Saturday, July 17, 2021


“It’s as though Papal history has been canceled between October 16, 1978 through February 28, 2013, the Great Reset!” —anonymous 


Chip said...

More like history was made....the Latin Mass was NEVER abrogated or abolished until yesterday, period. The announcement is in ZERO continuity with anything in all of history, and that is, of course, such an unexpected move from this papacy, where Church history only begins 60yrs ago.

Tom Marcus said...

Frankly, I would argue that the Latin Mass has never LEGITIMATELY been abrogated and that yesterday's overreach is just an unjust, illegitimate move, that we as Catholics will obey. Francis is not the first unjust pope in history--maybe the worst--but not the first. The harder he tries to cancel the timeless Mass, the more he insures its very survival.

Anonymous said...

Yes history indeed was made yesterday NEVER until now has the TLM been abrogated but Bergoglio did just that and in a very harsh and nasty way. However like Rorate said on its website just ignore it and attend your TLM and pray, as they said Bergoglio is a very angry and bitter Jesuit and only embarrassed our beloved Pope Benedict the XVI. As a nurse I know how serious his colorectal cancer is and he does not have many years or months left, why he did what he id only he knows, bitter and angry indeed.

Chip said...

As mentioned prior, the document is poorly written in the extreme, with contradictions and loopholes galore.

For instance, it is admitted it published for prudential reasons, which immediately takes it outside the scope of an infallible pronouncement on faith and morals, and so can be undone by local bishops for same prudential and pastoral reasons per canon law.

So, the Rorate article is not as heretical or schismatic as it might seem at first blush.

NH said...

I cannot say anything about the content of Pope Francis letter as I don't have the academic background to do so. I can question the timing of that letter. It was released shortly after the pope had major surgery where he was under anesthesia, and likely still under some other medications. Life threatening surgery certainly has a psychological effect, especially on the elderly. I have to wonder who the pope was surrounded by when he "penned" this letter, who had "his ear?" I doubt there was anyone who had a fondness for tradition. Was it exploitation? I don't know. Would the popes lawyer recommend he sign legal documents when this document was issued? I doubt it.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

This document has been in the works for some time and passes about different curia officials to examine and make adjustments. It was ready to go before the pope went into surgery. However, we have no idea how sick the pope was with whatever alerted him to have a colonoscopy that led to the determination to undergo surgery with a goodly amount of his colon removed. None of us knows, though, if it is cancer, pure conjecture and for a person of his age odds are in favor of it being cancer. But His Holiness may well feel time is running out and is truly angry at God for allowing the Emeritus Pope Benedict to live so long and perhaps outliving him. Without Benedict around, this would have happened long before now. But again, I am not clairvoyant despite my protests to the contrary.

Anonymous said...

So what he did essentially is kill the TLM which has always been his goal, however any rational person knows he can never do it, this is NOT about unity folks it is just plain mean. We have all heard him over the years call our YOUNG devout TLM priests in the F.S.S.P. and Institute of Christ The King "ridged" and clerical and many other names, so it came as no surprise to most of us here that the axe was coming. Rorate websit said IGNORE this and continue as normal, he will die but the TLM will go on as Our Lord promised.

Anonymous said...

Chip, All papal documents addressing the regulation of the liturgy are "outside the scope of an infallible pronouncement."

In these parts it is not uncommon the have people reference "Quo Primum" in a vain attempt to "prove" that any change 8n the liturgy since 1570 is invalid.

ByzRus said...

Perhaps just me, but actions like this seem to delegitimize authority, regardless of office. These types of decisions aren't like a tennis ball to be swatted back and forth across the net each time the head of the office changes. So, now, Houston, we have a problem, if the next pope favors tradition, does he reverse some of this thus adding another asterisk to the line of popes? If the next pope is farther left than the current, does it get even worse requiring an eventual traditional pope to undo more? Is this a responsible use of power? Is this responsible stewardship? I suppose he's the one "crowned" with the authority to make such decisions, even decisions that feel as nasty and grimy as this one.

Mark Thomas said...

I wonder whether Anonymous' line in question was inspired by Archbishop Lefebvre?

Archbishop Lefebvre insisted that our holy Vatican II Era Popes had canceled Papal history.

Archbishop Lefebvre, December 2, 1986 A.D.

"Indeed, it is clear that since the Second Vatican Council, the Pope and the Bishops are making more and more of a clear departure from their predecessors.

"Everything that had been put into place by the Church in past centuries to defend the Faith, and everything that was done by the missionaries to spread it, even to the point of martyrdom, henceforth is considered to be a fault which the Church must confess and ask pardon for."

"The attitude of the eleven popes who, from 1789 up until 1958, condemned the liberal Revolution in official documents, is considered as “a lack of understanding of the Christian spirit that inspired the Revolution.”

