Traditional Latin Mass Under Threat?editor
April 24, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – A leaked letter allegedly sent by the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to the presidents of bishops’ conferences inquiring about the experience with Pope Benedict XVI’s allowance of the traditional Latin Mass (Summorum Pontificum) has caused a stir in some traditionally-minded Catholic circles. Fears abound that the result of the survey could be a restriction of the Latin Mass.
The traditional Catholic website Rorate Caeli published yesterday a letter dated March 7, 2020, with the name of Cardinal Luis Ladaria Ferrer, the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), on it. The letter addresses the presidents of the bishops’ conferences and includes a set of questions to bishops whose due date for a reply is July 31, 2020. To read entire report, click here
I think this is an open invitation to bishops hostile to tradition to do their worst – and frankly, I don’t trust the present Pope to do anything but his worst in his ongoing destruction of the Faith and his ongoing surrender of the Church to the Satanic United Nations agenda.
So I agree with the comments of Dr. Kwasniewski and Brian McCall regarding this questionnaire. As for the questions being “neutral,” well, the documents of Vatican II seemed generally harmless enough on the surface (harmless to the Bishops and Cardinals who approved them, at least), until we came to realize that they were a blueprint in disguise for the creation of a new “church.”
I’m reminded of the infamous “net neutrality” regulations that were proposed towards the end of the Obama administration, which were actually a disguised means to censorship of internet content.
Yes, definitely an open invitation to bishops who want rid of the TLM to “do their worst” as you put it.
What would be interesting to see, however, if they DO their worst, would be the reaction of the diocesan Catholics who are currently attending the TLM under the provisions of Summorum Pontificum, were the Mass to be no longer on offer in those parishes where it is currently available.
My guess is that (and I’d love to be wrong) they would return to the novus ordo.
I hope we never get to find out – but that’s my gut feeling.
And I can’t see the clergy putting up a fight, seeing their acceptance, in most cases without a murmur, of the lockdown restrictions.
Again, I hope I’m wrong but it doesn’t happen that often… 😀
Supposing SP will be reneged, then I suspect the response from the laity will be mixed … Those who attend the Traditional Mass for aesthetic and pretentious reasons will simply return to the Novus Ordo, and those who attend the Traditional Mass out of conviction will start supporting Archbishop Lefebvre’s position. A separation of the wheat from the chaff. For this reason I am not too bothered about this news.
The juridical legitimacy of the Traditional Mass does not depend upon SP, so good riddance to it. I don’t accept the ‘extraordinary form’/’ordinary form’nomenclature.
I definitely agree about “EM” – good riddance to that term.
I also agree that there may well be some who would attend the TLM in the SSPX, and I hope those will be in the majority. It might also bring about a crisis of long-overdue conscience in some of the clergy.
And you are unquestionably correct about the legitimacy of the ancient Mass – no stroke of the pen to nullify SP will ever change that. It would simply mean (if Pope Francis does that) back to the fight!
The clergy you mention who have a foot in both camps do more harm than good. I think that their problem is legalism and scrupulosity. There are similarly lay people who attend the Traditional Mass, but when a Sunday Traditional Mass is not available they will attend the Novus Ordo purely out of fear of committing mortal sin. But what they have failed to consider is that their self-centred attendance of the Novus Ordo is perpetuating the crisis. I have heard you say this before.
I no longer have any scruples about missing Sunday Mass if the Novus Ordo is the only available. The next step that many Traditional minded Catholics need to take is to accept that the Novus Ordo is intrinsically evil.
I am not particularly an ardent fan, no. I am not naive about the situation, and I understand that all groups have bad people in them. The crisis in the Church has permeated every part of the Church, and not one group is safe. However, I believe that what Archbishop Lefebvre said and did was heroic and providential and I support his cause. I usually have no problems hearing the Traditional Mass at both the SSPX and non-SSPX Mass centres as I am not particularly factionalist.
I think where we have fallen human nature we will never have Perfection, which you have beautifully described.
Given that Our Lord Himself had a traitor amongst His 12 Apostles, it amazes me that people find it so difficult to come to terms with priest, religious or lay scandals in the Church.
It reminds me of an Irish priest’s response to someone who accused the Church of being full of hypocrites that “there’s always room for one more”.
