Friday, July 16, 2021

SUMMORUM II: Pope Francis abrogates Summorum Pontificum!

My Comments: As I have stated time and time again, the pope is the pope and His  Holiness is the Supreme Legislator in the Church. We have to offer faithful obedience to him and as a priest I have made the promise of obedience to my bishop who has made an obedience to the pope. That’s why we are Catholic. Any other way is not Catholic but schismatic. I will never become a schismatic priest or Catholic, pure and simple. 

We don’t worship the form of the Mass. We worship God and the Ordinary Form does this pure and simple despite any opinions to the contrary. 

I do believe, though, that Pope Francis has accelerated a large schism in the Church. I don’t know why.

Certainly it is not lost on Pope Francis that some future pope can do to his Motu Proprio what His Holiness has done to Pope Emeritus Benedict’s Motu Proprio. It is a bit shocking to say the least. 

First the letter accompanying the Motu Proprio

Dear Brothers in the Episcopate,

Just as my Predecessor Benedict XVI did with Summorum Pontificum, I wish to accompany the Motu proprio Traditionis custodes with a letter explaining the motives that prompted my decision. I turn to you with trust and parresia, in the name of that shared “solicitude for the whole Church, that contributes supremely to the good of the Universal Church” as Vatican Council II reminds us.[1]

Most people understand the motives that prompted St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI to allow the use of the Roman Missal, promulgated by St. Pius V and edited by St. John XXIII in 1962, for the Eucharistic Sacrifice. The faculty — granted by the indult of the Congregation for Divine Worship in 1984[2] and confirmed by St. John Paul II in the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei in 1988[3] — was above all motivated by the desire to foster the healing of the schism with the movement of Mons. Lefebvre. With the ecclesial intention of restoring the unity of the Church, the Bishops were thus asked to accept with generosity the “just aspirations” of the faithful who requested the use of that Missal.

Many in the Church came to regard this faculty as an opportunity to adopt freely the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and use it in a manner parallel to the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Paul VI. In order to regulate this situation at the distance of many years, Benedict XVI intervened to address this state of affairs in the Church. Many priests and communities had “used with gratitude the possibility offered by the Motu proprio” of St. John Paul II. Underscoring that this development was not foreseeable in 1988, the Motu proprio Summorum Pontificum of 2007 intended to introduce “a clearer juridical regulation” in this area.[4] In order to allow access to those, including young people, who when “they discover this liturgical form, feel attracted to it and find in it a form, particularly suited to them, to encounter the mystery of the most holy Eucharist”,[5] Benedict XVI declared “the Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and newly edited by Blessed John XXIII, as a extraordinary expression of the same lex orandi”, granting a “more ample possibility for the use of the 1962 Missal”.[6]

In making their decision they were confident that such a provision would not place in doubt one of the key measures of Vatican Council II or minimize in this way its authority: the Motu proprio recognized that, in its own right, “the Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the lex orandi of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite”.[7] The recognition of the Missal promulgated by St. Pius V “as an extraordinary expression of the same lex orandi” did not in any way underrate the liturgical reform, but was decreed with the desire to acknowledge the “insistent prayers of these faithful,” allowing them “to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass according to the editio typica of the Roman Missal promulgated by Blessed John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as the extraordinary form of the Liturgy of the Church”.[8] It comforted Benedict XVI in his discernment that many desired “to find the form of the sacred Liturgy dear to them,” “clearly accepted the binding character of Vatican Council II and were faithful to the Pope and to the Bishops”.[9] What is more, he declared to be unfounded the fear of division in parish communities, because “the two forms of the use of the Roman Rite would enrich one another”.[10] Thus, he invited the Bishops to set aside their doubts and fears, and to welcome the norms, “attentive that everything would proceed in peace and serenity,” with the promise that “it would be possible to find resolutions” in the event that “serious difficulties came to light” in the implementation of the norms “once the Motu proprio came into effect”.[11]

With the passage of thirteen years, I instructed the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to circulate a questionnaire to the Bishops regarding the implementation of the Motu proprio Summorum Pontificum. The responses reveal a situation that preoccupies and saddens me, and persuades me of the need to intervene. Regrettably, the pastoral objective of my Predecessors, who had intended “to do everything possible to ensure that all those who truly possessed the desire for unity would find it possible to remain in this unity or to rediscover it anew”,[12] has often been seriously disregarded. An opportunity offered by St. John Paul II and, with even greater magnanimity, by Benedict XVI, intended to recover the unity of an ecclesial body with diverse liturgical sensibilities, was exploited to widen the gaps, reinforce the divergences, and encourage disagreements that injure the Church, block her path, and expose her to the peril of division.

At the same time, I am saddened by abuses in the celebration of the liturgy on all sides. In common with Benedict XVI, I deplore the fact that “in many places the prescriptions of the new Missal are not observed in celebration, but indeed come to be interpreted as an authorization for or even a requirement of creativity, which leads to almost unbearable distortions”.[13] But I am nonetheless saddened that the instrumental use of Missale Romanum of 1962 is often characterized by a rejection not only of the liturgical reform, but of the Vatican Council II itself, claiming, with unfounded and unsustainable assertions, that it betrayed the Tradition and the “true Church”. The path of the Church must be seen within the dynamic of Tradition “which originates from the Apostles and progresses in the Church with the assistance of the Holy Spirit” (DV 8). A recent stage of this dynamic was constituted by Vatican Council II where the Catholic episcopate came together to listen and to discern the path for the Church indicated by the Holy Spirit. To doubt the Council is to doubt the intentions of those very Fathers who exercised their collegial power in a solemn manner cum Petro et sub Petro in an ecumenical council,[14] and, in the final analysis, to doubt the Holy Spirit himself who guides the Church.

The objective of the modification of the permission granted by my Predecessors is highlighted by the Second Vatican Council itself. From the vota submitted by the Bishops there emerged a great insistence on the full, conscious and active participation of the whole People of God in the liturgy,[15] along lines already indicated by Pius XII in the encyclical Mediator Dei on the renewal of the liturgy.[16] The constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium confirmed this appeal, by seeking “the renewal and advancement of the liturgy”,[17] and by indicating the principles that should guide the reform.[18] In particular, it established that these principles concerned the Roman Rite, and other legitimate rites where applicable, and asked that “the rites be revised carefully in the light of sound tradition, and that they be given new vigor to meet present-day circumstances and needs”.[19] On the basis of these principles a reform of the liturgy was undertaken, with its highest expression in the Roman Missal, published in editio typica by St. Paul VI[20] and revised by St. John Paul II.[21] It must therefore be maintained that the Roman Rite, adapted many times over the course of the centuries according to the needs of the day, not only be preserved but renewed “in faithful observance of the Tradition”.[22] Whoever wishes to celebrate with devotion according to earlier forms of the liturgy can find in the reformed Roman Missal according to Vatican Council II all the elements of the Roman Rite, in particular the Roman Canon which constitutes one of its more distinctive elements.