"Hence the complete about-face of Rome, since the Second Vatican Council, which makes us repeat the words of Our Lord to those who came to arrest Him: “This is your hour and the power of darkness.”

"Thus we consider as null everything inspired by this spirit of denial of the past: all the post-conciliar reforms, and all the acts of Rome accomplished in this impiety."


By the way, many "traditional" Catholics have insisted that Pope Benedict XVI canceled Papal history.

Just recently, July 7th, via his Crisis Magazine article that denounced Summorum Pontificum, Peter Kwasniewski insisted that Pope Benedict XVI had canceled centuries of Papal history.

Let us not forget the centuries of Papal history that Pope Saint Paul XVI canceled supposedly.

Pope Francis is in good company when it comes to having canceled (supposedly) Papal history.



Mark Thomas

Chip said...

Yes, no certain knowledge of cancer at all.

Now, if he starts falling off the radar for extended periods due perhaps to in-depth scans/exams/tests looking for a cancer recurrence, cancels activities/trips, starts losing weight, etc, then the rumor mills will have some actual reason to begin grinding away, but for someone NOW to proclaim they know it is a cancer and them not associated whatsoever with his medical team or healthcare testing is just plain WRONG.

Richard M. Sawicki said...


Your thoughts about Benedict’s longevity being a factor are spot on!

Gaudete in Domino Semper!

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

ByzRus, this document seems more punitive than pastoral and more reactionary than real reasoned. I really think the pope is mad at God and the emeritus. It is hard having your predecessor in the backyard and having some in the traditionalist community wanting the emeritus to take over again or that the current pope is not legitimate.

But, yes, this document undermines papal authority on many different levels. It could have been in continuity with Summorum Pontificum but only highlighting the bishops' role as primary liturgist of the diocese. He should be aware of any "cult of the personality" of priests manipulating parishes to have the EF Mass when it really isn't wanted. It's about priestly supervision but that should and must also extend to the 1970 Roman Missal usage.

But I think the point of this Motu Proprio is to emphasize that this pope's agenda is the hermenuetic of rupture and that if he can undo Benedict and John Paul's legacies he can go further, authorizing the ordination of women deacons and eventually priests. I see that in the future if this way of thinking and acting is not stopped. I think what we are seeing and hearing in Germany is exactly what this pope wants otherwise he would have been as harsh with the Germans and issued a motu proprio about it by now.

Chip said...

"Mark Thomas", I wonder if you have ever had an original thought in your life or if you have any talent at all past using a searchable quote data base assembled by someone else. AND, do you mind explaining that leap of pure genius assumption, tying the remarks together? One thing you DO get correctly as regular clockwork is fallicious assumption and unwarranted inference.

Anonymous said...

Indeed some great posts on other sites on how Bergoglio shadow banned the TLM meaning he wants us back into church cemeteries, warehouses, basements, anywhere that the TLM and its congregation cannot be seen or heard. I find that so so petty and really kind of sick when you think about it, he we are loyal children of the Church who believe in everything it teaches and we are the bad guys, while Biden, Pelosi, Father James Martin and others who promote abortion and sodomy are just fine and dandy with Bergoglio. Now do you know why so many have left the Roman Catholic Church, what is the point when the Pope does not believe in it. But I digress don't flee the Church stay and fight for the TLM stay inside the Church not outside it gets us nowhere and the Modernists win!!

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Acting as a child and having a tantrum is not the way forward and the continuation of denigrating Pope Francis by referring to him by his given last name does not help and has exacerbated the situation. I said early on when a minority of traditionalists were going off the rails thinking that the EF would eventually replace the OF that they were going down the wrong road to disaster. I said the same thing when these same ones called into question Pope Francis' legitimacy.

Both of these are wrong and breaking with the reigning Pope is also called schism and is a mortal sin and if traditionalists are the elite group and keepers of the true faith, they should know that, but evidently they don't which undermines their premise of elitism.

Православный физик said...

A papacy that is big enough to grant your every wish, is also big enough to take it all away.

Anonymous said...

There are many rites in the Roman Church ie: Armenian, Chaldean, Syro-Malobar, Maronite, and many more YET Francis went after the Traditional Latin Mass why? You would think Francis would be happy that the TLM churches are packed to the rafters with YOUNG FAMILIES with many many children, F.S.S.P. Institute of Christ The King seminaries are full with waiting lists of young men to get in, yet this is what he has done, crushed with one blow to destroy the TLM why????????? The Novus Ordo is "valid" and the TLM has NEVER been abrogated.

Mark Thomas said...


As I had noted in a different thread on Father McDonald's blog, Traditionis Custodes is a positive document.

