Part Three
by
Thomas A. Droleskey
[26] For among my people are found wicked men, that lie in wait as fowlers, setting snares and traps to catch men. [27] As a net is full of birds, so their houses are full of deceit: therefore are they become great and enriched. [28] They are grown gross and fat: and have most wickedly transgressed my words. They have not judged the cause of the widow, they have not managed the cause of the fatherless, they have not judged the judgement of the poor. [29] Shall I not visit for these things, saith the Lord? or shall not my soul take revenge on such a nation? [30] Astonishing and wonderful things have been done in the land.
[31] The prophets prophesied falsehood, and the priests clapped their hands: and my people loved such things: what then shall be done in the end thereof? (Jeremias 5: 26-31.)
It is necessary in part three of this four part series reviewing the new Vatican "instruction" on the "proper" implementation of Summorum Pontificum, July 7, 2007, to review the provisions of the new instruction, prefacing this with a reminder as to the counterfeit church's penchant for issuing "clarification" after "clarification" after "clarification" in order to make sense of statements and decrees that are so full of ambiguity that even defenders of all things conciliar argue with each other as to their "true" or their "real" meaning.
Marching into the Pantheon of Conciliar Clarifications
The new Vatican "instruction" on the "proper" implementation of Summorum Pontificum has now entered the Pantheon of Conciliar Clarifications. Conscious always of the fact that there might be a new reader of two who happens upon this woebegone site on any given day and that there are regular readers who might not remember every word that has been written in past articles, although there are some who do and who are quite adept at throwing my own words back at me when it is necessary for them to do so (and for which I am most grateful), permit me just a few moments to take you back to remind you of some of the previous entries that have made their way into the Pantheon of Conciliar Clarifications by way of introduction to a brief review of the provisions contained in the new, new, new "clarification" issued by William "Cardinal" Levada, the prefect of the conciliar church's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the president of "Pontifical" Commission Ecclesia Dei, on April 30, 2011.
1. The then Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger issued a "clarification" of the meaning of Dominus Jesus shortly after it was released on August 6, 2000:
Cardinal Ratzinger himself began backpedaling almost immediately at the September 5 [2000] press conference itself. According to the Italian bishops' newspaper Avvenire, when asked whether DI [Dominus Iesus] taught that the Jews could not be saved without faith in Christ, Ratzinger offered the following non-answer: "Every Catholic theologian recognizes the salvific role of that people." Granted that "salvation is of the Jews," as our Lord taught us (John 4:22), but as He says immediately afterward: "But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true adorers shall adore the Father in spirit and in truth"--that is, the Messiah has arrived and shall be adored by those who worship truly. Having rejected the Messiah, however, what "salvific role" does modern Israel play today? When pressed on whether an individual Jew could be saved without recognizing Christ, the Cardinal replied that "it is not necessary that he recognize Christ the savior, and it is not given to us to explore how salvation, the gift of God, can come even for him." Ratzinger went on to say that "Christ is a reality that changes history, even for those who do not recognize him." Are we to take from this that Christ saves the Jews whether they recognize him or not, simply because His existence "changes history"?
However, it appears that at the same press conference Ratzinger gave a more nuanced answer, apparently in response to another questioner:
[We]e are in agreement that a Jew, and this is true for believers of other religions, does not need to know or acknowledge Christ as the Son of God in order to be saved, if there are insurmountable impediments, of which he is not blameworthy, to preclude it. However...Christian history affects us all, even those who are opposed or cannot encounter Christ. This is a reality that transforms history; it is something important for others, without violating their conscience.
Now, which is it--that a Jew need not recognize Christ in order to be saved, or that a Jew need not recognize Christ if there is an "insurmountable impediment"? Note also that Cardinal Ratzinger here repeats the suggestion that the mere presence of Christ in history "affects" Jews who reject him. What does this mean? One thing all these remarks mean is a diminution of the impact of DI's teaching that Christ is the sole mediator of the only way of salvation for all men--a teaching DI itself nuances nearly to the point of irrelevance.
Since the publication of DI was supposed to be the occasion for clarifying confusion about Christ and salvation, why not end a long period of postconciliar confusion by stating forthrightly what the Church always taught before the Council: "Yes, objectively speaking, a Jew must come to Christ and be baptized in order to be saved, just like everyone else in the human race; for Christ is God and He commissioned His Church to make disciples of all nations. This is what the Catholic Church has always taught and always will teach." Instead, Cardinal Ratzinger immediately focused on "insurmountable impediments." And what is an "insurmountable impediment" in the first place? Is this notion something even broader than the ever-expanding category of "invincible ignorance"? Cardinal Ratzinger gave no indications. However, if one of Rabbi Toaff's own predecessors as chief rabbi of Rome, Rabbi Israel Zolli, was able to follow God's grace into the Roman Catholic Church immediately after World War II, then why not Rabbi Toaff himself or any other Jew alive today--especially after thirty-five years of "Jewish-Christian" dialogue," which was supposed to engender greater understanding of the Church on the part of Jews?
Or is the mere fact of being a Jew, immersed in Jewish religion and culture, and facing ostracism if one converts, now to be considered an "insurmountable impediment" to conversion? If so, then no Jew from St. Paul to the present day has ever been subjectively obliged to join the Church; nor has anyone else in religious, emotional or cultural circumstances that would make conversion difficult. But this would mean that the only people obliged to become Catholics are those who would not find conversion unduly burdensome. Everyone else has an "insurmountable impediment." That is the very thesis being promoted by some of the more liberal exponents of "invincible ignorance," who speak of "unconscious psychological blocks" and other elaborate pseudo-scientific excuses for not becoming a Catholic that have proliferated since Vatican II. There is very little place for the power of God's grace in this kind of semi-Pelagian thinking. We are not here contending that Cardinal Ratzinger himself actually teaches anything like this, but in view of the veiled nature of his remarks it is difficult to know what he is teaching. A clarification of DI's "clarifications" is already urgently needed. (Christopher A. Ferrara and Thomas E. Woods, Jr., The Great Facade, The Remnant Press, 2002, pp. 369-372.)
2. The conciliar Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Churchon June 29, 2007, to "clarify" points made in the "Second" Vatican Council's Lumen Gentium, Unitatis Redintegratio, and Orientalium Ecclesiarum (and two "papal" encyclical letter) about the nature of the Catholic Church. The "clarification" was simply a reiteration of the points made in the cited documents it was attempting to clarify. Got it?
3. The conciliar Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a document, Doctrinal Note on some Aspects of Evangelization, December 14, 2007, to "clarify" the conciliar church's view of the "new evangelization.
4. A "clarification" was issued by the conciliar Vatican's Secretariat of State office in 2008 following the release of the text of Ratzinger/Benedict's revised Good Friday prayer for the Jews. (Note from the Secretariat of State concerning the new dispositions of the Holy Father Benedict XVI for the Liturgical Celebrations of Good Friday, February 4, 2008.)
5. The conciliar Vatican's Secretariat of State office issued a "clarification" of the "remission" of the "excommunication" of the four bishops of the Society of Saint Pius X, Note from the Secretary of State concerning the four Prelates of the Society of Saint Pius X, February 4, 2009.)
6. Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI himself issued a letter to the world's conciliar "bishops" to explain his reasons of lifting the "excommunications" against the bishops of the Society of Saint Pius X, LETTER ON REMISSION OF EXCOMMUNICATION LEFEBVRE BISHOPS. (See also: Nothing New Under the Conciliar Sun.)
7. "Father" Federico Lombardi, S.J., issued a "clarification" of "Archbishop" Rino Fisichella's statement supporting "therapeutic abortion" following the excommunication of two baby-killing doctors who killed the twin babies of a nine-year old girl in Brazil who had been assaulted by a relative (see (Vatican Archbishop, Spokesman Come Out Swinging against Pro-Life Critics), being unapologetic a year after this "clarification" was issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
8. Seeking to appease Talmudists who took offense at the Good Friday sermon delivered on April 2, 2010, by Father Raniero Cantalamessa, O.F.M., Cap., in the Basilica of Saint Peter that compared criticism of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI to "anti-Semitism, something that sent the Talmudists baying at the moon, "Father" Federico Lombardi, S.J., tried to the spin the matter by denying the very thing claimed by Cantalamessa. (See Vatican Priest Likens Criticism Over Abuse to Anti-Semitism.)