A final reason for my decision is this: ever more plain in the words and attitudes of many is the close connection between the choice of celebrations according to the liturgical books prior to Vatican Council II and the rejection of the Church and her institutions in the name of what is called the “true Church.” One is dealing here with comportment that contradicts communion and nurtures the divisive tendency — “I belong to Paul; I belong instead to Apollo; I belong to Cephas; I belong to Christ” — against which the Apostle Paul so vigorously reacted.[23] In defense of the unity of the Body of Christ, I am constrained to revoke the faculty granted by my Predecessors. The distorted use that has been made of this faculty is contrary to the intentions that led to granting the freedom to celebrate the Mass with the Missale Romanum of 1962. Because “liturgical celebrations are not private actions, but celebrations of the Church, which is the sacrament of unity”,[24] they must be carried out in communion with the Church. Vatican Council II, while it reaffirmed the external bonds of incorporation in the Church — the profession of faith, the sacraments, of communion — affirmed with St. Augustine that to remain in the Church not only “with the body” but also “with the heart” is a condition for salvation.[25]

Dear brothers in the Episcopate, Sacrosanctum Concilium explained that the Church, the “sacrament of unity,” is such because it is “the holy People gathered and governed under the authority of the Bishops”.[26] Lumen gentium, while recalling that the Bishop of Rome is “the permanent and visible principle and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the multitude of the faithful,” states that you the Bishops are “the visible principle and foundation of the unity of your local Churches, in which and through which exists the one and only Catholic Church”.[27]

Responding to your requests, I take the firm decision to abrogate all the norms, instructions, permissions and customs that precede the present Motu proprio, and declare that the liturgical books promulgated by the saintly Pontiffs Paul VI and John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II, constitute the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite. I take comfort in this decision from the fact that, after the Council of Trent, St. Pius V also abrogated all the rites that could not claim a proven antiquity, establishing for the whole Latin Church a single Missale Romanum. For four centuries this Missale Romanum, promulgated by St. Pius V was thus the principal expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite, and functioned to maintain the unity of the Church. Without denying the dignity and grandeur of this Rite, the Bishops gathered in ecumenical council asked that it be reformed; their intention was that “the faithful would not assist as strangers and silent spectators in the mystery of faith, but, with a full understanding of the rites and prayers, would participate in the sacred action consciously, piously, and actively”.[28] St. Paul VI, recalling that the work of adaptation of the Roman Missal had already been initiated by Pius XII, declared that the revision of the Roman Missal, carried out in the light of ancient liturgical sources, had the goal of permitting the Church to raise up, in the variety of languages, “a single and identical prayer,” that expressed her unity.[29] This unity I intend to re-establish throughout the Church of the Roman Rite.

Vatican Council II, when it described the catholicity of the People of God, recalled that “within the ecclesial communion” there exist the particular Churches which enjoy their proper traditions, without prejudice to the primacy of the Chair of Peter who presides over the universal communion of charity, guarantees the legitimate diversity and together ensures that the particular not only does not injure the universal but above all serves it”.[30] While, in the exercise of my ministry in service of unity, I take the decision to suspend the faculty granted by my Predecessors, I ask you to share with me this burden as a form of participation in the solicitude for the whole Church proper to the Bishops. In the Motu proprio I have desired to affirm that it is up to the Bishop, as moderator, promoter, and guardian of the liturgical life of the Church of which he is the principle of unity, to regulate the liturgical celebrations. It is up to you to authorize in your Churches, as local Ordinaries, the use of the Missale Romanum of 1962, applying the norms of the present Motu proprio. It is up to you to proceed in such a way as to return to a unitary form of celebration, and to determine case by case the reality of the groups which celebrate with this Missale Romanum.

Indications about how to proceed in your dioceses are chiefly dictated by two principles: on the one hand, to provide for the good of those who are rooted in the previous form of celebration and need to return in due time to the Roman Rite promulgated by Saints Paul VI and John Paul II, and, on the other hand, to discontinue the erection of new personal parishes tied more to the desire and wishes of individual priests than to the real need of the “holy People of God.” At the same time, I ask you to be vigilant in ensuring that every liturgy be celebrated with decorum and fidelity to the liturgical books promulgated after Vatican Council II, without the eccentricities that can easily degenerate into abuses. Seminarians and new priests should be formed in the faithful observance of the prescriptions of the Missal and liturgical books, in which is reflected the liturgical reform willed by Vatican Council II.

Upon you I invoke the Spirit of the risen Lord, that he may make you strong and firm in your service to the People of God entrusted to you by the Lord, so that your care and vigilance express communion even in the unity of one, single Rite, in which is preserved the great richness of the Roman liturgical tradition. I pray for you. You pray for me.






On the Use of the Roman Liturgy
Prior to the Reform of 1970


Official translation

Guardians of the tradition, the bishops in communion with the Bishop of Rome constitute the visible principle and foundation of the unity of their particular Churches. [1] Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, through the proclamation of the Gospel and by means of the celebration of the Eucharist, they govern the particular Churches entrusted to them. [2]

In order to promote the concord and unity of the Church, with paternal solicitude towards those who in any region adhere to liturgical forms antecedent to the reform willed by the Vatican Council II, my Venerable Predecessors, Saint John Paul II and Benedict XVI, granted and regulated the faculty to use the Roman Missal edited by John XXIII in 1962. [3] In this way they intended “to facilitate the ecclesial communion of those Catholics who feel attached to some earlier liturgical forms” and not to others. [4]

In line with the initiative of my Venerable Predecessor Benedict XVI to invite the bishops to assess the application of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum three years after its publication, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith carried out a detailed consultation of the bishops in 2020. The results have been carefully considered in the light of experience that has matured during these years.

At this time, having considered the wishes expressed by the episcopate and having heard the opinion of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, I now desire, with this Apostolic Letter, to press on ever more in the constant search for ecclesial communion. Therefore, I have considered it appropriate to establish the following:

Art. 1. The liturgical books promulgated by Saint Paul VI and Saint John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II, are the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.

Art. 2. It belongs to the diocesan bishop, as moderator, promoter, and guardian of the whole liturgical life of the particular Church entrusted to him, [5] to regulate the liturgical celebrations of his diocese. [6] Therefore, it is his exclusive competence to authorize the use of the 1962 Roman Missal in his diocese, according to the guidelines of the Apostolic See.