Pope Francis was compelled to react to the negative feedback from bishops that he had received in regard to overall awful condition of the "Traditional" Catholic Movement.

In his 2007 letter to the bishops, Pope Benedict XVI acknowledged that "truly serious difficulties" could "come to light" in regard to Summorum Pontificum.

That has been the case for years.

Pope Francis was left holding that bag. For years, Pope Francis tolerated to the hilt the dreadful situation in question.

The situation had grown intolerable. From the "Traditional" Catholic Movement had flowed unending attacks against "New Rome," "Modernist Rome," "New Church,"...against the Novus Ordo Mass, Vatican II, supposed "heretical" Vatican II Era Popes...

New guidelines from Rome were required to address the overall awful state of "Traditional" Catholic Movement.

Bishops reported the negatives in question to Rome.

It is undeniable that many folks within the "Traditional" Catholic Movement had weaponized Summorum Pontificum/TLM against Holy Mother Church...against Vatican II...against the Holy Sacrifice of the Novus Ordo Mass.

Pope Francis, in line with feedback from our bishops, responded in positive fashion to the above. He has called upon the Successors to the Apostles to involve themselves far more deeply, than had been the case with countless Latin Church bishops, in overseeing the TLM.

Pope Francis' new positive guidelines are designed to ensure holiness, unity, and sanity within the Church/TLM Community.

The majority of Latin Church bishops squandered the golden opportunities that Popes Saint John Paul II, and Benedict XVI, had provided to build a holy, healthy, authentic, Traditional Catholic Movement.

May that not be the case with Pope Francis' positive attempt, via Traditionis Custodes, to accomplish the above.


Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

Father McDonald noted yesterday that a future Pope may move the Church beyond Traditionis Custodes.

That may happen. That would be fine with me.

I believe that should a Pope move us beyond Traditionis Custodes, that that would signal the following:

Pope Francis' new guidelines in question had worked in holy fashion.


Rome has been forced to address the overall dreadful state of the "Traditional" Catholic Movement...the weaponization of Summorum Pontificum/TLM against Holy Mother Church, Vatican II, as well as the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI.

Holy priests such as Father McDonald are at God's service to help form a holy, authentic, Traditional Catholic Movement/Community.

That is among the reasons as to why I am hopeful that we will be blessed by the establishment of a holy, authentic, Traditional Catholic Movement.

Yes, when the above is accomplished, then...goodbye to Traditionis Custodes.

Deo gratias, may that day arrive.


Mark Thomas

UK-Priest said...

Anon 2:45: “YET Francis went after the Traditional Latin Mass why?“

The TRUTH is that a group of ardent “traditionalists” went after Pope Francis and trying to use the TLM as a wedge issue to cause division within the Church. Now that their actions have come back to bite them on the bum, they complain that an injustice has been done to them - whereas in real life it’s called consequences and taking personal responsibility.

God bless!

UK-Priest said...

Tom Marcus said...
Frankly, I would argue that the Latin Mass has never LEGITIMATELY been abrogated and that yesterday's overreach is just an unjust,

Tom - you can argue whatever you like but the Pope is Supreme Pastor of the Church and has Supreme Authority and Universal Jurisdiction and he has decided otherwise. Rome has spoken - the matter is ended!

Anonymous said...

Now if you read the popes new Moto proprio carefully you will see that he forbids any new Latin mass formations and any new priest that is ordained must apply with his local ordinary to offer the traditional Latin mass in a fact he is choking us until we cannot breathe he means business he went right for the jugular of the Latin mass, something must have spooked him to be so cruel I don’t know what it is aside from the fact that traditional masses are packed to the brim and traditional seminaries are full of young men waiting to become priests very weird and yet very scary.

Anonymous said...

I think that the biggest attack on the papacy comes from Francis himself. Since at least 1988 you had the pope (St. John Paul II) telling people who wanted the tridentine mass that this was a "legitimate aspiration," and he allowed priestly societies, religious communities which used the tridentine mass to be formed. He also allowed a bishop in Brazil to be consecrated who only used the tridentine mass. Then you had another pope (Benedict XVI) who continued to tell people that there is nothing wrong with desiring the tridentine mass, that it's a form of liturgy that should be treasured. Now we have a pope (Francis) who appears to be saying that these statements were false. That he's the pope now and that there is no such legitimate aspiration, the tridentine mass shouldn't be treasured, etc.

He's making the papacy look like a political office, and the pope speaking simply for the political party of which he is a part. This creates a spiritual crisis, how can you order your spiritual life according to the whims of whoever happens to pope at the moment.

Chip said...

Again, per canon law, a local bishop can dispense from this, given the limitations of the document, and quite a few will do exactly that.

What remains to be seen is, considering the hamfisted, petty, and vengeful nature of the document, to crush the rite in order to tag only his perceived enemies, is the question of, "Is this only an entré in such behavior?"