It will be on its way shortly. Just bear in mind that I stopped writing in accordance with your request, so it’s not finished. You may still find it interesting, though.
The rumor mill a few years ago was that Francis wanted to put all Traditional Mass activity under the SSPX, the idea being, I suppose, to put all trads into one cage, throw away the key, and toss them a few breadcrumbs now and then.
I wonder if that alleged plan is still floating around somewhere…
I vaguely remember that (but then I only vaguely remember everything else, these days 😀 )
It would not surprise me, one bit. One waits with one’s bated breath. What else can one do?
I don’t know what else many of them could do, other than not attend Mass. I’m thinking about the 100’s who attend the TLM at the London Oratory on Sunday, which I attend, although it’s not my parish church, it’s about 30 minutes drive from where I live. The nearest SSPX chapel to me is in Wimbledon and is very small and wouldn’t be able to accommodate the overflow if diocesan TLM’s stopped. Also, I think Sunday Mass at Wimbledon is at 8am which would make it nigh on impossible for those relying on public transport to get there.
I think if it came to a ban on the TLM, then SSPX and other groups should return to celebrating Mass in rented secular premises (as happened in the 1970’s) although they would have to be much larger than in those days, and easily accessible by public transport. Not an ideal situation, but at least the Mass would be offered and the sacraments provided. Where there’s a will, there’s a way. I think clergy and laity should start planning and making provision for this possibility now. It’s much better to be proactive and have contingency plans in place if any ban does happen, than to have to react to a ban after the event.
You make excellent points about the timing and location of traditional Masses / SSPX churches.
Generally speaking, nobody could accuse the Society priests of overkill on common sense. I mean, an 8 a.m. Sunday Mass…anywhere?
Imagine trying to prepare a gaggle of children (or even one!) for a journey on public transport (or even a car) with a deadline of 8.a.m. and expect them to sit for an hour, at least, in silence, behaving well etc.
Listen, the teenagers won’t do that in school, and the deadline is 9.am. destination around the corner from home.
You have to laugh…
This Man who would be Pope should think as a Catholic and think well before he gets rid of The Traditional Latin Mass and makes it as he wants to do into another Protestant Service. We all know that he seems to intensly dislike anything that is Holy and Catholic but as one who goes around with the Collection Plate at my Parish and I assume at other TLMasses there is a tremendous difference in what Catholics give at both services. This Pope calls money the Devil’s Dung but he sure spreads it around a lot . How many £Millions alone were waisted on that Pachamama Garbage. If he bans The TLMass he may just be cutting off the hand that Literally Feeds Him .
That’s certainly one way of looking at the issue. However, the collectors where I go to Mass know that the priests won’t be booking holidays to the Bahamas on what I give..
They won’t be going on many Holidays on what I give either Ed am most certainly not saying that I give much ,but there is a Tremendous Disparity within the Two Congregations and as Francis ,Hates the Devils Dung but seems to court those of The World who have plenty am sure he wouldn’t want one of his cash revenues cut off . Even if it just keeps his Private Jet in the Air .
I am not so sure this is being correctly interpreted. I think Pope Benedict had said that the Vatican would want regular reports on how it was being implemented, take-up etc in every diocese, or have I remembered that wrongly? If so, that could mean that this letter to the bishops is just asking for that regular update, although it says in the Lifesite article that it is 13 years since the last request, also that “it could be ominous”.
I hope it’s just an update “for the record”, but time will tell. As it says in the report at LifeSite, if a minority of bishops give a negative response to the questionnaire, Francis could side with them as he’s sided with minorities before.
It would be good if he would issue questionnaires about the novus ordo – that might be an eye-opener for him, LOL!
Your wish has come true! A priest has sent Father Z a letter spoofing the CDF survey, with the following questions:
1. What is the situation of your diocese with respect to the millions lost faithful during the fifty-year time frame since the implementation of the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite?
2. If the Ordinary Form is practiced there, does it respond to a true pastoral need or is it promoted by a small number of people stuck in the 1960’s?
3. Please list the (likely rapidly declining) numbers of Mass attendance in your diocese since the implementation of the Ordinary Form of the Romanum Rite (No opinions, please, just facts.)