Art. 3. The bishop of the diocese in which until now there exist one or more groups that celebrate according to the Missal antecedent to the reform of 1970:

§ 1. is to determine that these groups do not deny the validity and the legitimacy of the liturgical reform, dictated by Vatican Council II and the Magisterium of the Supreme Pontiffs;

§ 2. is to designate one or more locations where the faithful adherents of these groups may gather for the eucharistic celebration (not however in the parochial churches and without the erection of new personal parishes);

§ 3. to establish at the designated locations the days on which eucharistic celebrations are permitted using the Roman Missal promulgated by Saint John XXIII in 1962. [7] In these celebrations the readings are proclaimed in the vernacular language, using translations of the Sacred Scripture approved for liturgical use by the respective Episcopal Conferences;

§ 4. to appoint a priest who, as delegate of the bishop, is entrusted with these celebrations and with the pastoral care of these groups of the faithful. This priest should be suited for this responsibility, skilled in the use of the Missale Romanum antecedent to the reform of 1970, possess a knowledge of the Latin language sufficient for a thorough comprehension of the rubrics and liturgical texts, and be animated by a lively pastoral charity and by a sense of ecclesial communion. This priest should have at heart not only the correct celebration of the liturgy, but also the pastoral and spiritual care of the faithful;

§ 5. to proceed suitably to verify that the parishes canonically erected for the benefit of these faithful are effective for their spiritual growth, and to determine whether or not to retain them;

§ 6. to take care not to authorize the establishment of new groups.

Art. 4. Priests ordained after the publication of the present Motu Proprio, who wish to celebrate using the Missale Romanum of 1962, should submit a formal request to the diocesan Bishop who shall consult the Apostolic See before granting this authorization.

Art. 5. Priests who already celebrate according to the Missale Romanum of 1962 should request from the diocesan Bishop the authorization to continue to enjoy this faculty.

Art. 6. Institutes of consecrated life and Societies of apostolic life, erected by the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, fall under the competence of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies for Apostolic Life.

Art. 7. The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments and the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, for matters of their particular competence, exercise the authority of the Holy See with respect to the observance of these provisions.

Art. 8. Previous norms, instructions, permissions, and customs that do not conform to the provisions of the present Motu Proprio are abrogated.

Everything that I have declared in this Apostolic Letter in the form of Motu Proprio, I order to be observed in all its parts, anything else to the contrary notwithstanding, even if worthy of particular mention, and I establish that it be promulgated by way of publication in “L’Osservatore Romano”, entering immediately in force and, subsequently, that it be published in the official Commentary of the Holy See, Acta Apostolicae Sedis.

Given at Rome, at Saint John Lateran, on 16 July 2021, the liturgical Memorial of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, in the ninth year of Our Pontificate.



[1] Cfr Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church “ Lumen Gentium”, 21 november 1964, n. 23 AAS 57 (1965) 27.

[2] Cfr Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church “ Lumen Gentium”, 21 november 1964, n. 27: AAS 57 (1965) 32; Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Decree concerning the pastoral office of bishops in the Church “ Christus Dominus”, 28 october 1965, n. 11: AAS 58 (1966) 677-678Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 833.

[3] Cfr John Paul II, Apostolic Letter given Motu proprio “ Ecclesia Dei”, 2 july 1988: AAS 80 (1988) 1495-1498; Benedict XVI, Apostolic Letter given Motu proprio “ Summorum Pontificum”, 7 july 2007: AAS 99 (2007) 777-781; Apostolic Letter given Motu proprio “Ecclesiae unitatem”, 2 july 2009: AAS 101 (2009) 710-711.

[4] John Paul II, Apostolic Letter given Motu proprio “ Ecclesia Dei”, 2 july 1988, n. 5: AAS 80 (1988) 1498.

[5] Cfr Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Costitution on the sacred liturgy “ Sacrosanctum Concilium”, 4 december 1963, n. 41: AAS 56 (1964) 111; Caeremoniale Episcoporum, n. 9; Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacrament, Instruction on certain matters to be observed or to be avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist “Redemptionis Sacramentum”, 25 march 2004, nn. 19-25: AAS 96 (2004) 555-557.

[6] Cfr CIC, can. 375, § 1; can. 392.

[7] Cfr Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Decree “Quo magis” approving seven Eucharistic Prefaces for the forma extraordinaria of the Roman Rite, 22 february 2020, and Decree “Cum sanctissima” on the liturgical celebration in honour of Saints in the forma extraordinaria of the Roman Rite, 22 february 2020: L’Osservatore Romano, 26 march 2020, p. 6.


Anonymous said...

He said it was to bring unity to the Church... I am interested to see if he disbands all the eastern orders (as they are not like us) or forces the Novos Ordo on them. Amazing that a specific form of worship for more than 1000 years and produced a bounty of Saints doesn't bring unity. If we look to history we see that this is the truest form of unity as designed by the communists, that anyone that isnt like you is evil and in the name of unity they must go away.

Apres le Deluge said...

Waiting for it........

Anonymous said...

An inspiring message of unity from Pray Tell:

Pierre said...

This motu proprio is petty and divisive and a slap in the face to Pope Benedict. It is also the act of the dying "spirit of Vatican II" crowd who push a liturgical "reform" that has failed.

Pierre said...

Best response to this Motu Proprio:

"Commentary will be issued later today, after prayer, a good long walk, and a lot of coffee. We must redouble our prayers for Pope Francis, whose whole papacy, every smile, every hug of a disabled person, every exhortation to mercy, will be stained for the rest of history by this unprecedented and absolutely gratuitous act of pastoral cruelty."

Comedy Gold said...


Anonymous said...

So, Father, we in ”Diosav” do have a new Bishop who seems to be supportive of the celebration of Roman Rite using the Missale Romanum of 1962. How will you and the other like-minded priests in this diocese proceed from here?

I have noticed that you are once again allowing “Anonymous” comments? So, on this sensitive subject matter, I prefer to use that—
Thank you.

Chip said...

Well, the Fri debut is at least one recent rumor to come true....perhaps two or three is the charm.

Chip said...

The synodality is stunning. Each local bishop must have the Vatican approve any new local Latin Masses. Now THAT is synodality, for sure. Where synodality is great, so long as it fits in with the Francis cabal program, otherwise it is heresy.

Stacheman said...

I don't know what to think of this until I genuinely know what it means in practice. The Mass I attend is at a parish church (which is what I assume "parochial" church means). Does that mean we are finished?

Jacob said...

The name of this motu needs to be changed to the "SSPX Full Employment Act of 2021"

ByzRus said...

I fail to see the unity in this. Such heavy handed methods usually fail in the long run.

I don't even have a dog in this particular fight and I feel truly bad for those effected and for up and coming seminarians who feel called by this particular liturgical expression.

MarK Thomas said...

Father McDonald said..."I do believe, though, that Pope Francis has accelerated a large schism in the Church. I don’t know why."

Father McDonald, I appreciate your holy, responsible, response to the story at hand.

Your response reflects that of a holy man who has a Catholic heart and mind.

In regard to your comment, "I don't know why?"

Pope Francis explained his decision. He portrayed accurately the overall horrific state of the "Traditional" Catholic Movement.