9. The conciliar Vatican issued a "clarification" in 2009 of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's Letter to Bishops, Priests, Consecrated Persons and Lay Faithful of Red China in a Compendium to make Ratzinger/Benedict's Letter more "comprehensible." (See Red China: Workshop for the New Ecclesiology).
10. Seeking to appease Talmudists, serving their roles as the enemies of the Sacred Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, "Father" Federico Lombardi, S.J., issued a statement on December 23, 2009, to "pacify the spirits" of the Talmudists who complained about the declaration that Pope Pius XII had exhibited heroic virtues, advancing his cause one step closer to "beatification" in the counterfeit church of conciliarism. (Vatican Statement on Venerable Pius XII.)
10. "Father" Federico Lombardi, S.J., issued all manner of "clarifications" and "statements" throughout 2010 concerning the role that Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger played in protecting perverted clergymen in the conciliar structures, including the reassigning of a known pervert, "Father" Peter Hullermann, a priest of the Diocese of Essen, Germany, on January 15, 1980, when Ratzinger was the conciliar "Archbishop" of Munich and Freising. (see Church Abuse Scandal in Germany Edges Closer to Benedict; see also Benedict under fire for priest transfer, letter; see also Benedict Remains Silent as Abuse Allegations Hit Close to Home, Swinging Clubs To Protect The Club, Chastisements Under Which We Must Save Our Souls, part two, To Be More Effective Witnesses of Conciliarism, Fall Guys Aren't Usually Stand-Up Guys, and Boy, If Only The "Pope" Knew, partie deux).
11. Multiple "clarifications," each more contradictory than the other, were issued by "Father" Federico Lombardi, S.J., upon the release of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's Light of the World book-length interview with German journalist Peter Seewald in November 2010 (see (If Them, Why Not Others?, Let the Olympic Games of Absurdity Begin!, Razing The Last Bastions, Nothing New Under Benedict's Sun,Words and Actions Without Consequence, Making a Mockery of Catholicism and Honesty and Truth). The "clarifications" of the "clarifications" issued by Lombardi required the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to issue a "clarification" of its own!--Note on the banalization of sexuality. Regarding certain interpretations of "Light of the World"--on December 22, 2010.)
12. Endless have been the documents seeking to "clarify" or "correct" provisions found in the General Instruction to Roman Missal that are supposed to govern the offerings of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service. Among these documents have been: Inter Oecumenici, Ecclesiae Semper, Eucharisticum Mysterium, Memoriale Domini. Actio Pastoralis Ecclesiae, Cenam Paschalem, Liturgiae Instataurartiones, Congerentiarum Episcopalium, Dominicae Cenae, Inaestimabile Donum, Ecclesia de Eucharistia, Sacramentum Caritatis, Redemptionis Sacramentum, and Liturgiam Authenticam. And conciliar officials are stillgrappling with how to "right" the abomination known as the Novus Ordo!
Although endless other examples can be given, time is limited. I do, however, desire to illustrate some of the similarities in two of the documents listed in point twelve by way of explaining the particular provisions found in the new "instruction" on the "proper" implementation of Summorum Pontificum.
Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II's last "encyclical letter," Ecclesia de Eucharistia, which was issued on April 17, 2003, included an exhortation to the world's conciliar "bishops" to observe the "renewed" liturgy's norms and an apology for liturgical "abuses" that was almost identical to the one he had included in Dominicae Cenae twenty-three years before (which prompted me to write an article for The Remnant at the time entitled, "It's Deja Vu All Over Again"):
All of this makes clear the great responsibility which belongs to priests in particular for the celebration of the Eucharist. It is their responsibility to preside at the Eucharist in persona Christi and to provide a witness to and a service of communion not only for the community directly taking part in the celebration, but also for the universal Church, which is a part of every Eucharist. It must be lamented that, especially in the years following the post-conciliar liturgical reform, as a result of a misguided sense of creativity and adaptation there have been a number of abuses which have been a source of suffering for many. A certain reaction against “formalism” has led some, especially in certain regions, to consider the “forms” chosen by the Church's great liturgical tradition and her Magisterium as non-binding and to introduce unauthorized innovations which are often completely inappropriate. (Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, Ecclesia de Eucharistia, April 17, 2003.)
I consider it my duty, therefore to appeal urgently that the liturgical norms for the celebration of the Eucharist be observed with great fidelity. These norms are a concrete expression of the authentically ecclesial nature of the Eucharist; this is their deepest meaning. Liturgy is never anyone's private property, be it of the celebrant or of the community in which the mysteries are celebrated. The Apostle Paul had to address fiery words to the community of Corinth because of grave shortcomings in their celebration of the Eucharist resulting in divisions (schismata) and the emergence of factions (haireseis) (cf. 1 Cor11:17-34). Our time, too, calls for a renewed awareness and appreciation of liturgical norms as a reflection of, and a witness to, the one universal Church made present in every celebration of the Eucharist. Priests who faithfully celebrate Mass according to the liturgical norms, and communities which conform to those norms, quietly but eloquently demonstrate their love for the Church. Precisely to bring out more clearly this deeper meaning of liturgical norms, I have asked the competent offices of the Roman Curia to prepare a more specific document, including prescriptions of a juridical nature, on this very important subject. No one is permitted to undervalue the mystery entrusted to our hands: it is too great for anyone to feel free to treat it lightly and with disregard for its sacredness and its universality. (Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, Dominicae Cenae, February 24, 1980.)
As will be elaborated upon shortly, the new Vatican instruction, Universae Ecclesiae, on the "proper" implementation of Summorum Pontificum, follows this exact mode of so many earlier conciliar "clarifications" and "statements" that have attempted to convince well-meaning Catholics that black is white and no is yes. Acting the part of naturalists of the "left" in the social realm, the doctrinal and liturgical revolutionaries of the counterfeit church of conciliarism believe that they can propagandize in behalf of an agenda to control the minds and hearts of those not yet fully convinced that their falsehoods are correct with more and more documents. Each of those documents, however, contains, to borrow a phrase from the late Michael Davies, "time bombs" that result in the institutionalization of more and more instability.
As the Time Bombs Go Boom, Boom, Boom, Boom, Boom, Boom, Boom, Boom, Boom
Moreover the pattern of many of the "clarifications" issued by the lords of the counterfeit church of conciliarism involves the issuance of various "prohibitions" at one time that wind up being changed or revoked as befits the "needs and circumstances of modern man" according to the various Modernist formulae that are put forth to just the "evolution" of dogma and of worship and pastoral praxis. Indeed, what we have seen in the past fifty years is an unparalleled proliferation of documents and decrees and "clarifications" to "guide" the development and implementation of an unprecedented liturgical revolution that has devastated the vineyard of Christ the King's true flock.
Thus we have seen prohibitions against the proliferation of "extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist" when there was no "need" for them turn into their acceptance as "ordinary" features of life at stagings of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service despite various "clarifications."
To wit, it was on the Feast of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary on March 25, 1984, that "Archbishop" Bernard F. Law (remember that name as he plays a prominent role in part four of this series) was installed as the conciliar ordinary of the Archdiocese of Boston, Massachusetts, at the Cathedral of the Holy Cross, a ceremony featuring a veritable army of female "em's" (extraordinary ministers) distributing what purported to be Holy Communion even though there were hundreds of "ordinary ministers of the Eucharist" (putative bishops, priests, deacons) to do so. What is prohibited in a de jure manner in the conciliar church frequently, although not always, winds up becoming a de facto part of ordinary pastoral life in conciliar parishes to such an extent that the de facto practice later receives "recognition" and "legitimacy" from the officials in the conciliar Vatican, which is how "Communion in the hand" was permitted universally in the conciliar church by Giovanni Montini/Paul VI.