Will he now seek to remove those bishops lawfully exercising their local rights? Will he seek also to change canon law to remove those rights? Will this morph into an unprecedented modern papal power grab for absolute control? And will it end same as such did for Boniface XIII?

Interesting times, for sure, but unfortunately more as the Chinese curse of, "May you live in interesting times." Especially if he actually IS on last legs and leaves this shambles for others to attempt to clean up, while them opposed by those who have backed this pope. We could be in for another time of multiple conclaves, multiple popes, and all manner of interesting things.

Chip said...

Typo...Boniface VIII

Anonymous said...

"Again, per canon law, a local bishop can dispense from this, given the limitations of the document, and quite a few will do exactly that."

No, such dispensations like what you suggest are NOT that easy to accomplish.

“[177.] ‘Since he must safeguard the unity of the universal Church, the Bishop is bound to promote the discipline common to the entire Church and therefore to insist upon the observance of all ecclesiastical laws. He is to be watchful lest abuses encroach upon ecclesiastical discipline, especially as regards the ministry of the Word, the celebration of the Sacraments and sacramentals, the worship of God and the veneration of the Saints.’ Redemptionis Sacramentum (2004)

The discipline COMMON TO THE CHURCH must be followed by the diocesan bishop. That is determined by, well, you know...

Chip said...

UK-priest/Mark Thomas, wrong on all counts.

The pope issued a prudential document, and any bishop is free to apply or ignore per own prudence. Nor are such ever seen as binding and infallible.

For those keeping count, that makes 1047 uses of the word "holy" in 14 posts by the Mark-thing and one must really admire such persistence in maintaining such an idiotic persona...takes REAL dedication.

Likewise, one must admire their ability to claim to know all TLM Mass attendees and their attitudes toward Francis and the papacy in general, second only to God in their omniscience, and whom they only grant Francis to tie same.

In answer to my own hypothetical question as whether this only an entrè to more petty, hamfisted, vengeful behavior, one need only look at how Francis has ruthlessly exiled any but enthusiastic yes-men his entire papacy, and it seems one has a pretty good hint of what is in store, should he live so long.

UK-Priest said...

“Prudential judgment” - Oh boy, this comment makes it clear that you haven’t even read it. Either that or you live in a fantasy parallel universe lol.

Chip said...

UK-troll, the entire document and cover letter are nothing but prudential, "when this was done it was for that reason, and this then was done for THAT reason, but now, it seems THIS is happening, and THAT reason I have decided to do THIS in an attempt to fix THAT and ASK your help."

It has and claims no rights reserved for the pope alone, and is utterly subject to Canon 87, unless or until he changes those, too, or issues corrections/modifications/etc.

Words DO matter, as does canon law, and this type document is what happens when you have a pope and advisors very weak on both, or trying not to undermine own positions on other issues. He created his own confusion and widely varying interpretation and implimentation problem with such a slobbo bit of work and it all on him/then when it happens.

Don't believe me? Just watch what happens now. Please post photos of you crying in your Wheaties once this happens. You will have so much sympathy you just would NOT believe it.

John Nolan said...

Interesting that Anonymous at 5:10 should quote the passage from Redemptionis Sacramentum which reminds bishops of their duty to correct liturgical abuses. Since many of the abuses detailed in RS have persisted, one can infer that the document was widely ignored.

After Summorum Pontificum some bishops still required priests to seek their permission to celebrate according to the 1962 missal. Some still banned the traditional Mass. Archbishop Mario Conti of Glasgow maintained that priests had to prove (to him) that they were completely fluent in Latin. The French bishops were so hostile to SP that Pope Benedict had to reassure them, even though in doing so he was 'economical with the truth'.

Much has changed since then. Yesterday the French hierarchy issued a statement supporting those faithful and their pastors 'who habitually celebrate according to the missal of St John XXIII' and assuring them that their 'spiritual zeal' was held in esteem.

In 2007 we had bishops interpreting a permissive document (SP) in a more restrictive way. If their successors choose to interpret a restrictive document (TC) in a more permissive way they will at least be erring on the side of charity and genuine pastoral care.

rcg said...

John at 6:50 describes the setting and application of Vatican II. I understand and respect the point of Archbishop Conti. But his edict seems to work contrary to its purpose. If I was paranoid then I might think that was his intent: restrict access of the clergy to secondary and even tertiary documents making the clergy and laity dependent on select interpretations. They (we) would be educated solely on approved interpretation. The current level ignorance of the laity to the Catechism is part and parcel of this approach.

johnnyc said...

"Both of these are wrong and breaking with the reigning Pope is also called schism and is a mortal sin"

Cardinal Cupich's conscience loophole looking pretty good now lol