Vatican: Inside Information on the Shenanigans Surrounding Suppression of the Traditional Mass
Editor writes…
This from American blogger, Marinaio, in my inbox earlier today…
[This] article is, in my opinion, a real jaw-dropper: it deals with the suppression of the recommendations of the Commission of Cardinals set up in 1986 by Pope John Paul II to examine a fuller liberty for the TLM than that pope gave in Quattuor Abhinc Annos, October, 1984. I can’t find the reason for the foot-dragging in the article, but the responses from Cardinal Castrillon-Hoyos are amazing and sound just like Summorum Pontificum in 2007. The question is, why did it take the Holy See 21 years to give us relief? Here’s one of my favorite quotes from Card. C-H:
“It is necessary to remove all the conditions contained in the Indult, in order to eliminate the impression bishops have that the Holy See does not want it and the impression on the part of the faithful that they are asking for something almost barely tolerated by the Holy See.”
And even though I detest the terms “ordinary” and “extraordinary” with regard to the New vs. Old Masses, look at this quote from 2008 in reference to Summorum Pontificum:
The first substantial difference [vs. the 1984 and 1988 indults] is certainly that it is now licit to celebrate Mass according to the Extraordinary Rite without the need for a special permission, called an “indult.” The Holy Father Benedict XVI established, once and for all [but did Francis read Summorum Pontificum? – Marinaio], that the Roman Rite consists of two Forms, to which he wished to give the names “Ordinary Form” (the celebration of the Novus Ordo, according to the Missal of Paul VI of 1970) and “Extraordinary Form” (the celebration of the Gregorian Rite, according to the Missal of B. John XXIII of 1962), and confirmed that this Missal of 1962 has never been abrogated. Click here to read entire article…
Your thoughts…
Comments (30)
If I’m reading this right, it means we could have had free access to the TLM around 20 years before Benedict issued Summorum Pontificum. If that is the case, it’s utterly unconscionable.
Josephine,
You are reading this right! It is quite shocking that the Commission recommendations/findings were suppressed, when the Commission was established to essentially correct the heavy-handed implementation of the “indult” which “allowed” the TLM , giving the impression that it was like a favour granted, albeit reluctantly by the Holy See via the bishops. This, if you read the article carefully, was never the intention. Who needs mystery novels with churchmen like this lot in the Vatican!
A little later
Excuse the long-winded comment above – I’m operating in two places at the same time. Don’t ask 😀
The timeline is very important here – how come none of the Cardinals came forward much sooner to reveal the truth about the Commission’s recommendations? Why did it take 21 years for this to become public knowledge? And is this a shot across Francis’ bow to stop him in his tracks after Traditionis Custodes, with the threat of more restrictions to come? I’m struggling to make sense of any of this.
“Suppression” seems to be the go-to tactic of the embedded enemies of the Church when it comes to developments they regard as subversive to their plans. “Making things disappear” is an old Communist M.O.
For example, the suppression, by hiding it in a drawer, of Abp. Lefebvre’s group’s request at the Council for a specific condemnation of atheistic Communism.
I hope Laura is correct in speculating that this might be a shot across Francis’ bow regarding the rumor of more TLM restrictions to come. But considering what sort of person we are dealing with, I’d say it’s going to take a lot more than a shot across the bow.
For example: https://dailycaller.com/2023/01/17/pope-francis-swear-words-speech-spanish-seminarians-barcelona/
RCA Victor,
A priest mentioned this shocking obscenities-laden speech to Spanish seminarians, in an email to me, received a couple of days ago, but I thought he’d heard this privately and was just letting me know. I’m appalled to read it at your link. This pope has absolutely no idea how to behave as a simple Christian never mind Supreme Pontiff. He is utterly scandalous and I’m running out of (printable) words to describe him.
Apart from his ridiculous advice to provide absolution even to the unrepentant, his uncouth tongue (to put it mildly) marks him out as someone who could use a good confessor himself and one who knows his duty to make judgements and NOT hand out absolution without discretion.
In short, he is – as I repeat again and again – the worst ever pontiff in the history of the Church. I hope he genuinely repents of the scandals he is causing before he is called to Judgement. I do offer a prayer for his conversion every day – one of those prayers that shows no sign of being answered, to date, at least. Roll on…
Personally Nothing absolutely NOTHING surprises me what Bergoglio says or does . In reality Bergoglio is a very Crude Man and is also known to be a Bully . I myself have been called a Rough Diamond and I sometimes say at as it is but I don’t Dress up everyday as a Pope . It really is ridiculous that some Catholics still see this Bouncer as a Meek and Humble Man. As far as The Mass of Ages goes it doesn’t apply to Bergoglio as He is not a Catholic.