4. For the celebration of the Ordinary Form of the Mass, how often is it celebrated irreverently? For space considerations, it might be necessary instead to just list how often it is celebrated reverently.
5. Has the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum had an influence on the life of seminaries and other formation houses (aside from decimating then, of course)?
6. Why, after a fifty-year experimentation that has failed miserably by all possible measurements, should the Ordinary Form of the Mass be continued? (Note: any non-blank answers to this question will be considered grounds for removal from ecclesial office due to clear mental incapacity)?
There is an update about this on Rorate Caeli, which is none too comforting:
Wherein a new subversive’s’ name comes to the fore: Prof. Andrea Grillo [Rorate note: the most famous liberal liturgist in Italy].
I love Lily’s comment about issuing questionnaires about the Novus Ordo – brilliant!
(I wonder why Editor didn’t think of that?)
Being of a conspiratorial sort – or was that cynical – I ask if there are any dots to be connected between Michael Voris’ new smear campaign against the SSPX, and the CDF’s opening gambit (Pawn to King 4) against the TLM and Summorum.
That is, if the Plan is to herd all us rebellious sheep into one cage, then…by all means, let us attack the cage as well…so that later on, we can justify turning a canonical irregularity into a schism…
I find Voris to be fanatical and unhinged. Voris publicly disassociating himself from the SSPX is therefore not necessarily a bad thing for Traditional Catholicism. But this is totally irrelevant to the allegations … If those SSPX clergy are truly guilty, then they deserve to hang. As a punishment, God has permitted churchmen to fall into the most heinous and perverted sins. The child sexual abuse scandal is a chastisement and no part of the Church has been untouched by it.
It seems that we are all being chastised and all of us need to repent. Being in the ark of Tradition does not appear to be a protection against the calamities facing us.
If the the FSSPX has to pay millions or even hundreds of millions of US dollars in out of court settlements and compensation, then should the lay faithful who attend FSSPX Mass centres continue to put money in the collection plate? Why should the laity pay for priests’ crimes?
You seem to be accepting, as true, the allegations made by Voris, whose lack of truthfulness I have personally experienced – see my comment below, at 8.01 pm.
Athanasius points out, and I think we need to all reflect on this, that If the Cardinal Pell case teaches us anything, it is that those intent on doing the worst kind of harm to Catholic clergy – and in this case, the SSPX – have a great tool with which to work in allegations of historical sexual abuse.
In other words, the benefit of the doubt should pertain until evidence and proof are produced. You say at the beginning of your comment that “IF the SSPX priests are guilty…”
Well, let’s wait for the refutation to come from the US District of the Society.
I can never understand the connection between these crimes and money. You’ve made that connection before. I thought I had answered it clearly, but self-praise is no honour, so here we go again…
When I buy a meal in a restaurant, I don’t ask if the owner. or any of the staff, has a criminal record. I order the meal and pay for it. If there is something untoward about the place and/or its owner/workers, I just don’t go there. What I can’t do, is go there, eat and not pay.
So, if you want to attend any church, and be a person of some integrity, you will contribute something to the collection, as I’ve said before. Doesn’t need to be an amount that will buy the priest a holiday in Spain but if you want the heating to be on, the kettle to work for your cup of tea after Mass etc., then you need to put something into the collection plate. Using the high moral ground as a place to stash your cash, isn’t really terribly convincing.
I couldn’t possibly know the truthfulness of these things … I just hope that the truth will come out and true justice be done.
Ed I personally know a Guy who accused Priests of Sexually abusing him and as far as am concerned it was all lies . His story was on the Front Pages of all the Daily Rags and also made it onto TV . Now I had known this Guy all my Life and to say he was a Bad Apple is to degrade Apples. I witnessed and seen him say and do things that an ordinary Man wouldn’t have done to a Pig on its way to be slaughtered. When he made the accusations about the Priests it was just about the time that Loadsamoney was starting to be payed out maybe the timing was just coincidence. Anyhow am of the opinion That Many Catholic Clergymen were just presumed Guilty because they were Catholics. Cardinal Pell is just The Tip of the Iceberg.
Or as one Priest said many years ago . Salvation is Free unfortunately the Plumbing,the Heating and The Electricity is Not .
No, I don’t think so, personally. I just think it’s coincidental, that Michael Voris has attacked the SSPX again – it seems to be all he thinks about, really.
