned against this blog and the Newsletter.
There is no doubt, though that the future of the Church lies in Tradition and nowhere else. The vocations situation emphatically underlines that. In fact, the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate appear to have been victims of their own success. By the way, it looks now as though they are beginning to defend themselves, which is a welcome turn.
I agree that those who want the true Mass are now out of the catacombs and there is no going back now. Once younger Catholics discover the inheritance that has been stolen from them, they will not be parted from it. Most importantly, Catholics are going to have to take the next step and grasp that simply having the Mass available is not an acceptable payoff for not stepping off the reservation, and keeping quiet about the full Catholic Faith of our ancestors.
Persecution from without and heresy and apostasy within are going to do a lot on winnowing in the years to come, but those Catholics who hold to Tradition will be in an ever growing majority.
“Is it tradition? Ask no more!” Saint John Chrysostom
“And if some new contagion should seek to poison, not only a little part of the Church, but the whole Church at once then his (the Catholic’s) greatest care should once again be to adhere to antiquity, which obviously cannot be seduced by any deceitful novelty. “ Saint Vincent Lerins, Commonitorium, Chapter 3, section 7.
“The Saints and Martyrs must be weeping.”
You have summed up the crisis in the Church perfectly.
I agree. But we should not lose sight of the fact that Our Lord is still in charge of His Church and that He will bring this crisis to a sudden end when the time comes. I believe that time to be very close at hand now. If the authentic prophecies are to be believed, particularly the Third Secret of Fatima, then I suspect the world is in for one very rude awakening in the not too distant future.
God’s patience and mercy are indeed boundless, but His justice is equally infinite and it is being stretched to the limit right now by a mocking humanity which seems bent on banishing its Creator to the perimeter of His own Creation. As Sacred Scripture says, however, and adequately demonstrates, God will not be mocked!
Legislators are in God’s face with their evil laws while worldly prelates watch on in silence, or even with acknowledgement. These same worldly prelates are in God’s face in a different way by their negligent stewardship and wanton tampering with the deposit of faith.
The result is a world bankrupt both morally and financially and a Church in ruin. There is very little supernatural faith left on earth, man having made himself God. Yes, God will intervene very soon, of that there is no doubt!
I agree one hundred per cent with you that,
“God’s patience and mercy are indeed boundless, but His justice is equally infinite and it is being stretched to the limit right now by a mocking humanity which seems bent on banishing its Creator to the perimeter of His own Creation” and that “there is very little supernatural faith left on earth, man having made himself God”.
Right now, the world is virtually taunting its Creator and Saviour to chastise us all. I agree, Athanasius that’s it’s hard to see decisive Divine intervention being delayed for long. Who is to say the extermination angels haven’t already been told to study their maps and get tooled up.
As with so much of this crisis, Pope Saint Pius X exhibited an inspired perception and prescience, surely. I don’t know what the great Pontiff would say today, but here’s what he wrote in his first encyclical, 110 years ago:
“Who can fail to see that society is at the present time, more than in any past age, suffering from a terrible and deep-rooted malady which, developing every day and eating into its inmost being, is dragging it to destruction? You understand, Venerable Brethren, what this disease is—apostasy from God… When all this is considered there is good reason to fear lest this great perversity may be as it were a foretaste, and perhaps the beginning of those evils which are reserved for the last days; and that there may be already in the world the ‘Son of Perdition’ [Antichrist] of whom the Apostle speaks.”
– E Supremi, Encyclical On the Restoration of All Things in Christ, n. 3, 5; October 4th, 1903.
And here’s a well written article on the threat facing the Mass of All Time, the Supreme worship of God and the greatest weapon we have in the struggle with the powers of darkness. It looks like decision time might be approaching for many.
“You are fortunate you have remained in the Church through your faith. You held fast to the foundations of the faith which has come down to you from the Apostolic Tradition…In the present crisis, it is they who have broken away from it.” Saint Athanasius, Doctor of the Church
“But you are blessed, who by faith are in the Church, dwell upon the foundations of the faith, and have full satisfaction, even in the highest degree of faith which remains among you unshaken. For it has come down to you from apostolic tradition, and frequently accursed envy had wished to unsettle it, but has not been able.” Saint Athanasius, Festal Letters 29, 330 AD
Here’s a link to a video of a short talk given by Father Gommar de Pauw that might be getting more air time in the near future. At least I hope so. If anyone is in a hurry, may I suggest watching from just before the 8 minute mark, when Father de Pauw quotes from Pope Saint Pius V’s Apostolic Decree, Quo Primum.
I don’t detect a whole lot of ambiguity there.
Superb, Leo! I will post a link to that video on our website later.
As you point out, ambiguity notable only from its absence!
I think the following quotation from Christopher Ferrara’s excellent book entitled, EWTN, a Network Gone Wrong is very apposite to the discussion of this attack on the freedom of priests to say the Mass of All Time. The facts mentioned here long pre-date Summorum Pontificum.
“The Vatican itself now admits that the Traditional Latin Mass was never legally forbidden, for Pope Paul’s promulgation of his Novus Ordo Missae in 1970 did not equate with a prohibition of the traditional Missal. The cat was let out of the bag in 1995 when Cardinal Alfons Stickler (in response to a written question from Father Nicholas Gruner) told the audience at a Catholic conference in New Jersey that a commission of nine Cardinals (namely, Ratzinger, Mayer, Oddi, Stickler, Casaroli, Gantin, Innocenti, Palazzini, and Tomko) had been convened by Pope John Paul II in 1986 to determine the legal status of the traditional Mass. By a vote of 8 to 1 the commission agreed that Paul VI never legally suppressed the traditional Mass as opposed to simply promulgating the Novus Ordo. By a vote of 9 to 0, the commission agreed that every priest remained free to use the old Missal. That the Pope required such a commission to inform him on the legal effect of what his own predecessor had done is quite a commentary on the confused state of the Church today.”