Years ago it was said the Cardinal Hume and others rushed to Rome telling John Paul II to warn him that Traditionalists would use the Traditional Mass as a “banner”. I think that’s why the 1986 or was it 1988 indult fell flat. The bishops still high on Vatican II spring time for…. Hollerich and Germany….. thought they could ignore it…..
Well they ken noo….. apparently the Vatican II church in Scotland income has went off a cliff after the covid lockdowns. I don’t think that will come back any time soon.
The most committed Catholics are attending traditionalist masses and that where their bucks are going in to the coffers.
How many churches in Coatbridge should be recycled into bingo halls…. that won’t work, plenty of bingo Hall seats…. what about Oirish theme pubs…. that won’t work either the Knights of St Columba won’t want competition when they open up their brand new gin Palace later on in the year.
As always the simple solutions are the best solutions Scrap the failed novus ordo mass….. let the wishy washy Celtic supporting Oirish so called Catholics go…. most are beyond help anyway…. keep to the real Mass and wait till Francie goes to Jaun Peron and Evita…. and we’ll rebuild.
Crouchback
Yes, I clearly remember hearing that in the 1980’s – that Cardinal Hume and others tried to stop the restrictions on the Traditional Mass being lifted.
When Quattuor Abhinc Annos was first promulgated on October 4, 1984, Mrs. Marinaio and I were most ambivalent. We found the wording offensive and seemingly written by some Vatican lawyer. Remember this, for example? “those attached to some older form of worship” should have their “just aspirations” respected. We kept going back and forth on whether we really wanted to go through a process that would most certainly not be pleasant in order to take advantage of the Indult.
Then, the following spring, we met Michael Davies in London and he convinced us that if we did not request the Indult, we would be playing into the hands of the progressives who, he assured us, put up all kinds of roadblocks to the Indult and even brazenly predicted to Pope John Paul II that there would be very little interest. So, as a Navy officer in Spain in those days, I went through my base chaplain and sent a request to the military ordinariate, headed by Vice Admiral Ryan at the time. One of his lackeys responded with a list of conditions, apparently set forth by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. The three main ones that I objected to were: (1) no one who was not old enough to remember the Old Mass would be allowed at the requested Indult Mass; (2) no one affiliated or associated in any way with any group that impugns the validity of the New Mass would be granted a request for an Indult Mass., and (3) the Indult Mass must not be celebrated in a diocesan parish church, but rather in an oratory or chapel. There were other restrictions as well, but I called Michael when I received these shameful conditions and told him I would not be going through with it.
Meanwhile, for 21 years, as Josephine points out, we were hounded from our base chapels, persecuted for out attachment to, and love for, the Mass of the Ages. Incredibly, the traditional priests who came long distances to give us the Mass and Sacraments were harassed as well. Fellow (N.O.) Catholics often considered us pariahs, distancing themselves socially when they realized we would not be worshipping at the base chapel. So, yes, Josephine, Summorum Pontificum should have happened two decades earlier, but Pope John Paul II, who seemed to tolerate every religion but the traditional version of his own, was too busy allowing a Buddha statue to desecrate the sanctuary of St. Francis of Assisi basilica and kissing the Quran to be a true father to us.
This foot-dragging by the Pope was pathetic. “Santo Subito” JP II had the very positive dossier of the papal visitors to Econe and other SSPX houses “on his desk” from December of 1987. He never acted on the excellent recommendations by Cardinal Edouard Gagnon and Monsignor Perle, to give the SSPX a personal prelature and bring an end to the impasse. Nothing ever came of the very thorough report. It molded and collected dust on Pope John Paul II’s desk. And that (inter alia) certainly led to Archbishop Lefebvre’s decision to consecrate four bishops.
Dr. John Senior so aptly wrote after the consecrations of June, 1988, in a Remnant article titled “The Glass Confessional,” that the rift of June of 1988 was completely avoidable. Rome, he wrote, had the moral responsibility to instill confidence in Archbishop Lefebvre that the Holy See was serious about its promises, and should have, out of the largesse of the superior/inferior relationship, been most lenient in reaching out without conditions to the faithful Archbishop. Instead, after the aborted 5 May 88 protocol was signed and Archbishop Lefebvre had returned to Albano (the ink still being wet), Fr. Emmanuel duChallard later told me and Mrs. Marinaio that Cardinal Ratzinger’s people placed in his hands a “letter of apology” that needed to be written and signed by Archbishop Lefebvre for all the “personal offense” he had given to JP II. It was, the Vatican minions insisted, a sine qua non for the agreement to be ratified. Monsieur l’Abbe’ du Challard told us that when he returned to Albano Laziale, where the saintly Archbishop was staying, Archbishop Lefebvre took the sample apology letter in his hand, read over it, and shook his head, saying, “Ils sont me’chante!” (They are nasty!) The rest is history.