This is also what purports to be Communion under both kinds made its way from being "permitted" at Novus Ordo wedding Masses and other limited occasions to becoming a standard practice in most conciliar parishes. Interestingly, Monsignor George A. Kelly told me in his office at Saint John's University in March of 1983 that the entire reason the American "bishops" wanted "Communion under both kinds" was to proliferate the use of "extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist," thus blurring the distinctions between the ordained priest and the laity, and further feminizing sanctuaries that had been feminized by the proliferation of female lectors. After two decades of pitched warfare on this matter (and I was involved in a lot of that warfare in the 1980s--so much wasted time on my part!), the conciliar Vatican even granted permission for a three-year "experiment" to permit "extraordinary ministers" to purify patens, ciboria and chalices containing particles of what is purported to be the Sacred Species of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Even the badly named United States Conference of "Catholic" Bishops admitted that what had begun slowly after the "Second" Vatican Council had know become an accepted practice:
23. The revised Missale Romanum, third typical edition, significantly expands those opportunities when Holy Communion may be offered under both kinds. In addition to those instances specified by individual ritual books, the General Instruction states that Communion under both kinds may be permitted as follows:
a. for priests who are not able to celebrate or concelebrate
b. for the deacon and others who perform some role at Mass
c. for community members at their conventual Mass or what in some places is known as the "community" Mass, for seminarians, [and] for all who are on retreat or are participating in a spiritual or pastoral gathering
24. The General Instruction then indicates that the diocesan Bishop may lay down norms for the distribution of Communion under both kinds for his own diocese, which must be observed. . . . The diocesan Bishop also has the faculty to allow Communion under both kinds, whenever it seems appropriate to the priest to whom charge of a given community has been entrusted as [its] own pastor, provided that the faithful have been well instructed and there is no danger of the profanation of the Sacrament or that the rite would be difficult to carry out on account of the number of participants or for some other reason.
In practice, the need to avoid obscuring the role of the priest and the deacon as the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion by an excessive use of extraordinary minister might in some circumstances constitute a reason either for limiting the distribution of Holy Communion under both species or for using intinction instead of distributing the Precious Blood from the chalice.
Norms established by the diocesan bishop must be observed wherever the Eucharist is celebrated in the diocese, "even in the churches of religious orders and in celebrations with small groups. (Norms for Distribution - United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.)
The reminder to "avoid obscuring the role of the priest and the deacon as the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion by an excessive use of extraordinary ministers" as a rationalize for curbing the distribution of what purports to be Holy Communion under both kinds in the Novus Ordo service has been, as the saying is used by low-ranking monsignori who work in various Vatican dicasteries to respond to letter-writing "cranks" with perfunctory, bureaucratic responses, "duly noted" by the American "bishops" and, was the case with Inaestimabile Donum throughout the 1980s, ignored almost entirely. Ah, yes, the glories of "episcopal collegiality." Ain't it grand? Undaunted, however, the conciliar Vatican is still trying to lay down "law and order" on the matter of the overuse of "extraordinary ministers" and other infamous de facto practices that fall outside the de jure proscriptions for the staging of the Novus Ordo service, doing so most recently in Redemptionis Sacramentum, March 25, 2004, which attempted to say "naughty, naughty" to the conciliar "bishops" who did had not taken Inaestimabile Donum seriously twenty-four years previously.
The same deceitful plea of "it's the custom now" so "you have to approve this, 'Holy Father'" was how the de facto use of "altar girls" in conciliar parishes, including the Church Santa Maria in Transpontina on the Via della Conciliazione in Rome, within sight of the Basilica of Saint Peter, and the North American parish church in Rome, Santa Susanna, received "papal" approbation in April of 1994.
As has been noted on this site many times, Holy Mother Church forbids the indiscriminate presence of the laity in the sanctuary during the offering of Holy Mass, the perfect prayer that is the unbloody re-presentation of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ's one Sacrifice to His Co-Equal and Co-Eternal Father in Spirit and in Truth in atonement for our sins. The sanctuary is separated from the nave of a a Catholic church building by an altar rail, signifying the difference between eternity (the sanctuary) and time (the nave), signifying also the distinction between the sacerdotal (sacrificing), hierarchical priesthood of the ordained priest who acts in persona Christi at an altar of sacrifice from the common priesthood each of us possesses as a result our Baptism, whereby we discharge our duties to help build up the Church Militant and to aid the Church Suffering in Purgatory by cooperating with the graces we receive at Holy Mass to sanctify daily life through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.
By special permission of Holy Mother Church, however, she permits only males to assist priests in the sanctuary during Holy Mass. Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ came as a man. He, the New Adam, paid back the debt incurred by the first Adam. Priests must be men in the pattern of Our Lord Himself. Those who serve at the altar must be men as they are the extensions of the hands of the priest. It is that simple.
The lords of the counterfeit church of conciliarism have, whether wittingly or unwittingly, undermined themselves time and time again by permitting various "concessions" to foster "full, active and conscious participation" of the laity in the "liturgy" that some of their very prohibitions become museum pieces in but a very short period of time:
18. There are, of course, various roles that women can perform in the liturgical assembly: these include reading the Word of God and proclaiming the intentions of the Prayer of the Faithful. Women are not, however, permitted to act as altar servers. (Inaestimabile Donum, April 17, 1980.)
Inaestimabile Donum, which I thought, quite naively and stupidly, of course, was going to "solve" liturgical abuses in the Novus Ordo service, which is, of course, as noted above, the liturgical abuse par excellence, cited Liturgicae Instauratione, which was issued by the then named Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship on September 5, 1970, as the source for the reiteration of the ban of women from serving at the altar. Interestingly, Liturgicae Instauratione was issued less than ten months after the Novus Ordo went into effect on Sunday, November 30, 1969, as a means of correcting the "unauthorized" abuses that had become very widespread in such a short space of time. Such widespread abuses were, as I have recognized for some time now, the inevitable result of what happens when a false liturgical rite is promulgated and implemented, especially one that was meant to eradicate the traditional Roman Rite (please see Taking The Obvious For Granted).
Just as Martin Luther did not foresee the disastrous consequences of his revolution against the Divine Plan that God Himself instituted to effect man's return to the Catholic Church that he himself denounced but never understood were entirely of his own doing, so is it the case that the conciliar revolutionaries, in their zeal to accommodate what they believed was the Catholic liturgy to the desires of Protestants, did not foresee the liturgical free-for-all that would develop almost as soon as the Novus Ordo went into effect as the parishes under conciliar captivity began to resemble the cacophonous nature of congregationalism (each parish "doing liturgy" a little differently) than the universal nature of Catholicism. Endless efforts have thus been made by these conciliar revolutionaries to put their fingers the dike to prevent the flood of "unauthorized" abuses from spreading. Each of these efforts has failed. They must fail as nothing that is premised on false beliefs can ever be made to "work" for the temporal or eternal good of man, no less, of course, for the honor and glory and majesty of the Most Blessed Trinity.
Here is the section from Liturgicae Instauratione that discussed the "proper" role of women in the staging of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service:
7. In conformity with norms traditional in the Church, women (single, married, religious), whether in churches, homes, convents, schools, or institutions for women, are barred from serving the priest at the altar.
According to the norms established for these matters, however, women are allowed to:
a. proclaim the readings, except the gospel. They are to make sure that, with the help of modern sound equipment, they can be comfortably heard by all. The conferences of bishops are to give specific directions on the place best suited for women to read the word of God in the liturgical assembly.
b. announce the intentions in the general intercessions;
c. lead the liturgical assembly in singing and play the organ or other instruments;
d. read the commentary assisting the people toward a better understanding of the rite;
e. attend to other functions, customarily filled by women in other settings, as a service to the congregation, for example, ushering, organizing processions, taking up the collection [29]. ( Liturgicae Instauratione, September 5, 1970.)
Here one can see the flawed efforts of the conciliar revolutionaries to "hold the line" on some things while permitting other things that are offensive to Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and thus injurious to the souls for whom He shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood to redeem.
Where is the logic in expecting to hold the line against women serving at the altar when they are permitted to touch with their own unconsecrated hands what purports be the Sacred Species?
Where is the logic in expecting to hold the line against women serving at the altar when they are permitted to flood the sanctuary, which is the preserve of the priest and those males who are permitted to serve him as the extension of the hands of Christ, Who is the Chief Priest and Victim and every Mass?
There is no such logic. The falsehoods of conciliarism are as illogical and thus self-destructive as the falsehoods of every other heresy, including Protestantism, which is but a precursor and prototype of conciliarism, especially in its Anglican forms.