But I understand your comment in question.

Anyway, the "Traditional" Catholic Movement is sick to its core. Said movement is filled with folks who reject Vatican II/liturgical reform.

Said folks are so fanatical that they even reject the liturgical reforms of Pope Saint Pius X, as well as Pope Venerable Pius XII.

Perhaps our (Latin) Churchmen will work to establish a healthy, authentic, Traditional Catholic Movement.

At any rate, the Vicar of Christ has spoken. God has compelled us to obey Pope Francis.

I stand with holy Pope Francis.


Mark Thomas

Tom Marcus said...

The rigid sector of the Church has demonstrated something this pope fails to observe: Rigidity of faith is like a bullet-proof vest to trendiness, error and lies. He might think this Motu Proprio has finally penetrated our vests, but when all is said and done, we will be the last members of the Church who are still standing.

Anonymous said...

Father Altman needs to flee to the S.S.P.X. and I don't say that lightly.

Anonymous said...

And German?????? Nothing! Hypocritical modernist.

Chip said...

"Mark Thomas"....congratulations on being the first to ever use the word "holy" 972 times in only 11 posts.

Tom Marcus said...

Charity prevents me from naming names, but there are some people posting here who, in the supposed words of Lenin, serve as "useful idiots".

Fr Martin Fox said...

I am extremely sad about this.

Further commentary will wait.

Mark Thomas said...

Anonymous, July 16, 2021 at 8:22 AM, said..."An inspiring message of unity from Pray Tell:

Deo gratias!

Thank you for that lin.

Father Anthony Ruff's response in question is, as you said, "an inspiring message of unity..."


Father Ruff responded today with a Catholic heart and mind to Traditionis Custodes.

The responses issued by Fathers Ruff, and McDonald, are holy. Said responses, if adopted throughout the Church, would lead to liturgical peace within the Roman Rite.


Mark Thomas

Chip said...

"Mark Thomas" goes for the gold....973 times in 12 posts, use of the word "holy".

My response to his posts in this entry is simply a quote of "The Holy People of God", "Mark Thomas" himself, with, "Yeah. Right. Whatever. Now, back to reality."

Preach it, Brother "Mark".


Fr Martin Fox said...

Mark Thomas said:

the overall horrific state of the "Traditional" Catholic Movement.

This is a calumny and I here and now defy you to back it up, or else retract it and apologize.

You have indicted, not just individual bad actors (who are a universal problem), but -- in your own words -- an entire "movement." That is despicable, contemptible, and -- without seeing your soul, I can only say, *potentially* sinful. For your good, I counsel you to retract this thoughtless statement, and to refrain from such overbroad and unfair statements in the future.

On the other hand, if you persist in accusing a vast movement of faithful Catholics in this way, then I say either be prepared to cite chapter and verse, or else you will be bringing disgrace upon yourself.

Up till today, I have routinely offered the TLM regularly and when asked, the sacraments in the traditional form. NONE -- NONE -- NONE - of the people who participate, and benefit, merits you accusation and attack on them. They deserve an apology from you.

Православный физик said...

Being ran over by the papal Ford focus has to feel horrible.

I suppose my only words is, I'm surprised not in the fact that this was done, but only that it took so long after pachamama.

Many will be going SSPX, sedevacantist, or going Orthodox after this insult to the faithful...this is the tipping point.

Anonymous said...

Mark Thomas gets called out, but not ""One by one we crush their skulls with each Latin Mass and Rosary."

No call for a retraction and apology. Not called despicable and contemptible. Not called overbroad and unfair.

And no one wonders why.

ByzRus said...

Mark Thomas said:

Pope Francis explained his decision. He portrayed accurately the overall horrific state of the "Traditional" Catholic Movement.

Anyway, the "Traditional" Catholic Movement is sick to its core. Said movement is filled with folks who reject Vatican II/liturgical reform.

Said folks are so fanatical that they even reject the liturgical reforms of Pope Saint Pius X, as well as Pope Venerable Pius XII.

Extremes on either side are dangerous/sinful, Mark Thomas. Perhaps you should reconsider how you present your opinions - THEY ARE NOT MARK THOMAS DECLARATIONS - and have a bit of tact relative to those who favor tradition who did NOT conduct themselves as you generally described. I mean, honestly, do you actually read this blog or just spend your time cutting/pasting quotes? This behavior is in no way evident in any of the priests who post here, most especially, our host.

Tom Marcus said...

"We don’t worship the form of the Mass."

No offense Father, but that's a misdirection play if I ever saw one. The point is NOT that anyone "worships" some form of the Mass. The point is that this timeless Mass is the METHOD by which Catholics worship.

I like you and your blog, but statements like that do no service to your readers.

ByzRus said...

Православный физик

Christ is among us!

I agree with your thoughts however, I hope people let the "dust" settle before doing anything extreme. Today will without question emotion filled. However, should there be those who wish to consider the Christian East, be it Eastern Catholic or, Orthodox, they should do so from the perspective of running TO something, not AWAY from something else. Likewise, those considering a move to the East should embrace lovingly Eastern praxis and tradition and not expect, in the case of Eastern Catholic Churches that Roman practices will be adopted, or adapted, in the spirit of "oneness". The East has its own liturgy and practices the same as the West. That liturgy and those practices should be respected the same as they would for the West.

ByzRus said...

Tom Marcus,

Respectfully, I cannot agree. I've personally seen those who appear to worship the liturgy at the expense of Christ himself. They are those who, beyond following the rubrics, take things to an extreme. It raises eyebrows as it usually sticks out. It's a trap some fall into and it just makes things difficult for everyone else given the tendency of many to insist that the part represents the whole, particularly with regard to those who favor tradition.

Michael A said...

The primary need we have is to reform the Ordinary Rite and as Francis states he is aware of abuses, but he doesn't describe them or define them or point us to a reference guide so we understand what those are. Now we have the ruling that the Traditional Rite is not allowed without bishop consent which will either be given generously by a small percentage but in most cases denied, if I understand his text correctly. It is easy to identify the TLM but harder to pin down abuses and for that reason the document fails in being an honest attempt at achieving uniform reverential liturgy which it claims that it wants. It clearly accomplishes the restrictions and punishment of one group, and leaves the door wide open for continued creativity, because it leaves out any references to what qualifies as abuse. I would respect a document like this if I thought that its genuine purpose was to improve the Ordinary From in desperate need of it, but it's only true accomplishment is to sanction one cherished form of the Mass. Another sad day in liberal "progress" land.

Pierre said...

Anonymous at 12:07 PM (we know who you are so stop posting anonymously). So Puerile

Chip said...

Anon1207...two reasons. One is because there likely is only one or two posters behind several names and anon. replies of that ilk in this comment section, same as the ranting contra posts here...aaaand....