Meanwhile, we traditional Catholics were hounded from our parishes, ridiculed by our diocesan priests and pastors, and made persona non grata at diocesan churches, even those that offered the “Indult”. Some pastors even required those coming from SSPX chapels to make a public “Profession of Faith”. And now we have the pontiff of mercy, Francis, who (if well-founded rumors are correct) is about to finish his brutal suppression and attempted destruction of the Mass of the Ages. As we say in the Navy, “stand by!”
Marinaio,
I’ll post the following extract from your excellent comment on the apology thread a little later, and comment on it there…
Cardinal Ratzinger’s people placed in his hands a “letter of apology” that needed to be written and signed by Archbishop Lefebvre for all the “personal offense” he had given to JP II. It was, the Vatican minions insisted, a sine qua non for the agreement to be ratified. Monsieur l’Abbe’ du Challard told us that when he returned to Albano Laziale, where the saintly Archbishop was staying, Archbishop Lefebvre took the sample apology letter in his hand, read over it, and shook his head, saying, “Ils sont me’chante!” (They are nasty!) The rest is history.
For now, your reminder of the treatment of Catholics who took advantage of the “indult” is timely, as we await the continued attempts to finish off the TLM once and for all by this appalling, appalling, appalling, pope. I hope I live to see the condemnation of his pontificate which is sure to be pronounced in the future. I’d probably be over a hundred but whose counting…
My French teacher would be so disappointed in my grammatical error. Fr. duChallard’s quote of Archbishop Lefebvre should read: “Ils sont méchants!” The comment was made not so much because the saintly Archbishop was too proud to apologize, for he maintained that he had never, at any time, given any offense to the person of the pope. It was an exasperated comment from the heart at the way the sample letter was shoved at Fr. duChallard after all the negotiations were complete and the protocol was signed. Father described it to us as a sneaky post-script, an “oh, by the way” requirement that was never even so much as touched upon in the negotiations that culminated in the May 5 protocol. And the fact that the Archbishop had already departed for the SSPX District house in Albano Laziale, leaving his delegate to the Vatican, Fr. duChallard to “tidy up” loose ends, it was most scurrilous. Since the French adjective “méchant” can be translated into English as “nasty, mean, or evil,” I would say that the good Archbishop probably intended “evil” in view of the circumstances. P.S.: I hope Mr. Moynihan’s sources are wrong; I don’t think I can live through all this again. . .
Marinaio,
TBH, I don’t see much, if any, difference between “mean, nasty, evil” – if anything to say the note was “evil” would be considered much worse by those who think a holy person would never say such a thing! LOL! Such naïve people had better avoid reading the lives of some of the saints who were very bad tempered!
Marinaio,
It’s surely not humility to apologise to appease a bully. Is that not cowardice, and, indeed, perhaps sharing in the sin of another by encouraging such behaviour and/or remaining silent in the face of such wicked behaviour.
Whether the archbishop called the Vatican minions “nasty” or “evil-doers” is neither here nor there, in my considered opinion. He would know that we cannot make the judgement that an individual(s) is evil, but we may – and should – condemn evil-doing. If the apology which he was instructed to sign was put to him by evil-doers, then those evil-doers are, by definition, nasty – or so it seems to this simple gal.
I can’t think of a “nice” way to say that someone, anyone, is an evil-doer, so I’m happy to settle for “nasty” 😀 And I’d avoid calling any Scot “mean” if I were you – it has a whole different meaning here, from just being, well… nasty 😀
In fact, you should be really careful about stereotyping the Scots as mean. There was a recent letter to a newspaper from an Aberdonian which said “If you print any more jokes about mean Scotsmen I shall stop borrowing your paper.”
Dear Madame Editor,
“In fact, you should be really careful about stereotyping the Scots as mean. There was a recent letter to a newspaper from an Aberdonian which said “If you print any more jokes about mean Scotsmen I shall stop borrowing your paper.”
I would never stereotype the Scots as mean. In my experience, most people see the Scots as very intelligent people, considering the fact that so many scientists, engineers and quite a few Saints come from Scotland. I saw this on Facebook and immediately thought of you.