Conciliarism has opened up a veritable Pandora's Box of relentless change and innovation that has robbed millions upon millions of Catholics of their sensus Catholicus and bewildered and confused those who do have something left of that sensus Catholicus. Protestations against the nonadmissibility of women to the priesthood ring rather hollow when one considers the fact that women can touch what is purported to be the Sacred Species with their own hands as they distribute Holy Communion to the faithful in their roles as "extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist."
Women can proclaim the Word of God as lectors.
They can lead "priestless" "Communion services."
They can serve as administrators of parishes, having the responsibility, given to them by their "ordinaries," to supervise the work of "priests," thereby further emasculating the notion of the priesthood as an imaging of the Chief Priest and Victim of every Mass. There are women serving as chancellors of the Catholic dioceses that are now in the hands of the conciliar revolutionaries. There has even been some talk from officials in the conciliar Vatican of permitting deaconesses. With little else in the counterfeit church of conciliarism that has not been subject to change and reconsideration and reinterpretation, why should the average Catholic think that Our Lord's own choice exclusively of males to His Holy Priesthood is not going to "change" at some point in the future.
The spirit of Protestantism has influenced the liturgical ethos of conciliarism in yet another insidious manner.
Protestantism, as is well known, rejects Apostolic (or Sacred) Tradition as a source of Divine Revelation. The welter of its false and frequently contradictory dogmas must be founded in some kind of reference to the "written" word in their version of the Bible, which, of course, comes directly from the devil. That which cannot be justified in their very selective, relativist and positivist methodology by the words of what they consider to be "Holy Writ" simply has no foundation at all in the beliefs and the pastoral life, such as it is, of Protestants.
This Protestant mentality has so diffused itself in the world, especially here in the United States of America, that many Catholics, having no grounding in the authentic Tradition of Holy Mother Church, need to have something "written down" to believe that it is so. "Where does it say that a priest can't invite children or adults to gather around at the table to celebrate the 'Eucharistic Prayer'?" "Where does it say that women can't wear pants to the liturgy or that they have to meet some kind of dress code?" "Show me! I won't believe it until it I see it in print!"
These are not the sayings of "straw men." These are actual questions that were posed to me over the years at various talks I gave in "conservative" conciliar venues in the 1990s as I was making the case for the Immemorial Mass of Tradition and criticizing the Novus Ordo as offensive to God and thus harmful to souls, talks that were incomplete as they did not recognize that the Catholic Church can never give us any kind of liturgical rite that is offensive to God or harmful to souls. A veritable cottage industry, one that has made printers and suppliers of ink and paper supplies quite pleased and quite wealthy, I am sure, has been created to produce and then reproduce the forests of documents to state and then restate and reiterate and clarify and clarify again and again one point of conciliarism after another, and the new Vatican "instruction" on the "proper" implementation of Summorum Pontificum, Universae Ecclesiae, is simply part of this corpus of literature that has no precedent in the history of the Catholic Church whatsoever.
To the Chase (and not our beloved beagle), finally: A Few More Passages from the text of Universae Ecclesiae with Appropriate Commentary
All right.
You've been patient enough to wade through part one and part two, which covered selected passages from the text of Universae Ecclesiae, including those pertaining to the "editing" of the texts of the 1961/1962 Missal promulgated by Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII, especially concerning the inclusion of prefaces and the feast days of the newly "canonized" saints from the Novus Ordo world, and the first half of this article. Very patient. Commendably patient. Heroically patient. It is now time to cut to the chase, no, no, boy, not you. This is a figure of speech, good boy. Just a figure of speech. Atta boy. Thanks for understanding.
Well, here it is. It's truly deja vu all over again as the text of Universae Ecclesiae, appended in its entirety in Appendix A below, is really a rehash of the text of Summorum Pontificum, although there are, as discussed in part one and part two, a few new twists and turns that just prove the original document was meant by that old conciliar fowler to lay snares to entrap traditionally-minded Catholics in the conciliar structures, including those in the Society of Saint Pius X who accept him as a true "pontiff" while refusing to obey his commands, into accepting the further Novo Ordoization of a version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition that was meant to be a "bridge to the liturgical future," a reality that is proved by the fact that it was only in effect for a grand total before being replaced by the Ordo Missae of Giovanni/Paul VI on the first Sunday in Advent in 1964 (November 29). I will highlight only a few key sections before zeroing in on the Trojan Horse of the new document that is to be found in Number Nineteen of its text:
1. The Apostolic Letter Summorum Pontificum of the Sovereign Pontiff Benedict XVI given Motu Proprio on 7 July 2007, which came into effect on 14 September 2007, has made the richness of the Roman Liturgy more accessible to the Universal Church.
2. With this Motu Proprio, the Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI promulgated a universal law for the Church, intended to establish new regulations for the use of the Roman Liturgy in effect in 1962.
3. The Holy Father, having recalled the concern of the Sovereign Pontiffs in caring for the Sacred Liturgy and in their recognition of liturgical books, reaffirms the traditional principle, recognised from time immemorial and necessary to be maintained into the future, that "each particular Church must be in accord with the universal Church not only regarding the doctrine of the faith and sacramental signs, but also as to the usages universally handed down by apostolic and unbroken tradition. These are to be maintained not only so that errors may be avoided, but also so that the faith may be passed on in its integrity, since the Church's rule of prayer (lex orandi) corresponds to her rule of belief (lex credendi)."1
4. The Holy Father recalls also those Roman Pontiffs who, in a particular way, were notable in this task, specifically Saint Gregory the Great and Saint Pius V. The Holy Father stresses moreover that, among the sacred liturgical books, the Missale Romanum has enjoyed a particular prominence in history, and was kept up to date throughout the centuries until the time of Blessed Pope John XXIII. Subsequently in 1970, following the liturgical reform after the Second Vatican Council, Pope Paul VI approved for the Church of the Latin rite a new Missal, which was then translated into various languages. In the year 2000, Pope John Paul II promulgated the third edition of this Missal.
5. Many of the faithful, formed in the spirit of the liturgical forms prior to the Second Vatican Council, expressed a lively desire to maintain the ancient tradition. For this reason, Pope John Paul II with a special Indult Quattuor abhinc annos issued in 1984 by the Congregation for Divine Worship, granted the faculty under certain conditions to restore the use of the Missal promulgated by Blessed Pope John XXIII. Subsequently, Pope John Paul II, with the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei of 1988, exhorted the Bishops to be generous in granting such a faculty for all the faithful who requested it. Pope Benedict continues this policy with the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum regarding certain essential criteria for the Usus Antiquior of the Roman Rite, which are recalled here. (Instruction on the application of the Apostolic Letter Summorum Pontificum of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI given Motu Proprio, April 30, 2011.)
In other words, the special "grants" bestowed in 1984 and 1988 by Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II upon those of the faithful who had been "formed in the spirit of the liturgical forms prior to the Second Vatican Council," were acts of "generosity" having nothing at all to do with the true worship that must be rendered to the Most Blessed Trinity or the protection of the Faith in all of its holy integrity and purity in the offering of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition that is "permitted" by the conciliar authorities for those who "like" it. Others "like" the Novus Ordo service. It's a matter of "preference," and liberals love to show that they are "generous" in "permitting" people to choose according to their "preferences."
Just a matter of preference?
Not in the eyes of the true God of Divine Revelation, He who hates faslehood and liturgical abominations that are mockeries of the Catholic Faith. Not in God's eyes. More will be said on this offensive contention, one is at the very heart and soul of the conciliar mentality of "live and let live" as long as one accepts falsehood and sacrilege without complaint, at the end of this particular commentary.
The next section repeats the "same faith, no rupture" mantra that given voice by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI in his Explanatory Letter to the "Bishops" that accompanies the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum that was the subject of part two of this four part series yesterday, Tuesday, May 17, 2011, the Feast of Saint Paschal Baylon within the Octave of the Solemnity of Saint Joseph:
6. The Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI and the last edition prepared under Pope John XXIII, are two forms of the Roman Liturgy, defined respectively as ordinaria and extraordinaria: they are two usages of the one Roman Rite, one alongside the other. Both are the expression of the same lex orandi of the Church. On account of its venerable and ancient use, the forma extraordinaria is to be maintained with appropriate honor.