The "Mark Thomas" posts go on and on and on and on and on, while the contra posts are short and bitter and much easier ignored.

Any other questions? You want fair, try picking a name and sticking with it.

Mark Thomas said...

To grasp the monumental sickness of the "Traditional" Catholic Movement, one need only to turn to today's comments from Rorate Caeli:

"Francis HATES US.

Francis HATES Tradition.

Francis HATES all that is good and beautiful.

Francis is an Anti-Christical figure for this age."

The above response is immature, reckless, irresponsible, Satanic...and in keeping with the sick, horrific mindset that a vast portion of the "Traditional" Catholic Movement has long least represented by Rorate Caeli.

Compare Rorate Caeli's Satanic, "traditional" Catholic response in question, to the holy, mature, sober responses offered by Fathers McDonald, and Ruff.


Mark Thomas

Anonymous said...

And the rupture continues!! It seems like Rome wants us the traditionalists to leave and join the SSPX I don’t get it!!

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Extreme traditionalists need to take some responsibility for their ugliness to the pope and the Magisterium of the Church which includes Vatican II. In my own parish, I have had some people leave an ad orientem Ordinary Form Latin Mass as so as they realized it was not an EF Mass. That is outrageous and should be condemned. The same for an English normative Mass.

Anonymous said...

As I'm reading the article on Fox News Pope Francis is blaming Pope Benedict the XVI saying his Moto Propio caused division in the Church, I'm sorry but this man is causing utter chaos in the Church and in comment sections in many websites i.e. Breitbart, Gateway Pundit, and other Conservative sites he is always called the "Marxist" Pope and worse names, and it is just embarrassing, but I completely understand the comments. He wants to CANCEL the TLM and yet is silent on what is happening in Cuba!!

Pierre said...

Mark Thomas,

You ignore good priests like Father Fox to your spiritual peril. You still have not apologized as Father Fox requested

Tom Marcus said...

No one is talking about this part:

"is to designate one or more locations where the faithful adherents of these groups may gather for the eucharistic celebration (not however in the parochial churches and without the erection of new personal parishes);"

Does that mean, even if we have already been doing so, WE CAN NO LONGER HAVE THE TLM IN OUR PARISH CHURCH?

Fr Martin Fox said...


Your attack on an entire group of people because of the bad actions of some is despicable. It is like saying because you freely indulge in calumny, every person named Mark is despicable.

You refuse to apologize.

My very best wishes to you, but until you apologize, I have nothing further to say to you and other than an apology for your calumny against everyone who is attached to the Traditional Latin Mass, I am not interested in anything more you have to say.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Just to be clear:

Mark Thomas does not know the people who attend the Traditional Latin Mass in my parish. Yet he declares them terrible people.

Now I'm done.

Tom Marcus said...

Hey Mark Thomas:

If the shoe fits...

Show us the evidence that Francis DOESN'T hate Traditionalists (HINT: today' Motu Proprio isn't a good starting point)

Show us the evidence that he DOESN'T hate Tradition.

Show us the evidence that he DOESN'T hate all that is good and beautiful (especially after bringing that hideous Pachman-Mama demon into the Vatican)

Show us the evidence that his agenda of mocking proselytizing and encouraging "accompaniment" and labeling everything that isn't modernist "rigid" ISN'T Anti-Christological.

Your pathetic, juvenile chanting of words like "Satanic" and "Holy" with little or no grasp of their meanings makes every reader here with an IQ over 60 cringe.

So put up or shut up. If you can't prove against the obvious (or to be blunt, invert reality), then just go enjoy your crayons and cupcakes and leave the discussion to the adults.

ByzRus said...

Mark Thomas said:

The above response is immature, reckless, irresponsible, Satanic...and in keeping with the sick, horrific mindset that a vast portion of the "Traditional" Catholic Movement has long least represented by Rorate Caeli

Ah, now we're getting somewhere. It would seem that "vast" portion and "at least represented by Rorate Caeli" isn't representative of any/all. So, we could perhaps conclude that your comments in your previous posting were simply your opinions and not based on anything concrete, or factual? I still do not think, absent hard data, that your characterization of traditional Catholics is fair or balanced, but, this at least narrows the universe somewhat. Certainly, the other side in our widening Catholic chasm is not without sin either lacking tolerance/understanding, things that those on the left typically demand.

Anonymous said...

"To grasp the monumental sickness of the "Traditional" Catholic Movement, one need only to turn to today's comments from Rorate Caeli:"

I don't think we have to look very hard to find the sickness of the liberals who have single handedly gutted the Church and emptied the pews. "Father" Martin = Good, Latin Mass = Bad. Hmmm....

Fr Martin Fox said...

Father McDonald:

I'm sure you don't mean to do this, but it is awfully unfair to say that because *someone* behaved badly, an entire group must be punished.

Of course you are correct that some folks who call themselves traditionalists behave badly. But to that list we may add:

Some who:

- make frequent use of confession are scrupulous and unhealthy about it.
- come to daily Mass and who are active volunteers are really running away from family problems and thereby aggravating them.
- try to be supportive of the priesthood actually have unhealthy fixations on particular priests.
- are devoted to liturgical matters are actually control freaks.
- resist what seem to be excessive rules are actually dealing with trauma from other situations.

I could go on and on. There are unhealthy people everywhere. We all have a duty of compassion and general responsibility to be helpful if we can toward them, and toward those who suffer because of their bad behavior.

I do not believe you intend to say that this is a special problem for those who are devoted to tradition.

And, I will add: when you have people who are hurting and reacting badly as a result, what sort of approach is best suited to helping them heal? To be clear: do you think today's move by the pope is well suited to healing the hurts of so many who are devoted to the TLM, who have been treated so very badly over the years? Will this move tend to soften or harden attitudes, do you think?

ByzRus said...

Fr. AJM said: Extreme traditionalists need to take some responsibility for their ugliness to the pope and the Magisterium of the Church which includes Vatican II. In my own parish, I have had some people leave an ad orientem Ordinary Form Latin Mass as so as they realized it was not an EF Mass. That is outrageous and should be condemned. The same for an English normative Mass.

I have to agree with Fr. AJM. Fr. Z has said the same as well. I have experienced this type of extreme both within the Roman Church and from those seeking refuge in the Byzantine Church. Though few in number, these types of people can be quite disruptive. Here's the reality: Traditionalists have been / will be on the defensive particularly since 1970. It is just how it is going to be despite the inherent inequity. Imagine how more left leaning bishops and the Pope himself would have reacted to that which he inherited from Benedict XVI had their experiences with some within a relatively small percentage of the overall flock been different. Probably would have been more - "let them do their thing" without feeling, rightly or wrongly, that additional strictures are necessary.

JR said...

Well, this is a very complicated issue and I don't think it is going to end well. Taking a lesson from history, back in the early 1900s the then-Pope legislated against the Byzantine Ruthenian Catholics in this country, and thousands left to become the Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Church. I wonder how many disenfranchised Catholics who desire to worship according to the Tridentine Rite will do something similar?