The Beads Of St. John Ogilvie
St. John was a very holy Jesuit priest who spread the Catholic faith during a time of great persecution. He was born in Scotland, educated in mainland Europe, and returned to his native country to preach the Gospel at a time when Catholics were being put to death. In 1614, St. John was arrested in Glasgow and sent to jail in Pailsey. He suffered terrible tortures during his imprisonment, including being kept awake for eight days and nights in an attempt to make him divulge the identities of other Catholics. Saint John was eventually convicted of high treason for refusing to accept the king’s spiritual jurisdiction. He was sentenced to be hanged and disemboweled; he was only 36. On the final day of his life, as he was being paraded through the streets of Glasgow, St. John clutched a rosary in his hand. His rosary had always been his lifeline to heaven; now he would hand that lifeline on to others. As he mounted the gallows in preparation for death, he threw his rosary to bystanders. The rosary struck the chest of a young nobleman named Baron John ab Eckersdorff. The baron was traveling through the town of Paisley on that day, and it was Eckersdorff’s chest that was blessed with the touch of the martyr’s beads. the event was so life changing that Eckersdorff later wrote it down in the following account: I was on my travels through England and Scotland — as is the custom of our nobility — being a mere stripling, and not having the faith. I happened to be in Glasgow the day Father Ogilvie was led forth to the gallows, and it is impossible for me to describe his lofty bearing in meeting death. His farewell to the Catholics was his casting into their midst from the scoffold, his rosary beads just before he met his fate. That rosary, thrown haphazard, struck me on the breast in such wise that I could have caught it in the palm of my hand; but there was such a rush and crush of the Catholics to get hold of it, that unless I wished to run the risk of being trodden down, I had to cast it from me. Religion was the last thing I was then thinking about: it was not in my mind at all; yet from that moment I had no rest. Those rosary beads had left a wound in my soul; go where I would, I had no peace of mind. Conscience was disturbed, and the thought would haunt me: why did the martyr’s rosary strike me, and not another? For years I asked myself this question —it followed me about everywhere. at last conscience won the day. I became Catholic; I abandoned Calvinism; and this happy change I attribute to the martyr’s beads, and to no other cause — those beads which, if I had them now, gold could not tempt me to part with; and if gold could purchase them, I should not spare it.
Source: 10 Wonders of the Rosary
St. Margaret, St.John Ogilvie, and all Scottish Saints, pray for Scotland!
Margaret 🇺🇸
Margaret USA,
I was only joking about Scots being mean (or as you would say “cheap”) – it’s a stereotype which can be used to good (fun) effect, so I don’t mind it at all.
Thank you very much for that extract from “The Beads of St John Ogilvie” – which is a new one on me. I knew, of course, that the person who received the rosary which the saint threw into the crowd was converted as a result, but I don’t remember hearing his name or any of the rest of the details in your edifying post. But then, my memory is terrible these days. For the life of me, for example, I can’t remember where I put that box of chocolates 😀
Marinaio,
Thank you for your story. The efforts of people like yourself are why there was a Traditional Mass for converts like yours truly to discover. Had you gone along to get along, I’d likely never have become Catholic. I have a good hope Heaven now; I shudder to think of my fate if I’d not found the Traditional Faith. God is good.
Do not settle for an ordinary Mass. Insist on the extraordinary.
Wurdesmythe,
What do you say to people who don’t have a traditional Mass within travelling distance and feel they can’t go without Holy Communion for weeks on end? How do you answer that?
Lily,
There is an answer to your question in the little (but thick) SSPX publication Christian Warfare, page 72:
“When you can’t go to Mass, send your Guardian Angel in your place.
O Holy Angel at my side, go to the church for me.
Kneel in my place at Holy Mass where I desire to be.
At Offertory, in my stead, take all I am and own,
And place it as a sacrifice, upon the altar throne.
At Holy Consecration’s bell, adore with seraph’s love
My Jesus hidden in the Host, come down from Heav’n above.
Then pray for those I dearly love,
and those who cause me grief,
That Jesus’ Blood may cleanse all hearts
and suffering souls relieve.
And when the priest Communion takes,
oh, bring my Lord to me,
That His sweet Heart may rest on mine, and I His temple be.
Pray that this Sacrifice Divine may mankind’s sins efface,
Then bring me Jesus’ blessing home,
the pledge of every grace.
In the name of the Father and of the Son
and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.”
RCA Victor,
That’s beautiful. Many thanks for posting – some of us are going to have to use that prayer, I fear, in the not too far distant future.