7. The Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum was accompanied by a letter from the Holy Father to Bishops, with the same date as the Motu Proprio (7 July 2007). This letter gave further explanations regarding the appropriateness and the need for the Motu Proprio; it was a matter of overcoming a lacuna by providing new norms for the use of the Roman Liturgy of 1962. Such norms were needed particularly on account of the fact that, when the new Missal had been introduced under Pope Paul VI, it had not seemed necessary to issue guidelines regulating the use of the 1962 Liturgy. By reason of the increase in the number of those asking to be able to use the forma extraordinaria, it has become necessary to provide certain norms in this area.
Among the statements of the Holy Father was the following: "There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the Liturgy growth and progress are found, but not a rupture. What was sacred for prior generations, remains sacred and great for us as well, and cannot be suddenly prohibited altogether or even judged harmful."2
8. The Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum constitutes an important expression of the Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff and of his munus of regulating and ordering the Church’s Sacred Liturgy.3 The Motu Proprio manifests his solicitude as Vicar of Christ and Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church,4 and has the aim of:
a.) offering to all the faithful the Roman Liturgy in the Usus Antiquior, considered as a precious treasure to be preserved;
b.) effectively guaranteeing and ensuring the use of the forma extraordinaria for all who ask for it, given that the use of the 1962 Roman Liturgy is a faculty generously granted for the good of the faithful and therefore is to be interpreted in a sense favourable to the faithful who are its principal addressees;
c.) promoting reconciliation at the heart of the Church. (Instruction on the application of the Apostolic Letter Summorum Pontificum of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI given Motu Proprio, April 30, 2011.)
Although these contentions were refuted in part two yesterday, perhaps it is useful to note at this juncture that the only "reconciliation" that is necessary to promote is that of the conciliar revolutionaries to the Catholic Faith from which they defected decades ago. No one who adheres to the Immemorial Mass of Tradition and is thus committed, despite his sins and failings, to defending the true Faith that is expressed and protected in this rite of the Catholic Church that goes back in all of its essential details to Apostolic times is "out" of the Catholic Church. It is the revolutionaries, those false shepherds who are wolves in sheep's clothing, who need to be reconciled to the Catholic Church, not Catholics who defect from nothing contained in the Deposit of Faith whatsoever.
Remember what Saint Athanasius wrote to his flock during one of his five periods of exile from them during the height of the Arian heresy:
May God console you!...What saddens you...is the fact that others have occupied the churches by violence, while during this time you are on the outside. It is a fact that they have the premises -- but you have the Apostolic Faith. They can occupy our churches, but they are outside the true Faith. You remain outside the places of worship, but the Faith dwells within you. Let us consider: What is more important, the place or the Faith? The true Faith, obviously. Who has lost and who has won in this struggle? The one who keeps the premises or the one who keeps the Faith?
True, the premises are good when the Apostolic Faith is preached there -- they are holy if everything takes place there in a holy way...
You are the ones who are happy. You who remain within the Church by your faith, who hold firmly to the foundations of the Faith which has come down to us from Apostolic Tradition. And if an execrable jealousy has tried to shake it on a number of occasions, it has not succeeded. They are the ones who have broken away from it in the present crisis.
No one, ever, will prevail against your faith, beloved brothers. And we believe that God will give us our churches back some day.
Thus, the more violently they try to occupy the places of worship, the more they separate themselves from the Church. They claim that they represent the Church, but in reality, they are the ones who are expelling themselves from It and going astray.
Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ. (Letter of St. Athanasius to his flock.)
It is the totality of the Catholic Faith for which we fight, not merely being content--and, in all too many cases in the Motu world, very smugly and arrogantly content--with having a "reverent" Mass and nice priests (most of whom are not truly ordained priests). The Catholic Faith cannot be restored by making any kind of compromise with error, sacrilege, apostasy, heresy or blasphemy. This is impossible. It is without precedent in the history of the Catholic Church for compromise with error to serve as the foundation for a genuine restoration of the Faith. Heresy and error and falsehood and blasphemy and sacrilege must be called by their proper names, and to fail to do so is to fail in our duties before God to defend His sacred honor and glory and majesty and His holy honor when they are under attack by pretended Catholic shepherds in times such as ours (please see Appendix B for a reminder that it is not to be "ugly" to challenge others to reject heresy and the abominations spawned thereby).
As most of the text of Universae Ecclesiae deals with various regulations governing who can offer at Motu Mass and how disputes between conciliar "bishops" and the lay faithful who desire such Masses to be resolved, permitting also, contrary to reports of a few months ago, members of religious communities to urge the liturgical books that were in place in 1962, the rest of this particular commentary is going to focus on Paragraph Nineteen that, in essence, as will be discussed at some length at the end of part four tomorrow, makes the Novus Ordo and the "magisterium" of the conciliar "popes" litmus tests for Catholics in the conciliar structures to have access to the modernized (and ever being-modernized) version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition, thereby making both articles of the Catholic Faith from which no one in the conciliar structures can dissent. The iron hands of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict and William Levada are now placing those Catholics under an effective "clamp down" from now on.
Here is Paragraph Nineteen:
19. The faithful who ask for the celebration of the forma extraordinaria must not in any way support or belong to groups which show themselves to be against the validity or legitimacy of the Holy Mass or the Sacraments celebrated in the forma ordinaria or against the Roman Pontiff as Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church. (Universae Ecclesiae, April 30, 2011.)
Despite all of the sad divisions within the perpetually warring camps of those who reject everything about the counterfeit church of conciliarism, including the "legitimacy" of the conciliar "popes," I don't know of one prelate or priest in any of those perpetually warring camps who wants to have "recognition" from Benedict XVI so that they can offer a modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition in "full communion" with him. Not a single one.
Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and William "Cardinal" Levada have thrown down the gauntlet to the bishops and priests of the Society of Saint Pius X, saying, in effect, "You want full recognition by us? Cease all criticism of the Novus Ordo and the actions and words of the Sovereign Pontiff." Put in more blunt terms by borrowing from the cartoon figure Boris Badenov, the conciliar lords are saying, "Shut up you mouth, Natasha!"
By extension, therefore, Paragraph Nineteen is going to give those conciliar "bishops" who are hostile to even the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition that can be offered or simulated according to the terms of Summorum Pontificum a nice little piece of leverage by which they can demand "proof" of the loyalty of various petitioners who approach them about establishing a Motu parish, a piece of leverage that ultra-progressive "bishops" (and many of these remain in the conciliar structures, of course) will use to their advantage whenever they can.
Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, the ultimate positivist, wants "peace" and "reconciliation" in his false church at the price of the personal integrity of those priests and laymen attached to his person in the belief that he is a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter who know that the Novus Ordo is from the devil and that its rotten fruits are plain for all to behold. More will be written about this in the final part of the concluding segment of this four-part series tomorrow.
What Paragraph Nineteen of Universae Ecclesiae does also, though, is sweep away into the dust bin of history the courageous stand taken by so many brave Catholic priests and consecrated religious who rejected the Novus Ordo, either at first or after participating in it for some years.
No reasonable objections to the doctrinal soundness of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service?
Why do only thirty percent of those Catholics who are attached to the conciliar structures believe in the doctrine of the Real Presence of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in the Most Blessed Sacrament? Why do even less bother to attend the Novus Ordo service? No cause and effect here?
Were the many courageous priests (Father Robert F. McKenna, O.P., Father Martin Stepanich, O.F.M., S.T.D., Father Harry Marchosky, Father John Roach, Father Thomas Ross, O.F.M., Father Frederick Schell, S.J., Father Gommar DePauw, Father Paul Wickens, Father Francis LeBlanc, Father Graham Walters, Father Moises Carmona, Father Hugh Wish, Father Lawrence Brey, Monsignor Raymond Ruscitto, Father Ronald Ringrose, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, et al.) who broke from the Novus Ordo (or who never offered it all!) wrong to have taken the stand that they did? They would have had to have been wrong for the conciliarists to be correct then and now concerning the doctrinal "soundness" of the Novus Ordo service.
Were they? These priests--and many consecrated religious women--who refused to go along with the changes--suffered at the hands of the conciliar revolutionaries for their refusal to participate at all in the Novus Ordo service. Some of these priests and consecrated religious who refused to go along with the Novus Ordo and/or the changes in their religious communities were placed into psychiatric hospitals, into which they disappeared, never to be seen again their communities, scenarios reminiscent of the way the Soviets placed "counter-revolutionaries" in psychiatric wards and then had them medicated to death. Were the persecutors of those who resist and rejected the Novus Ordocorrect? Indeed, , some of these religious Sisters were sent to psychiatric hospitals in the late-1960s and early-1970s, where they were drugged after having been falsely diagnosed with "mental illnesses" of one sort or another (a religious sister who was an eyewitness to all of this related her story to us a few years ago). Were they wrong to have stood fast against the evil that is the Novus Ordo service? Were they in fact mentally ill?
The Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo service, born as a result of the hijacked Liturgical Movement's obsession to enshrine false ecumenism in the Catholic liturgy, is either good or bad of its nature. It cannot be both good and bad. If it is good and pleasing to God, you see, those who resisted it forty years ago and those of us who are doing so now are the worst of disloyal schismatics who have failed in our duties to be obedient to the Sovereign Pontiff. If it is not good and pleasing to God, no amount of positivist posturing on the part of men who believe in one condemned proposition after another (the evolution of dogma, false ecumenism, the nature of the Catholic Church as a "communion"--the new ecclesiology, religious liberty, episcopal collegiality, separation of Church and State) can make it so. Truth is. It exists. No amount of saying that something is so can make it so if it is not.
To accept the doctrinal soundness of the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo service one must accept the ethos that it was meant of its nature to spawn, an ethos that even a Protestant observer at the "Second" Vatican Council, a man named Douglas Horton said was "essential" to animate the Catholic Church's relationship with Protestants:
Some of the [council] fathers are grandly radical. "Reformation is not only desirable but necessary." Today's mind is not that of the sixteenth century, and therefore a liturgy to reach the people with the unchanging truth of Christ should not be exactly like that of the sixteenth century." Uniformity when not needed contradicts the the very nature of the church." We have pomp and ceremony: we should take out the pomp--and the ceremonies should be made made understandable." "Better say one word in a known language than a thousand words in an unknown one--a sentiment which suggested that the council should be at least as radical as St. Paul. . . .
It has just come over me that the most striking and memorable rite of all to be seen here in St. Peter's would be the celebration of the Lord's Supper as we know it in our local village church in New Hampshire, and as it is well known in hundreds of thousands of Protestant communities where Puritan simplicity is the norm. Imagine, at the head of the nave in the mighty cathedral, a table such as might be found in any home in the neighborhood, a minister inviting to it the entire Christian community gathered at the church, the same and bread and cup being used (whether wine or grape juice) as are used in everyday life, the words of the service being in the mother tongue of the worshipers, the living Christ present, his Spirit pervading all--this, in my mind, would be an exciting event for the old basilica. (But I should add that I expect to wait a few generations before the sons of Rome agree with me.) (Douglas Horton, Vatican Diary: 1962: A Protestant Observes the First Session of Vatican Council II, pp: 45; 118.)
Douglas Horton did not have to wait very long, did he? Here, yes, once again, is how one of Giovanni Montini/Paul VI's closest friends, Jean Guitton, explained was the old socialist's true intentions in proceeding with his "liturgical renewal":
"[T]he intention of Pope Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the Mass, was to reform the Catholic liturgy in such a way that it should coincide with the Protestant liturgy.... [T]here was with Pope Paul VI an ecumenical intention to remove, or at least to correct, or at least to relax, what was too Catholic in the traditional sense, in the Mass, and I, repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist mass" (Dec. 19, 1993), Apropos, #17, pp. 8f; quoted in Christian Order, October, 1994. (Jean Guitton, a close friend of Giovanni Montini/Paul VI. The quotation and citations are found in Christopher A. Ferrara and Thomas E. Woods, Jr., The Great Facade, The Remnant Publishing Company, 2002, p. 317.)
Paragraph Nineteen of Universae Ecclesiae has other implications that will be examined in the concluding part of this four-part series tomorrow. Suffice it for the moment, however, to note that its insertion into a document governing the "proper" implementation of Summorum Pontificum is meant to communicate to the bishops and priests of the Society of Saint Pius X and to all others who recognize the Benedict XVI as a true pope that their gig is up. They are welcome to take their places in the One World Ecumenical Church. Very welcome. They can be, as that 2007 article from Archdiocese of Indianapolis newspaper, The Criterion, parish "unity in liturgical diversity," a place where are all welcomed to worship as they please as long as they do not put into any question whatsoever the legitimacy and doctrinal soundness of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service that has proved itself to be the most effective weapon of mass spiritual destruction ever known in the history of man.
We must remember these words of Saint Paul the Apostle:
And now you know what withholdeth, that he may be revealed in his time. [7] For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way. [8] And then that wicked one shall be revealed whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth; and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming, him, [9] Whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders, [10] And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying:
[11] That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity. (2 Thess. 2: 6-10.)
The Challoner commentary on the Douay-Rheims Bible explains verse ten quoted above in the following manner:
[10] "God shall send"... That is God shall suffer them to be deceived by lying wonders, and false miracles, in punishment of their not entertaining the love of truth.
The devil has sent--and will continue to send--lying wonders and false miracles within the counterfeit church of conciliarism so as to give "credibility" to the sort of false "compassion" for "unity in liturgical diversity" that characterizes men who lead a false church with barren sacramental rites that have devastated the vineyard of the Good Shepherd's one true Church on earth, thus worsening the state of the world at the same time.
In the midst of this "operation of error" that abounds in the midst of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, we need to ask Our Lady to help us remain with our true bishops and true priests who make no concessions to conciliarism. Any shepherd who does not warn his faithful to stay completely and totally away from the conciliar wolves is exposing them to the deceits of the devil represented by likes of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and his henchmen.
Part four of this commentary will focus on those who can and do remain in "good standing" in the conciliar structures without ever having to fear the disciplinary weight of the conciliar officials in Rome fall upon their heads even while supporting one rank evil after another.
Our Lady's Immaculate Heart will indeed triumph in the end. May we persevere as her consecrated slaves as we pray as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit so that we, unworthy though we may be, might be able to plant a few seeds for the day when Catholics can say "so long" to the conciliar revolutionaries and their perverse liturgies and their corrupt doctrinal and their false moral teachings and "hello" to true popes and true bishops who are defenders of the entirety of the Catholic Faith, including the Social Reign of Christ the King that has no part in the doctrine or worship of the counterfeit church of conciliarism that has made its "official reconciliation" with the principles the "new era inaugurated in 1789."
Vivat Christus Rex!
Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!
Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.
Saint Joseph, pray for us.
Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.
Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.
Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.
Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us
Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.
Saint Peter of Alcantara, pray for us.
2. With
this Motu Proprio, the Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI promulgated a
universal law for the Church, intended to establish new regulations for
the use of the Roman Liturgy in effect in 1962.
3.
The Holy Father, having recalled the concern of the Sovereign Pontiffs
in caring for the Sacred Liturgy and in their recognition of liturgical
books, reaffirms the traditional principle, recognised from time
immemorial and necessary to be maintained into the future, that "each
particular Church must be in accord with the universal Church not only
regarding the doctrine of the faith and sacramental signs, but also as
to the usages universally handed down by apostolic and unbroken
tradition. These are to be maintained not only so that errors may be
avoided, but also so that the faith may be passed on in its integrity,
since the Church's rule of prayer (lex orandi) corresponds to her rule
of belief (lex credendi)."1
4. The Holy Father
recalls also those Roman Pontiffs who, in a particular way, were notable
in this task, specifically Saint Gregory the Great and Saint Pius V.
The Holy Father stresses moreover that, among the sacred liturgical
books, the Missale Romanum has enjoyed a particular prominence in
history, and was kept up to date throughout the centuries until the time
of Blessed Pope John XXIII. Subsequently in 1970, following the
liturgical reform after the Second Vatican Council, Pope Paul VI
approved for the Church of the Latin rite a new Missal, which was then
translated into various languages. In the year 2000, Pope John Paul II
promulgated the third edition of this Missal.
5.
Many of the faithful, formed in the spirit of the liturgical forms
prior to the Second Vatican Council, expressed a lively desire to
maintain the ancient tradition. For this reason, Pope John Paul II with a
special Indult Quattuor abhinc annos issued in 1984 by the Congregation
for Divine Worship, granted the faculty under certain conditions to
restore the use of the Missal promulgated by Blessed Pope John XXIII.