I don’t follow him any more, but I’m wondering if he’s run out of steam because now that we have Pope Francis, there’s not much point in chasing up homosexual mainstream clergy. “Who am I to judge” took care of them!
So if he doesn’t really have a core reason for the existence of Church Militant, what else can he do but turn back to attacking the SSPX.
I doubt if he would be in cahoots with the CDF
I’m pretty skeptical of my theory myself (if you can imagine being skeptical of my own cynicism…), but see the link I just posted at the bottom about Voris and Opus Dei…
Maybe it’s just Co incidental but I also stopped listening to Michael Voris .
Maybe he should provide prove before he provides castigation. Also I have blogged with some in The USA who say that Catholics who attend the TLMASS think that their better than others Nothing could be further from the Truth I don’t think I know am Better. 🙏 All joking aside that’s the last that anyone I know believes that attends our TLMASS.
Having just posted my conspiratorial fantasies above, I come across this:
(see the last para.)
I have now skimmed the Eponymous Flower piece and I am interested in their enthusiasm for litigation against Voris & Co. So am I. At one time I would have thought to avoid legal action at all costs, but sometimes it is essential to deal with a bully or an idiot or a combination of both – which is one of the nicer descriptions of Voris that spring to mind.
He is so totally anti-SSPX that during his visit here, the organisers of his visit rang me to ask if I would be willing to be interviewed by him for one of his videos, about the state of the Church in Scotland. I said I would be willing. As an interesting aside, that initial call to sound me out made me smile a hollow smile, so to speak, because the member of the organising group ringing me said, so seriously, that Michael had wanted to interview someone and they had thought and thought and thought for ages, about who they could ask, and eventually had to admit that they could only come up with unworthy li’l ole me. Priceless. However, they would take it to Michael and get back to me.
At that time, apart from being Enemy No. 1 in hierarchical and clerical circles across Scotland, I was known to be attending the SSPX Masses, whereas the group organising his visit have the full approval of the Bishops, allowed to advertise in the Scottish “Catholic” press and to use a hall for their various events in the parish of one of the churches in the archdiocese of Glasgow. Anyway, it came as no surprise to me when the next call from the organiser, by now in awkward “how do I get out of this” mode, who said that Michael wouldn’t be doing the video after all because he’d come to Scotland without his internet equipment.
OK. That’s fine. No problem. As ever humble, understanding, and generally saintly as is my wont, I thanked him for thinking of me (after having thought and thought and thought about who else they could invite, instead 😀 )
Imagine my surprise, then, on entering the hall to attend the Voris event, and to see right away, all of his internet equipment on stage. And later, when he had returned to the USA, to view the videos he had made while here in Scotland – the one that sticks in my mind, for some unfathomable reason, is the video taken outside St Mary’s Cathedral in Edinburgh.
After that, I bought a brand new, more upmarket bottle of perfume 😀
I absolutely would sue Michael Voris for libel if he ever accused me of something like that. If Voris and Niles have libeled innocent people then they will lose their souls for it.
If you have anything further to say on this matter, please feel free to email me at firstname.lastname@example.org but note that you must use your real personal email address and not one made up for this blog. Thank you.
Many moons ago (2012? I don’t remember – at any rate, it was when my hair was less gray…) you posted an email exchange I had just completed with Voris’ money man, Terry Carroll, who was as fraudulent as his mouthpiece. Carroll got wind of the thread and came on here and made himself look even worse with a bunch of evasions.
Mr. Carroll is also mentioned in that Randy Engel piece.
As for that new perfume, are you trying to achieve the odor of sanctity?
I’ll try to locate that email exchange but it may have been on our previous blog. Whatever, I will check it out tomorrow.
You mean you haven’t notice the odour or sanctity already?
And when will you Americans learn to spell… I mean, “odor”?
I don’t know if this would be of any help: I’ve never trusted Voris at all from day one. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Man-Behind-Curtain-Michael-Homosexual-ebook/dp/B01IAIIOE2/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=e+michael+jones+michael+voris&qid=1587922077&sr=8-1
Michael Voris has already admitted he has same sex attraction disorder. This would naturally skew his views towards a disordered outcome, if he had not totally repented and reoriented ALL his views towards truth, We do not know how far he has achieved that aim – if at all. Remember the EWTN priestly ‘star’ Fr John Corapi? He talked about his degrading past and apparent conversion – and then seemingly returned to his degrading past (although it was not unnatural vice as in Voris’s case). Never trust these people who make big bucks out of this kind of media ‘apostolate’.