After Vatican II I heard a talk by Cardinal Heenan on Vatican II. The only thing he disagreed with was an attack on Our Lady by the German bishops. Although discussed they had come to no agreement on changing the Latin Mass. and this is verified in the documents published after Vatican II.. Yet despite their existence it was still taught that Vatican II changed the Latin Mass. As a young man I was appalled by such dishonesty. But soon it was the Catholic Faith itself that was under attack, especially the Blessed Sacrament.. Cardinal Heenan was prophetic when he said in that talk that if they removed Our Lady the belief in the Blessed Sacrament would be removed,. The sad thing is that the Cardinal was betrayed when he set up Çorpus Christi College and chose a Judas to run it. Make no mistake it was Freemasons in the Vatican who continued making decisions calling them the Spirit of Vatican II which meant attacking and destroying as much of the Catholic Faith as they could.
.
John,
Would you remind me of the name of that “Judas” (who headed Corpus Christi teacher-training college in London) – not so long ago I was trying to remember his name to post here. Please and thank you!
I’m inclined to believe Robert Moynihan, he is usually prudent and reliable: https://gloria.tv/post/VwHXX7TLQS8t1QFXGvXz7gYs1
WF,
In case some of us don’t click the link at the Gloria TV site, I’ve copied the video to post here – very concerning, since some people won’t be able to get to Mass at all, if there is a total prohibition on it being offered in diocesan churches. And Cardinal Roche is just the man to see to it that this is what happens. His hatred of the TLM is palpable…
ED al ask all on here a Question. Do any of us think that the Horrible Arthur Roche hadn’t already had a Document Prepared to cancel Mass and I say Mass as Roche is also a Horrible Human Being who most definitely wanted to see Pope Benedict Dead. That is really a terrible thing to wish for but Remember Roche has said that we who attend T.Latin Mass are Protestants . The above Video about Roche could have been made months ago.
Roche is a Swish Man and I would certainly not call Him a Prince of the Catholic Church.
He was more at Home Dancing on Ice, than behind an Altar before He got the call from Bergoglio to be His Hit Man . It’s time to really call out these Spirtual Thugs for what they really are ,because this is certainly Spirtual Warfare. Roche is a career Clergyman and really nothing else.
Further confirmation: https://gloria.tv/post/2y2dUNKT8ZRW3kNkbwSfgnVno
Not surprised at Roche as he just follows where the wind is blowing to,. Think he was supporting TLM couple of years ago then he veered it over to anti TLM very recently say a year or two ago. He and cardinal Nichols didn’t get on well. Roche was angling for that Westminster job but he got promoted instead in Rome. Then he went all out against TLM re papal decree. One thing that he doesn’t get is the spiritual value of TLM. Schism is long coming regarding liturgical wars. Bring it on.
More severe restrictions on TLM in coming months. It’s starting now after Benedict died.
Source is this :https://insidethevatican.com/news/newsflash/letter-23-2023-wed-jan-18-no-secrets/
Hey, Editor. I phoned a friend with a better memory than me and the name of the priest was Fr Hubert Richards. I could not remember his name either which is why I put down Judas. Interestingly he ran off with a nun at Corpus Christi and they married. She now Claire Richards decided to publish a catechism. I was called to a meeting of parents at my local Catholic School because the teachers were very excited over this new catechism. I looked up the comments of others on the catechism and found they were all negative. In particular any reference to the Blessed Sacrament was entirely missing. I stood up and said that if they omitted teaching devotion to the Blessed Sacrament then they would destroy the Faith of the children. Some parents reflected on my words but the teachers just sneered. And that was to be my future even until today. I then went to the person who was leading the parish catechists and asked if she taught the children anything on the real presence and her answer was “O they are too young to understand”. Well I am 85 and I still do not understand” The catechists were chosen because they would not teach the Catholic faith. A brand new Church had been born and they were so enthusiastic. But what were the fruits. For over 45 years with the exception of perhaps a very few years, about 6, almost 100% of pupils have lapsed from the Church by the time they have reached the Secondary School.. Just think of the Judgement they will have when they die and have to give an account of heir stewardship. “Why did you ignore this situarion” “But Lord we were told by our priests that they were on a journey and we need not worry” “But I am the way” answers Jesus “and if they were not with me they were lost sheep so why did you not seek them out”. But then they love the bible though the teachings of Jesus they just ignore.
John,
Many thanks for that – Hubert Richards, it is. And Clare Richards had written textbooks for use in Catholic schools and the local bishop (? Peter Smith) was hauled over the coals during an ad limina in Rome by Cardinal Ratzinger, largely thanks to Daphne McLeod’s (RIP) persistence if fighting to rid Catholic schools of such heretical textbooks. Clare Richards herself went on record to tell the story of how her bishop was given a dressing down by Cardinal Ratzinger for allowing her poison into Catholic classrooms.
Memories are made of this!
Comments are closed.