Subsequently, Pope John Paul II, with the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei of
1988, exhorted the Bishops to be generous in granting such a faculty for
all the faithful who requested it. Pope Benedict continues this policy
with the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum regarding certain essential
criteria for the Usus Antiquior of the Roman Rite, which are recalled
here.
6. The Roman Missal promulgated by Pope
Paul VI and the last edition prepared under Pope John XXIII, are two
forms of the Roman Liturgy, defined respectively as ordinaria and
extraordinaria: they are two usages of the one Roman Rite, one alongside
the other. Both are the expression of the same lex orandi of the
Church. On account of its venerable and ancient use, the forma
extraordinaria is to be maintained with appropriate honor.
7.
The Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum was accompanied by a letter from
the Holy Father to Bishops, with the same date as the Motu Proprio (7
July 2007). This letter gave further explanations regarding the
appropriateness and the need for the Motu Proprio; it was a matter of
overcoming a lacuna by providing new norms for the use of the Roman
Liturgy of 1962. Such norms were needed particularly on account of the
fact that, when the new Missal had been introduced under Pope Paul VI,
it had not seemed necessary to issue guidelines regulating the use of
the 1962 Liturgy. By reason of the increase in the number of those
asking to be able to use the forma extraordinaria, it has become
necessary to provide certain norms in this area.
Among
the statements of the Holy Father was the following: "There is no
contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the
history of the Liturgy growth and progress are found, but not a rupture.
What was sacred for prior generations, remains sacred and great for us
as well, and cannot be suddenly prohibited altogether or even judged
harmful."
8. The Motu Proprio Summorum
Pontificum constitutes an important expression of the Magisterium of the
Roman Pontiff and of his munus of regulating and ordering the Church’s
Sacred Liturgy.3 The Motu Proprio manifests his solicitude as Vicar of
Christ and Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church,4 and has the aim of:
a.) offering to all the faithful the Roman Liturgy in the Usus Antiquior, considered as a precious treasure to be preserved;
b.)
effectively guaranteeing and ensuring the use of the forma
extraordinaria for all who ask for it, given that the use of the 1962
Roman Liturgy is a faculty generously granted for the good of the
faithful and therefore is to be interpreted in a sense favourable to the
faithful who are its principal addressees;
c.) promoting reconciliation at the heart of the Church.
II. The Responsibilities of "Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei"
9.
The Sovereign Pontiff has conferred upon the Pontifical Commission
Ecclesia Dei ordinary vicarious power for the matters within its
competence, in a particular way for monitoring the observance and
application of the provisions of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum
(cf. art. 12).
10. § 1. The Pontifical
Commission exercises this power, beyond the faculties previously granted
by Pope John Paul II and confirmed by Pope Benedict XVI (cf. Motu
Proprio Summorum Pontificum, artt. 11-12), also by means of the power to
decide upon recourses legitimately sent to it, as hierarchical
Superior, against any possible singular administrative provision of an
Ordinary which appears to be contrary to the Motu Proprio.
§
2. The decrees by which the Pontifical Commission decides recourses may
be challenged ad normam iuris before the Supreme Tribunal of the
Apostolic Signatura.
11. After having received
the approval from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline
of the Sacraments, the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei will have the
task of looking after future editions of liturgical texts pertaining to
the forma extraordinaria of the Roman Rite.
12.
Following upon the inquiry made among the Bishops of the world, and
with the desire to guarantee the proper interpretation and the correct
application of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, this Pontifical
Commission, by virtue of the authority granted to it and the faculties
which it enjoys, issues this Instruction according to can. 34 of the
Code of Canon Law
.
The Competence of Diocesan Bishops
13.
Diocesan Bishops, according to Canon Law, are to monitor liturgical
matters in order to guarantee the common good and to ensure that
everything is proceeding in peace and serenity in their Dioceses5,
always in agreement with the mens of the Holy Father clearly expressed
by the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum.6 In cases of controversy or
well-founded doubt about the celebration in the forma extraordinaria,
the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei will adjudicate.
14.
It is the task of the Diocesan Bishop to undertake all necessary
measures to ensure respect for the forma extraordinaria of the Roman
Rite, according to the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum.
The coetus fidelium (cf. Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, art. 5 § 1)
15.
A coetus fidelium ("group of the faithful") can be said to be
stabiliter existens ("existing in a stable manner"), according to the
sense of art. 5 § 1 of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, when it is
constituted by some people of an individual parish who, even after the
publication of the Motu Proprio, come together by reason of their
veneration for the Liturgy in the Usus Antiquior, and who ask that it
might be celebrated in the parish church or in an oratory or chapel;
such a coetus ("group") can also be composed of persons coming from
different parishes or dioceses, who gather together in a specific parish
church or in an oratory or chapel for this purpose.
16.
In the case of a priest who presents himself occasionally in a parish
church or an oratory with some faithful, and wishes to celebrate in the
forma extraordinaria, as foreseen by articles 2 and 4 of the Motu
Proprio Summorum Pontificum, the pastor or rector of the church, or the
priest responsible, is to permit such a celebration, while respecting
the schedule of liturgical celebrations in that same church.
17.
§ 1. In deciding individual cases, the pastor or the rector, or the
priest responsible for a church, is to be guided by his own prudence,
motivated by pastoral zeal and a spirit of generous welcome.
§
2. In cases of groups which are quite small, they may approach the
Ordinary of the place to identify a church in which these faithful may
be able to come together for such celebrations, in order to ensure
easier participation and a more worthy celebration of the Holy Mass.
18.
Even in sanctuaries and places of pilgrimage the possibility to
celebrate in the forma extraordinaria is to be offered to groups of
pilgrims who request it (cf. Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, art. 5 §
3), if there is a qualified priest.
19. The
faithful who ask for the celebration of the forma extraordinaria must
not in any way support or belong to groups which show themselves to be
against the validity or legitimacy of the Holy Mass or the Sacraments
celebrated in the forma ordinaria or against the Roman Pontiff as
Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church.
Sacerdos idoneus ("Qualified Priest") (cf. Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, art 5 § 4)
20.
With respect to the question of the necessary requirements for a priest
to be held idoneus ("qualified") to celebrate in the forma
extraordinaria, the following is hereby stated:
a.)
Every Catholic priest who is not impeded by Canon Law7 is to be
considered idoneus ("qualified") for the celebration of the Holy Mass in
the forma extraordinaria.
b.) Regarding the
use of the Latin language, a basic knowledge is necessary, allowing the
priest to pronounce the words correctly and understand their meaning.
c.)
Regarding knowledge of the execution of the Rite, priests are presumed
to be qualified who present themselves spontaneously to celebrate the
forma extraordinaria, and have celebrated it previously.
21.
Ordinaries are asked to offer their clergy the possibility of acquiring
adequate preparation for celebrations in the forma extraordinaria. This
applies also to Seminaries, where future priests should be given proper
formation, including study of Latin8 and, where pastoral needs suggest
it, the opportunity to learn the forma extraordinaria of the Roman Rite.
22.
In Dioceses without qualified priests, Diocesan Bishops can request
assistance from priests of the Institutes erected by the Pontifical
Commission Ecclesia Dei, either to the celebrate the forma
extraordinaria or to teach others how to celebrate it.
23.
The faculty to celebrate sine populo (or with the participation of only
one minister) in the forma extraordinaria of the Roman Rite is given by
the Motu Proprio to all priests, whether secular or religious (cf. Motu
Proprio Summorum Pontificum, art. 2). For such celebrations therefore,
priests, by provision of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, do not
require any special permission from their Ordinaries or superiors.
Liturgical and Ecclesiastical Discipline
24.
The liturgical books of the forma extraordinaria are to be used as they
are. All those who wish to celebrate according to the forma
extraordinaria of the Roman Rite must know the pertinent rubrics and are
obliged to follow them correctly.
25. New
saints and certain of the new prefaces can and ought to be inserted into
the 1962 Missal9, according to provisions which will be indicated
subsequently.
26. As foreseen by article 6 of
the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, the readings of the Holy Mass of
the Missal of 1962 can be proclaimed either solely in the Latin
language, or in Latin followed by the vernacular or, in Low Masses,
solely in the vernacular.
27. With regard to
the disciplinary norms connected to celebration, the ecclesiastical
discipline contained in the Code of Canon Law of 1983 applies.