So why exactly did it take 21 years for full, irrefutable, Papal recognition that the Mass had not been “abrogated”? What does that say about operations “inside the walls”?
Traditionalists, the real ones, knew from the beginning that the True Mass had never been abrogated. What it says about the inner workings of the Vatican are that the popes are incompetent, or that there are evil men there, prelates, cardinals and such who are not working for the Lord’s vineyard.
I found this article about the Franciscans. In it they claim this decision has nothing to do with trying to undermine Summorum Pontificum but I can’t see a good reason given anywhere.
I would be interested in what others think about it.
You are quite correct to say that traditionalists knew that the Mass had never been abrogated. The unquantifiable tragedy is that outside of that oppressed and vilified remnant, a huge number of loyal Catholics were proceeding along in effective ignorance, travelling in the New Springtime caravan.
Legal details aside, the true Mass was de facto suppressed, and the vast majority of Catholics were robbed of their birth right. The crucial point is that in 1986, the greater number of Catholics would have been familiar with the Mass. Those who only knew of Bugnini’s work were still in early adulthood or younger, and would surely have been open, in large part, to recognising the pearl of great price, instead of drifting off into the desert of apostasy. In 1986, a lot was still recoverable. Then of course, there was a very significant Conciliar event in 1986.
As with Mass, we can nowadays contrast traditionalists and many conservatives/liberals on account their acceptance of the fact that the Society is in the Church. We shouldn’t underestimate the ignorance and misinformation that are blinding many Catholics. Facts are facts, but some people take a long time to accept that. Others of course do all in their power to make sure that facts are hidden from as many as possible. Meanwhile, the real schismatics look likely to become more and more emboldened.
I know of someone who was told by her bishop that the old Mass was now forbidden. That must have been a deliberate lie, as surely the bishops would know that it wasn’t forbidden?
Thank you for posting that interview. I think that Father Appollonio, the Procurator General of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate has indicated, very politely and diplomatically that he is less than gruntled about the whole saga. In fact, I’d guess that he is pretty ticked off. It looks like a small number of Friars have real problems with obedience, and a determined opposition to the true Mass.
This episode might of course be part of a wider strategy. Will the FSSP and ICKSP come under attack next? I would say that the enemies of the traditional Mass will step lightly. Too much heavy handedness, too soon, especially in the case of diocesan Masses, will, I’m sure they have calculated, lead to Catholics simply taking shelter with the Society.
I don’t know about a deliberate lie, but no utterances would surprise me nowadays, when barely a week goes by without some bishop, somewhere in the world, giving grave scandal. It would be interesting to have heard the bishop in question trying to justify that statement. His Lordship would be well-advised to read Quo Primum.
“…In virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgement, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used. Nor are superiors, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of whatever title designated, obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than as enjoined by Us.” – Pope Saint Pius V, Quo Primum Tempore, 1570
Based on basic reason alone, not to mention theological grounds, the idea that the Mass that sustained and sanctified the saints and martyrs could be forbidden is absurd.
“When the pastor becomes a wolf, it is the flock in the first place, which has the duty to defend itself”. – Dom Prosper Gueranger
“When there is an imminent danger for the Faith, Prelates must be questioned, even publicly, by their subjects.” – Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II, II, q. 33, a. 4.
The prediction that the faithful who currently attend ‘Indult’ and the Ecclesia Dei communities’ Masses will become disaffected and take shelter in the Society sounds plausible. If I had been attending the Indult Mass while living in England I probably would have felt no need to go to the SSPX. However, being in Glasgow I had no choice. I think it’s providential I ended up in Glasgow, because now I whole heartedly accept the SSPX position (which is the Catholic position).
Here’s the SSPX Dici report on the Franciscan scandal – interesting pun, even if I DO say it myself!
Really, I think the solution to this attack on the Mass is for the Franciscans to just carry on saying the true Mass. No ifs or buts. If someone wants to call security, let them. And we’ll see who exactly gets judgemental. Just tell them to read Pope Saint Pius V.
The Friars should let it be known that they will have to be physically dragged from the altar. That might set off a very far reaching domino effect. That sort of firm resolution is what should have been shown throughout the Church in 1970. As I see it, that’s what will need to happen sooner or later, if this crisis is to pass and the work of the restoration is to get under way. Forty three years of mayhem and devastation is surely evidence enough to eliminate excuses and reasonable doubt.
Proceeding on the basis that the Holy Mass of the saints and martyrs is available only out of tolerance and whim almost amounts to pre-emptive unconditional surrender. The field is conceded from the start. I’m afraid that approach means that Tradition, humanly speaking, won’t be allowed to get off the reservation.
I just could not agree with you more. That is exactly what is needed, the Franciscans, and other priests, to just stand up to the bully-boys and say “enough is enough” – we’re saying the old Mass, and there’s nought you can do about it.
I think this is probably the first of many strikes against Summorum Pontificum, so it is really seriously important that the Franciscans do not comply with this order.
Comments are closed.