Anonymous said...

I’m watching Dr. Taylor Marshall on YouTube, he is explaining everything in detail, he said continue to support your priests at your traditional Latin mass, continue to pray don’t be bitter and angry, for all things will be restored in Christ as he promised that includes our traditional Latin mass. Dr. Taylor Marshall said pope Francis wants to corral us into one area this way we can all be controlled this includes the FSSP and the institute of Christ the King.

Anonymous said...

Fr. McDonald,


Chip said...

A stroke of genius, Holy Genius, even. Destroy the only source of growing/thriving religious orders and source of deeply committed and deeply religious priestly vocations.

Sheer genius.

I look forward to seeing religious vocation numbers over the next year or two.

I am SURE they will be just MARVELOUS. THIS will save the Church for sure! Just watch!

Mark Thomas said...

Pope Saint John Paul II more 30 years ago had established a liturgical plan that Archbishop Lefebvre, as well as the majority of Latin Church bishops, rejected.


Archbishop Lefebvre signed, then reneged, on the Protocol that he had signed with Rome.

Archbishop Lefebvre had shattered the peace that he/SSPX could have enjoyed with Pope Saint John Paul II. In addition, Archbishop Lefebvre shattered the protection to have advanced the TLM that the SSPX/TLM would have enjoyed via the Society's union with Pope Saint John Paul II.

Oh, what could have been.

During the past 33 years, led by the SSPX — a healthy SSPX as the Society, via full-communion with Rome, would have been taught, governed, and sanctified by our holy Popes — the Traditional Catholic Movement, as compared to today, would have enjoyed greater spiritual health, and holy prosperity.

Unfortunately, Archbishop Lefebvre, in his way, shattered that golden opportunity.

For their part, the majority of Latin Church bishops rejected Pope Saint John Paul's liturgical peace plan as they refused to offer the TLM in wide and generous fashion throughout the Latin Church.

Archbishop Lefebvre, as well as the majority of Latin Church bishops, squandered the golden opportunity to have established, speaking spiritually, a healthy, and prosperous, Traditional Catholic Movement.

What a waste. What a shame.

Pope Francis has been left with, speaking generally, an horrific, sick-to-its-core, "traditional" Catholic Movement — a movement very much represented by such mutineers as "New Catholic" (Rorate Caeli), Peter Kwasniewski, The Remnant...those of that ilk.

May our bishops establish an authentic, healthy (speaking spiritually), Traditional Catholic Movement.

With such holy priests as Father McDonald at God's side and service, and in the spirit of peace and reconciliation offered today by Father Ruff, our bishops have the opportunity to accomplish the above.


Mark Thomas

"...whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope."

— Pope Saint Pius X.

Chip said...

Father McD, I am as opposed to the haters in both rites as you, but why should you condemn those for choosing not to stay in a modern Mass once they realized that is what it was, when they thought it initially a traditional Kass?

This all WAS about freedom of choice, and I should be free to depart any Mass I see as rotten, whether terrible "music", dancing clowns, Latin instead of English, a priest in drag, choice and nobody else's.

Anonymous said...

Enough with the pope worshiping Mark Thomas, I mean really you sound ridiculous. There have been many bad Popes in history.

Tom Marcus said...

“Now it can be said briefly that those who defend blindly and indiscriminately any judgment whatsoever of the Supreme Pontiff concerning every matter weaken the authority of the Apostolic See; they do not support it; they subvert it; they do not fortify it… . Peter has no need of our lies; he has no need of our adulation.”
-Melchior Cano
De Locis Theologicis

But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
– Galatians 2:11

Maybe Our U.I., Mark Thomas would like to renounce the inerrancy of scripture and tell St. Paul why he was wrong to rebuke Jesus' hand-chosen first pope.

Anonymous said...

Here is the deal and we all know it like it or not, the Novus Ordo has altar girls, lay lectors, lay people handing out communion in people's hands, dancing girls and effeminate men in leotards prancing around the altar just take a look at Los Angeles Education party, giant puppets, clowns, hand holding, kiss of peace and I mean kissing, guitars, drums, bongos, rock, folk, mariachi music, standing and receiving Holy Communion on the hand, felt banners, improper attire and the list can go. None of this is in the TLM so stop saying they are both equal, yes I agree that the Novus Ordo is VALID but come on guys stop saying it is the same thing its not! I will not attack Francis I will pray for him and for someone to replace him after he passes, that will restore the TLM to its proper place.

Mark Thomas said...

Father McDonald said..."Extreme traditionalists need to take some responsibility for their ugliness to the pope and the Magisterium of the Church which includes Vatican II. In my own parish, I have had some people leave an ad orientem Ordinary Form Latin Mass as so as they realized it was not an EF Mass. That is outrageous and should be condemned. The same for an English normative Mass."

Father McDonald, there is much blame, if you will, for the awful situation at hand.

You are right about "extreme traditionalists."

It has been very common to have encountered "traditionalists" who declared openly that "traditional Catholics have been their own worst enemies."

But what about our bishops?

That is why have they tolerated for years the "traditional" Catholic Movement's horrific attacks against our holy Popes, Vatican II, Novus Ordo Mass...the never-ending, insane conspiracy theories, Pope Francis is not the Pope...?

Speaking generally, the "traditional" Catholic Movement has an horrific image throughout the Church.

Therefore, why did our bishops not, in merciful fashion, correct the "traditional" Catholic have at least initiated a holy and healthy "traditional" Catholic Movement?

The vicious folks at Rorate Caeli don't have bishops?...bishops to say, "enough of your garbage"...the folks at The Remnant don't have bishops?...Peter Kwasniewski doesn't have a bishop?...on and on.

I am aware that said folks would have ignored their bishops. Nevertheless, the bishops should have insisted that said folks needed to have stood with the Church, and Her Pope, or have paid the price to have stood with Satan.

Where were the bishops more than 30 years ago when they could have established a holy, authentic traditional Catholic Movement by having offered the TLM in wide and generous fashion?

The bishops could have controlled the situation then at hand.


Mark Thomas

Anonymous said...

This story is so BIG even Fox News is showing it as a back stab to Pope Benedict!!!!!

João Araújo said...

As a gay guy that only stayed in the Church and followed her teachings about chastity because of the Latin Mass, I'm beyond hurt and angry.

As far as I'm concerned, my relationship with the Church is over. Y'all can blame evil trads all you want, but I'm not one of them. I feel like a complete fool for staying as long as I have.

Over the past few years, I've donated tens of thousands of dollars for various parochial and diocesan projects, and in return people like Mark Thomas, whom I do not know, accuse me of, "reject[ing] Vatican II/liturgical reform" and told that for "unity's sake" the one thing that made my sacrifices worth it is gone.