That link I posted above to Randy Engel’s article on E. Michael Jones’ book about Voris – same book as the link you’ve posted – is pretty much a complete roast of both of them, as well as an expose into their Opus Dei connections.
There are certainly a lot of tainted Opus Dei-connected actors in this situation. I wonder if we should have a thread on Opus Dei….it seems there are at least two bloggers here with extensive experience with them, experience which has not been, shall we say, edifying….
As a matter of interest, soon after we began publishing Catholic Truth, the Opus Dei group in Glasgow were the very first to write from the high moral ground to demand to be removed from our mailing list. Whatever else they are keen to know about, the crisis in the Church as it affects Scotland, isn’t one of them!
Ditto the London Faith of our Fathers conferences in the late 90’s. Opus Dei were formally invited to the first one and declined the offer of a stall to promote their work. No further contact took place between the organisers or Opus Dei either in that year, or subsequent years. No offers of assistance were made, for what was a massive task each year. I did make a mental note of that at the time.
Yes, nobody could ever accuse Opus Dei folks of being zealous to a fault. Or just being zealous – except in the matter of defending the indefensible. They’re great at that.
Thanks for the reminder of those London conferences – terrific. They were a real class act, as the saying goes.
So what do you think about a thread on them? I suppose we’d have to have a specific angle, since this organization is such a sprawling beast.
Actually, we’ve never had a thread on Opus Dei – or have we? A vague bell is ringing somewhere, and I think we may have had one on the old blog, related to family life because I have a friend who feels that his children were estranged from him after involvement with Opus Dei.
I’ve just broken off here for a minute to check our previous posts and there isn’t one listed on this blog so will keep your suggestion in mind for the near enough future.
Forewarned is forearmed – we do need to educate ourselves about the Opus Dei Prelature for want of a less kind term 😀
Sorry, the link is right below here, not above…
Thanks RCA, I’ll read that.
Editor and Miles,
That Eponymous Flower article has a link to an article by Randy Engel (whom I know, Editor, is not one of your favorite journalists), in which she does a great deal of investigating into Voris’ (and E. Michael Jones’) links to Opus Dei. So it might be worth asking, what is the attitude of Opus Dei toward the SSPX? And further, is this Voris rubbish actually an Opus Dei witch-hunt in disguise?
Here is the article:
I have no time for Opus Dei – they are never going to criticise the hierarchy, let alone Pope Francis. They would definitely not approve of the SSX because they (OD) are papolatrists.
Hence my question about who or what is really behind Voris’ attack….
I was involved for a while with Opus Dei, namely around four years. I even took an Opus Dei priest in Manchester as a spiritual director. I totally agree with your views. They are totally brainwashed, a veritable Vicar of Bray. If the Pope is liberal, then they are liberal, and if the Pope is Catholic, then they are Catholic. They slavishly follow the word of the Pope no matter what he says. I had a conversation about divorce and remarriage, and my friend (of happy memory) said “well, they are the successors of the Apostles, so they can do what they like”. Er, right, so the words of Christ in the Bible and the infallible teachings of the Popes don’t matter? He was a numerary. They hate the SSPX, and used words such as schismatics to describe them, and will not accept evidence to the contrary. And Vatican II is the best thing since sliced bread, the church didn’t exist before that point, and they are lukewarm towards the Traditional Mass. I will give them one thing though, they are very much, in my experience at least, against communion in the hand. They are very guilt-ridden, encourage scruples so you can have something to offer up, controlling and suppress individuality. I despise the organisation. The amount of broken families through their malign influence, damaged mental health and people turning their backs on God.
What you describe is characteristic of rigid and rigorist and neurotic Catholics, who seem to be attracted to Opus Dei, leading to a culture of fanaticism, which has lead to the stereotype. I know an Opus Dei priest, and he’s not at all that bad. But I knew another, who was as you describe.