28.
Furthermore, by virtue of its character of special law, within its own
area, the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum derogates from those
provisions of law, connected with the sacred Rites, promulgated from
1962 onwards and incompatible with the rubrics of the liturgical books
in effect in 1962.
Confirmation and Holy Orders
29.
Permission to use the older formula for the rite of Confirmation was
confirmed by the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum (cf. art. 9 § 2).
Therefore, in the forma extraordinaria, it is not necessary to use the
newer formula of Pope Paul VI as found in the Ordo Confirmationis.
30.
As regards tonsure, minor orders and the subdiaconate, the Motu Proprio
Summorum Pontificum does not introduce any change in the discipline of
the Code of Canon Law of 1983; consequently, in Institutes of
Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life which are under the
Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, one who has made solemn profession
or who has been definitively incorporated into a clerical institute of
apostolic life, becomes incardinated as a cleric in the institute or
society upon ordination to the diaconate, in accordance with canon 266 §
2 of the Code of Canon Law.
31. Only in
Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life which are
under the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, and in those which use
the liturgical books of the forma extraordinaria, is the use of the
Pontificale Romanum of 1962 for the conferral of minor and major orders
permitted.
32.
Art. 9 § 3 of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum gives clerics the
faculty to use the Breviarium Romanum in effect in 1962, which is to be
prayed entirely and in the Latin language.
33.
If there is a qualified priest, a coetus fidelium ("group of
faithful"), which follows the older liturgical tradition, can also
celebrate the Sacred Triduum in the forma extraordinaria. When there is
no church or oratory designated exclusively for such celebrations, the
parish priest or Ordinary, in agreement with the qualified priest,
should find some arrangement favourable to the good of souls, not
excluding the possibility of a repetition of the celebration of the
Sacred Triduum in the same church.
The Rites of Religious Orders
34. The use of the liturgical books proper to the Religious Orders which were in effect in 1962 is permitted.
Pontificale Romanum and the Rituale Romanum
35.
The use of the Pontificale Romanum, the Rituale Romanum, as well as the
Caeremoniale Episcoporum in effect in 1962, is permitted, in keeping
with n. 28 of this Instruction, and always respecting n. 31 of the same
Instruction.
The Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI,
in an audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal President of the
Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei on 8 April 2011, approved this
present Instruction and ordered its publication.
Given at Rome, at the Offices of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, 30 April, 2011, on the memorial of Pope Saint Pius V.
Secretary
Appendix B
Father Frederick Faber on Heresy
The love of God brings many new instincts into the
heart. Heavenly and noble as they are, they bear no resemblance to what
men would call the finer and more heroic developments of character. A
spiritual discernment is necessary to their right appreciation. They are
so unlike the growth of earth, that they must expect to meet on earth
with only suspicion, misunderstanding, and dislike. It is not easy to
defend them from a controversial point of view; for our controversy is
obliged to begin by begging the question, or else it would be unable so
much as to state its case. The axioms of the world pass current in the
world, the axioms of the gospel do not. Hence the world has its
own way. It talks us down. It tries us before tribunals where our
condemnation is secured beforehand. It appeals to principles which are
fundamental with most men but are heresies with us. Hence its audience
takes part with it against us. We are foreigners, and must pay the
penalty of being so. If we are misunderstood, we had no right to reckon
on any thing else, being as we are, out of our own country. We are made
to be laughed at. We shall be understood in heaven. Woe to those
easy-going Christians whom the world can understand, and will tolerate
because it sees they have a mind to compromise!
The love of souls is one of these instincts which the
love of Jesus brings into our hearts. To the world it is proselytism,
there mere wish to add to a faction, one of the selfish developments of
party spirit. One while the stain of lax morality is affixed to it,
another while the reproach of pharisaic strictness! For what the world
seems to suspect least of all in religion is consistency. But the love
of souls, however apostolic, is always subordinate to love of Jesus. We
love souls because of Jesus, not Jesus because of souls. Thus there are
times and places when we pass from the instinct of divine love to
another, from the love of souls to the hatred of heresy. This
last is particularly offensive to the world. So especially opposed is it
to the spirit of the world, that, even in good, believing hearts, every
remnant of worldliness rises in arms against this hatred of heresy,
embittering the very gentlest of characters and spoiling many a glorious
work of grace. Many a convert, in whose soul God would have done grand
things, goes to his grave a spiritual failure, because he would not hate
heresy. The heart which feels the slightest suspicion against the
hatred of heresy is not yet converted. God is far from reigning over it
yet with an undivided sovereignty. The paths of higher
sanctity are absolutely barred against it. In the judgment of the world,
and of worldly Christians, this hatred of heresy is exaggerated,
bitter, contrary to moderation, indiscreet, unreasonable, aiming at too
much, bigoted, intolerant, narrow, stupid, and immoral. What can we say
to defend it? Nothing which they can understand. We had, therefore,
better hold our peace. If we understand God, and He understands us, it
is not so very hard to go through life suspected, misunderstood and
unpopular. The mild self-opinionatedness of the gentle,
undiscerning good will also take the world's view and condemn us; for
there is a meek-loving positiveness about timid goodness which is far
from God, and the instincts of whose charity is more toward those who
are less for God, while its timidity is searing enough for harsh
judgment. There are conversions where three-quarters of the heart stop
outside the Church and only a quarter enters, and heresy can only be
hated by an undivided heart. But if it is hard, it has to be borne. A
man can hardly have the full use of his senses who is bent on proving
to the world, God's enemy, that a thorough-going Catholic hatred of
heresy is a right frame of man. We might as well force a blind man to
judge a question of color. Divine love inspheres in us a different
circle of life, motive, and principle, which is not only not that of the
world, but in direct enmity with it. From a worldly point of view, the
craters in the moon are more explicable things than we Christians with
our supernatural instincts. From the hatred of heresy we get to another
of these instincts, the horror of sacrilege. The distress caused by profane words seems to the world but an exaggerated sentimentality.
The penitential spirit of reparation which pervades the whole Church
is, on its view, either a superstition or an unreality. The perfect
misery which an unhallowed touch of the Blessed Sacrament causes to the
servants of God provokes either the world's anger or its derision. Men
consider it either altogether absurd in itself, or at any rate out of
all proportion; and, if otherwise they have proofs of our common sense,
they are inclined to put down our unhappiness to sheer hypocrisy. The
very fact that they do not believe as we believe removes us still
further beyond the reach even of their charitable comprehension. If they
do not believe in the very existence our sacred things, how they shall
they judge the excesses of a soul to which these sacred things are far
dearer than itself?
Now, it is important to bear all this in mind while
we are considering the sixth dolor. Mary's heart was furnished, as never
heart of saint was yet, yet with these three instincts regarding souls,
heresy, and sacrilege. They were in her heart three grand abysses of
grace, out of which arose perpetually new capabilities of suffering.
Ordinarily speaking, the Passion tires us. It is a fatiguing devotion.
It is necessarily so because of the strain of soul which it is every
moment eliciting. So when our Lord dies a feeling of repose comes over
us. For a moment we are tempted to think that our Lady's dolors ought to
have ended there, and that the sixth dolor and the seventh are almost
of our own creation, and that we tax our imagination in order to fill up
the picture with the requisite dark shading of sorrow. But this is only
one of the ways in which devotion to the dolors heightens and deepens
our devotion to the Passion. It is not our imagination that we tax but
our spiritual discernment. In these two last dolors we are led into
greater refinements of woe, into the more abstruse delicacies of grief,
because we have got to deal with a soul rendered even more wonderful
than it was before by the elevations of the sorrows which have gone
before. Thus, the piercing of our Lord with the spear as to our Blessed
Lady by far the most awful sacrilege which it was then in man's power to
perpetrate upon the earth. To break violently into the Holy of Holies
in the temple, and pollute its dread sanctity with all manner of heathen
defilement, would have been as nothing compared to the outrage of the
adorable Body of God. It is in vain that we try to lift ourselves to a
true appreciation of this horror in Mary's heart. Our love of God is
wanting in keenness, our perceptions of divine things in fineness. We
cannot do more than make approaches and they are terrible enough.
(Father Frederick Faber, The Foot of the Cross, published originally in England in 1857 under the title of The Dolors of Mary, republished by TAN Books and Publishers, pp. 291-295.)