I'll never go back to church, and I'm cancelling my donations to my parish and diocese. It's sad, because my diocese is aging and can't afford to keep losing young people. Oh well. I don't care anymore. As more parishes close and my home country (Brasil) becomes a protestant country, I hope that "unity" proves worth it.

(I will also not be reading responses to this comment at this time.)

James Ignatius McAuley said...

Father Allan,

As a Ukrainian Greek Catholic, I was shocked when I read the Moto Proprio and accompanying letter this morning. I do not have a dog in the fight, but I can tell you on both the Byzantine Catholic and Orthodox sides, there are many who are glad that the Eastern Churches are in schism because otherwise Rome would interfere with our liturgy. I realize there are some who would say that would not be the case, but Aiden Nichols OP has well documented this horrific history of imposed Latinization in his book "Rome and the Eastern Churches." Unpleasant reading, to say the least.

I suspect that we will have some Latin refugees at our Church. If one branch of the church will not welcome and care for its sheep, we will protect those who God sends to us for care.

In any event, I am grateful to only be communion with the Bishop of Rome, who is supposed to preside over the Church that presides in charity per Ignatius of Antioch.

The Egyptian said...

Dr. Taylor Marshall said pope Francis wants to corral us into one area this way we can all be controlled this includes the FSSP and the institute of Christ the King.

This is the actions of a Marxist. push those you don't like into a ghetto, so as to control and slowly strangle, to marginalize and do away with with out directly killing.

All along this man has acted and talked like a Marxist this is just more of his true colors showing, bitter and vindictive.

I'm done, I have suffered through scalded cat quartets strumming guitars, sloppy servers and showoff severettes, egotistical priests, polyester nightmare nuns, slipshod religious ed, hootenanny masses, insipid lets all hug sermons, glory hog deacons, Bishops collection after bishops fund drives,most of which have been needed to help pay the "damages" done by problem priests, Pachamamma, and every other kind of crap and destruction all in the name of the "spirit" of Vatican 2.
Now this, I'm done, sadly since there is no SSPX parish near me I will not be regularly attending mass I guess.

And Mark Thomas, I'm not an regular attendee of TLMs, just happen to like to go to one 2 or 3 times a year. Frank the hippy pope can take hike!

Anonymous said...

Well, if FAUX News is calling it a stab in the back to Pope Benedict, then you KNOW it has to be true...... Um, wait, no...... Sorry, wrong network...

ByzRus said...

James Ignatius McAuley

I'm not familiar with Aidan Nichols writings though I am familiar with that name. Juridically, the Byzantine/Greek Catholic Church of the Ruthenians is sui iuris, self governing. Like the others, I am unaware of any irregularity as to status within the aggregate Catholic Communion - certainly nothing schismatic.

Regarding acceptance, like any other church within the aggregate Catholic Communion, the Ruthenians welcome any and all however, as I mentioned earlier, it should be in the spirit of seeking an Eastern Christian experience, not trying to hybridize one rite with the characteristics, liturgy and/or liturgical practice of another. In other words, please come and participate in our parish life and liturgy but, please do not expect that life and liturgy to introduce components foreign to our tradition.

Last, with regard to the Eastern Churches, VII, as you might recall, instructed that the various churches rediscover and employ their traditional practices effectively calling for Latinizations that had crept in over the years to be removed as specific to the Roman Church and external from that particular Church's tradition.

Pierre said...

I saw where in the Archdiocese of Detroit, San Francisco and New Orleans the status quo will be followed. Hopefully this mean spirited and vile motu proprio will be ignored

Michael A said...

Anon 2:15. Thank you for the information about Dr. Taylor Marshall. A great presentation. I needed it and I highly recommend it too.

Pope Francis/Cardinal Bergoglio has had this in his cross-hairs since 2007. I don't know how many traditional Catholics haunted his dreams down in Argentina, but I think he was determined to cancel the Latin Mass since his ordination. Nothing that any right winger did/has done motivated this. The tone of the decree delivers that message. It seethes with a hostility that is disturbing. It's written in the same extreme left-wing style as the decree that sentenced Father Altman. The man who wrote it had an axe to grind and he's done it so well there ain’t much blade left.

He gave some lip service to the abuses of the New Order Mass but he has no directives in this decree that addresses them. He claims to be concerned about them but has he done anything to discipline irreverent liturgical practices in 8 years? I desire more reverential Masses more so than a need for the TLM and sadly this ruling moves us further away from that possibility. To me Latin Mass serves as a great ballast to liturgical abuse and with that now torn away, I think we are back to having some good ole liturgical dancers show up again. If he would have written a couple of articles on proper Mass celebration this proclamation might be a little easier to swallow. The good news is that when you forcefully forbid something it creates a curiosity about it and he probably has helped to strengthen a Latin Mass movement. I'll try to do my part by keep helping the FSSP.

ByzRus said...

I read the comment of Unknown @ 4:15 and I think to myself, ok, here's someone trying to live by the precepts of the Church and the TLM was helping him to do it successfully. So along comes today's Motu Proprio, and despite the true ramifications of localized limitations and policy not being known with certainty, I'm wondering how possibly this act of "mercy" (or, at least the optics of it) benefitted ALL of the souls for which the Holy Father is responsible. How does this person, trying his best per the provided account, still fit into the field hospital that, thematically has been part of this pontificate?

Perhaps folks like Mark Thomas can put aside the quotations long enough to consider the ramifications of this from a human, or pastoral perspective. There's blame all around in the Church. VII is wearying and honestly, it feels somehow like an impediment to salvation. Perhaps today's actions, compounded with many, many others in the last 50+ years, are miss-directed relative to those who really need care.

Anonymous said...

Don’t be angry but pray for the conversion of Pope Francis!

Anonymous said...

In the future years to come Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre will be raised to our altars as a saint and Pope Francis will be nothing more than a crusher of the faith, so it is written so let it be done. Many of us here knew right then and there when he appeared on the balcony of Saint Peter’s and found out who it was as the new Pope there was a gasp and we knew the doom and gloom that was about to come to our side It took a few years but today he struck and struck hard. At this point many of us just want to be left alone and attend the Traditional Latin Mass and just wait for something good to happen in Rome.

Anonymous said...

I myself fled to a Anglican-Catholic parish A couple of years ago, mass is in Latin altar boys only, Gregorian chant, incense, bells, kneeling and receiving communion on the tongue, Mozart, Palestrina, Haydn, organ music, High Mass with priest, Deacon, subdeacon, it was a hard decision for me, but in my city I have no FSSP or SSPX or institute of Christ the King to go to. I don’t receive holy communion there because I am not an Anglican Catholic, but just to attend the mass is a beautiful thing and gives me hope that one day the traditional Latin mass will return to the Roman Catholic Church more than likely not in my lifetime I’m not that old but I’m realistic, such a sad day for many of us.

johnnyc said...