They are also very elitist. The first question I always got asked was “what do you do”. When I didn’t respond by saying I was an engineer of some sort (St Josemaria Escriva was an engineer, so engineering seems to be popular in that cult), or a professional, they soon lost interest.
The priest whose direction led to me experiencing horrendous guilt and scruples was Scottish, from Glasgow in fact. I’m sure you’ll know him if you went to Greygarth.
Escriva wasn’t an engineer. He studied law and trained as a priest.
I don’t know the priest you mention. I have not been to Greygarth, as it’s not in Glasgow. I only have been to Dunreath.
They are known to be very middle class, yes.
A Scotsman with scruples? You kidding?
I have heard about this legendary ‘Scots guilt’, but I hoped it only infected the minds of Presbyterians … ?
I think you mean “Catholic guilt” – we’ve long been accused of that in the wider population despite the fact that anyone with half a brain would know that once absolved in the Confessional, there is no need for any guilt.
Typical twisting of the truth – the fact that we go to confess our sins to a priest is taken as a guilt complex – by those who rush to tell their “therapist” their darkest secrets! Priceless.
I understood it that Josemaria Escriva got permission to continue saying the traditional Latin Mass for himself for the rest of his life, and tried to get it for the rest of Opus Dei, but was either refused or advised against it (for all of OD that is, not for himself – apparently he kept that permission). I can’t remember the whole story now, I read it years ago. Perhaps some blogger has a better recollection of events.
I recall reading something similar. Had Escriva insisted on Opus Dei retaining the Old Mass then OD would not have enjoyed the favour of the conciliar pontiffs. The truth is, if OD had resisted modernist Rome then they would have been outcast just like Archbishop Lefebvre and his followers. It takes courage to be a Traditional Catholic. Opus Dei have taken the easy path. I don’t believe Escriva was a modernist, just a compromiser. He did not have the grace that +Lefebvre and +de Castro Mayer received, the grace steadfastness in the true faith.
Yes, Josemaria Escriva did receive permission to say the Traditional Mass. He did attempt to say the New Mass, with the assistance of Javier Echevarria, but used un-priestly language to describe it. St Padre Pio also did not say the New Mass.
Amongst rumours circulated, it has been said that he was so disgusted by the reforms of Vatican II that he considered leaving the church and joining the Orthodox. He visited Greece with Alvaro del Portillo, ostensibly to plan Opus Dei development there, but with the plan to look into Orthodoxy.
Yes, you’re right about engineering, it was Alvaro del Portillo who was the engineer.
I likewise have heard the story about the visit to Greece, but I have been unable to find reliable evidence for this. Do you know where I may find such evidence?
The Novus Ordo is a horror and to be honest I am astounded that not more clergy had the same initial reaction as Escriva.
To the best of my recollection, my source on the Greek trip was John Allen’s Opus Dei: Secrets and Power Inside the Catholic Church, though I’m not sure as it’s years since I read it.
In the Orthodox Church’s defence, their liturgy is beautiful and spiritual, and they never changed it. Many Catholics in the post Vatican II years did convert to Orthodoxy.
Editor: Where is the evidence that many Catholics converted to the schismatic Orthodox after Vatican II ? Given how difficult faithful Catholics found it to adhere to the SSPX, I seriously doubt that.
I have read sources online from Catholics who converted at that time. I think they did it in the USA mainly. I can’t remember any of the sources now, but I’ll try and locate them.
Editor: please do. Seems very odd. And it’s the first I’ve ever heard such a claim, so some solid evidence would be required to convince me, and moi. We’re like that 😀
Here’s one. Not one of those originals, but read the fourth paragraph up from the Scripture quotes at the bottom.
I doubt it would have been possible for Catholics to convert to Orthodoxy in large numbers simply because most Catholic countries have few Orthodox and vice versa. The only place I can think of that has significant populations of Catholics and Orthodox living side by side is the United States. I have heard of American Catholics converting to Orthodoxy in recent times. For example, Rod Dreher who claims he was disillusioned with the conciliar Church. Why did he become schismatic when he could have become a Traditional Catholic? My feeling is that he is culturally entrenched in America puritan Protestant culture, and be never really grasped the Catholic world view in any kind of visceral way that transcends intellectual understanding. A lot of American Catholics are like this. One thing that Dreher has in common with many other conservative American Christians is his obsession with sexual morality. These folk believe that if a priest or bishop is orthodox in matters of sexual morality and is pro-life, then be must be traditional! Incorrect … Simply because one disagrees with homosexual marriage and is pro-life does not mean one cannot be modernist. Plenty of these American neo-Conservative Catholics are modernist to the core. They think they are good Catholics because they view Catholicism through a Protestant world view. This is one of the dangers of not growing up in a Catholic majority country.
Re your last sentence, have you met any Catholics from Catholic majority countries? I am yet to meet a practising Catholic from Spain, Italy, Poland etc who has ‘the Catholic world view in any kind of visceral way that transcends intellectual understanding’. They are as imbued, in my experience with a Protestant world view as much as the American or British Catholics. If that wasn’t the case, why didn’t the majority of Catholics oppose the reforms? I’ve met a few Catholics who attend the New Mass, but who say they prefer the Old. Are you saying a majority of devout Catholics in France or the USA, or England supported the New Mass at the time? I don’t believe that for one minute, and I don’t accept the false obedience rubbish.
I have been fortunate to become friends with a Spaniard, and he certainly has a Catholic spirit. In Spain there still exists in places remnants of a glorious Baroque Catholicism, rich in symbolism and pageantry, the kind we lost in England and Scotland after the Reformation. YouTube Spanish Holy Week processions and you’ll see what I mean. It wasnt the Protestants who were doing the Church smashing in old Catholic Europe, no, it was Freemasons and their ideological successors. But still the people of these countries lack the puritan traits you see in Americans. Woke culture/ identity politics/ SJWism, whatever you want to call it, essentially comes out of Puritan America. You will have surely heard of Weber’s ‘Protestant work ethic’?
A family I know have close dealings with Opus Dei. One or two of them have, or continue to work for them. From their own behaviour and family life, I am FAR from impressed.
It would be a disgrace if the Vatican nullified Summorum Pontificum.
Lots of people who attend the Traditional Latin Mass in Scotland would just return to the novus ordo, IMHO. The ones I know are still living in the past where the “SSPX are in schism” mantra was commonplace.
I will be scandalised if the Pope does that, but then it’s Pope Francis, so who knows.
I came to the SSPX out of necessity. Perhaps necessity will force those living in the past to change their minds? Mentally rigid papolatrists will always struggle with this because legal positivism is a comfort blanket to them.
Scandal? Disgrace? Two of the most accurate descriptives of this Pontificate… I think you are right about Diocesan TLMs.
Speaking of the SSPX, I have yet to see their reaction to this survey.
I just came across another serious YouTube video against the SSPX. I only listened to a few minutes of it. It’s the Patrick Coffin Media Show.
Well at least he’s consistent! He did a broadcast years ago for the American company Catholic Answers. It was called ‘Radical Traditionalism’.
Just the other day I listened to a Patrick Coffin interview, my first exposure to him, with E. Michael Jones, and I was not impressed. It was merely a platform for Jones to pontificate, with occasional interruptions by Coffin to express his supportive opinions (in a disturbingly effeminate voice), after which Jones would typically say “Yes,” and then resume pontificating.
In regards to the recent abuse reports, here is the link to the SSPX GB district safeguarding policy. It shows that the SSPX in this country does take seriously the wellbeing of children and vulnerable adults.
What I want to know is, why didn’t canon lawyers point out the fact that Quo Primum laid down, with binding and lasting force, the law that the Tridentine Mass was to be celebrated in perpetuity, apart from countries and orders that had unique rites older than 200 years?
I believe that inescapable fact has been pointed out many times, by numerous canon lawyers and others, but that has failed to deter the strategy of the internal enemies of the Church, which is:
Ignore the past, and ignore objections to the present course.
I have the impression that they believe one of two things: Either that Quo primum is purely disciplinary and not doctrinal, or, that the Novus Ordo Missae sufficiently fulfills the requirements of Quo Primum. This is at least this is the impression I have gotten by listening to and reading Novus Ordo opinions on the matter. The rest of them simply don’t know about Quo Primum. I didn’t until I came to Tradition.
Let’s look at this:
1. 3 Sspx bishops now in full communion
2. Sspx priests may hear confessions
3. Sspx priests may marry couples
4. Rome has recently added to Tridentine Missal (Saints & Prefaces)
Perhaps this survey is simply looking for an update. SP was only issued 13 years ago. Facts and figures should be positive from what i can see.
However, the survey should also ask Bishops about SSPX activities in their Diocese. In some instances this may double the figure for Tridentine Masses in Diocese boundary.
In Portsmouth, since 2012, we have had a considerable increase in Tridentine Masses. +Egan has also visited the SSPX school to pray the Rosary with its pupils and ordained a few priests according to the 1962 Missal. Bishop Egan isn’t Pope Pius X reincarnated but things are slowly looking up.
If facts and figures were involved in anything having to do with the Vatican II revolution, the Novus Ordo would have been shelved at least 40 years ago. No, facts and figures, along with truth, are anathema to a revolution, and must be suppressed or ignored.
There’s also a snowball’s chance in hell that bishops will include SSPX TLM participation in their survey responses, though I agree that they should.
Glad to hear of progress in Portsmouth…
While acknowledging tradition has no shortage of enemies, I don’t think we can read too much into this.
The functions of the Ecclesia Dei body were recently rolled into the CDF remit (a move which suited the SSPX, incidentally, as it means they can deal directly with the CDF from now on).
If Ecclesia Dei had put out a survey about Summorum Pontificum (SP), nobody would have batted an eyelid. And so I do not think we should worry too much at this move from the CDF.
I think the part of the CDF letter which says “His Holiness Pope Francis wishes to be informed about the current application of the aforementioned document” is probably just the kind of flowery language which typifies Bishops’ letters to one another. It sounds much more elegant than “we are doing a survey”.
The Church likes statistics, it publishes a host of annual statistics about all kinds of things. The number of traditional masses is another thing to create statistics about.
In one sense, we can take heart from the survey as it shows the traditional mass is now a topic of sufficient gravity that the Church is interested in its progress. That is a change from the days of banning, ignoring and attacking it – which is still all too common.
I think the years following SP has led to a modest yet solid and consistent growth of the provision of diocesan latin masses. It is one of the few upward trajectories in a Church which is otherwise going through the floor.
Any move from Francis to curtail the mass would portray him as an incoherent hypocrite, given his concessions to the SSPX and him previously describing the provision of SP as “prudent”.
Taking the legs from SP – a major volte-face after such a short time – would also be a public embarrassment for the hierarchy who would be revealed as factionalised and incompetent.
Of course, they are factionalised and incompetent, but modernists like to think of themselves as a cunning and also care about their image. And so a curtailment of, or attack on, SP is probably too crude a move for even them – unless it came as part of some other package of measures designed to reduce the impact / manage perceptions.
I suspect a typo in your opening sentence – I imagine you mean “I don’t think we should read too much into this… ?
And you could be right – you make some thoughtful points.
Good points, but I also wonder, given Francis’ penchant for de-centralizing and leaving everything up to the Bishops’ Conferences, whether the results of this survey will enable him to “suggest” some liberalizing liturgical modification of the TLM, and then “leave it up to the Bishops” as to whether they want to implement them.
That’s been the main modus operandi of the revolutionaries since Vatican II: create an option, have the vast majority jump immediately on board, and voila, it becomes universal Church practice.
On Taylor Marshall’s podcast (is coronavirus over hyped?) there was, towards the end, a call for Catholics on 1st may to pray for the protection and reconsecration of Holy Mother Church to the Holy Family.
1st may is start of the month to Mary
1st Friday devotion
St Joseph the worker day
Dr Marshall suggested we all pray the rosary for Holy Mother Church and consecrate ourselves at 3pm on 1st May.
I’m willing to do this. Anyone else? Couldn’t we create a Catholic Truth spiritual bouquet ?
Editor: with all due respect to Taylor Marshall, I think our first priority has to be the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, as Our Lady requested at Fatima. Once we’ve honoured Our Lady ‘s request, we can move on to Dr Taylor Marshall 😀 Of course, there’s nothing to stop individuals praying the Rosary for Holy Mother Church on 1st May – some of us do that every day, but it wouldn’t be possible to organise something under the “Catholic Truth” umbrella – that would be complicated, to say the least! Your zeal, nonetheless is fully appreciated.
Comments are closed.