Not really about liturgy. It's that Traditionalists are strident in defending the teachings of Jesus Christ that the liberals dissent from. Obviously he must know that suppressing the Latin Mass is not going to convert Traditionalists to modernism so it seems more of a punishment. Pretty telling that he's not concerned about unity when it comes to the German church, priests like James Martin and Biden et al who openly dissent from the teachings of Jesus. I am blessed to have SSPX within reasonable driving distance if my bishop suppresses the Latin Mass. I see liberals now talking about following Holy Spirit and God's will. lol Perhaps it is God's will to bestow graces and blessings on the SSPX?

Anonymous said...

You must understand why Francis did this, because the TLM and traditional communities are growing by leaps and bounds, TLM parishes are packed with young people and many many children, F.S.S.P. Institute of Christ The King and S.S.P.X. seminaries have waiting lists a mile long of young men waiting to get in, he knows all of this and that is why today he pulled out his sword. But you know all he did was make us more stronger and devoted to Christ and the True Mass of All Times. One would think when you see such churches packed with young couples and so many children he would be elated for the Church, yet he uses his power to crush the TLM in one day. I too saw Dr.Taylor Marshall on his YouTube channel today addressing this and I took solice in his presentation to not be angry, bitter and just go to your TLM Mass and go to confession, I also feel bad for His Holiness Pope Benedict the XVI who gave us the Moto Propio freeing the TLM for us, it just shows how mean this man can be.

Anonymous said...

The Remnant Newspaper online has a very good article by Peter Kwasniewski PhD about today's Atomic bomb from Pope Francis, it is worth reading it at The Remnant Newspaper online.

Anonymous said...

Well, Catholics are not the only ones that have had 'liturgical wars" over the years, EF vs. OF.The Episcopal Church had that battle years ago, the old 1928 Prayer Book versus the more modern 1979 one (the latter influenced by Vatican 2 according to what an Episcopal bishop tole me years ago---in fact their Rite 1 Eucharist is very similar to our OF). Some bishops still allow the 1928 Prayer Book, in isolated instances, but of all places, Alabama (the Diocese of Alabama, which includes the central and southern parts of the state), their new female bishop has asked the clergy of the diocesan cathedral to go completely with the 1979 Prayer Book, something that has not gone over too well with the "Low Church" Cathedral of the Advent (the largest Episcopal parish in Alabama and one of the largest ones in the country). In Savannah, St. John's Church still uses the 1928 Prayer Book with the permission of the Savannah-area Episcopal bishop. I agree with the vat majority of bloggers here, no reason to make celebration of the EF more difficult---if other denominations can live with different rites, so can we.

johnnyc said...

Not about unity either. We have spanish mass, polish mass, vietnamese, italian, etc but we can't have latin the one language mentioned specifically in V2 lol. Ain't about 'mean trads' either lol.....Let's not forget the ugliness directed towards Pope Benedict for freeing the Latin Mass. The liberals knew what the Latin Mass represented....better catechized Catholics who would call out their attempt to change the teachings of Jesus. Nah this is about the liberals and modernists angry because the Traditionalists knew The Faith.

James Ignatius McAuley said...


Latin refugees may keep their private devotions, but in our public liturgical celebrations we are by the book. Some people cannot make the adjustment leave. Those who stay we Byzantinize. I think the only Latinization that survives in my parish is the existence of a Holy Water font and it was a Greek Orthodox parishioner who fought for its survival.

Happy Liberal said...

Now that Francis has nullified Summorum Pontificum, the next thing he must do is nullify Humane Vitae.

johnnyc said...

I should reiterate that it is about liturgy indirectly. As I said Traditionalist are better catechized and more strident in defending the teachings of Jesus. That is because Liturgy is the highest form of catechesis and, of course, Traditionalists attend the beautiful and generally more reverent TLM. So it makes sense that the liberals would remove something that brings light to their shenanigans. And again...Pope Francis and/or his handlers know that Traditionalists are not going to convert to modernism through this action so it ain't about unity either. So what it really comes down to is angry liberals getting back at Traditionalists for evangelizing young people and people in general to the One True Faith. They have the power to do so.....for now.

Check out the first reading in the OF this Sunday.....Jeremiah 23:1-6 lol

Православный физик said...


He is and ever shall be!

I agree with you whole heartedly, IF one does to come East, do not bring one's anger, bitterness, etc, Come because one loves Christ and seek to grow closer to Him, embrace the traditions that are Eastern.

My thoughts can be summarised as follows "A papacy that is big enough to grant every wish, is also big enough to take it all away"

Православный физик said...

My thoughts on His Humbleness’ Motu Proprio

I often hear it said that the biggest enemy to there being more Roman Catholics are Roman Catholics themselves. I can agree to that to a point, but I really do not like playing the victim blame game, or the victim card. One can’t control what people think, it seems to me quite petty because of the opinions of a few to full atomic bomb and go after the Liturgy.
Yet at the same time my first initial reaction was laughter. Not so much as such at the act. It doesn’t surprise me that he did this, just that it took so long after pachamana.
A papacy that is large enough to grant your every wish, is large enough to take it away. The abuse of papal power goes back decades, this is really the culmination of said abuse of power. Pope Benedict XVI by restoring permission to the priest actually undid an injustice and abuse of power from the previous pontiffs. If one is ordained in the Roman church, one should be able to celebrate any usage of the missal without question.
The very audacity to believe that one has the power to overturn liturgical praxis, and impose a rite is foreign to the history of the Church, in particular when East and West was united. Am I implying that the imposition of the Tridentine Mass on the whole of the Roman church was wrong? Absolutely! Rome should not be micromanaging all the things. They barely have enough energy to manage their own affairs within Rome, let alone everyone else. Communion doesn’t mean micromanagement. Mozebaric, Braga, Lisbon, Toledo, Lyon, York, Sarum, Milan, just to name a few, (not to mention religious orders), Rome wasn’t the only Liturgy in town, let alone the Eastern Liturgies…if one can be axed, so can the others. .
There are many many many issues that are not absolute in terms of a dogma for the west, and those issues there can be legit disagreement, even Vatican II itself to some point. As I alluded to earlier, one should not be punished for having different opinions to the popular narrative. I may not agree with all the opinions for whatever reason, but they have a right to them, whether we like it or not.
The pope in doing this is making people who don’t like him, that much more…It strikes me as a bad thing to do.
The modern Roman Liturgy, while I would love to say is in continuity with all that precedes it, I do not think it is the mechanism to restore unity to the west. There will come a point where the TLM will have to be allowed fully in the vernacular. (Which one could argue is the only thing that should have been done in the first place)…But sadly, it’s going to take a lot of destruction before that point is reached,
I pray for the pope of Rome to come to his senses…sooner rather than later.

Anonymous 2 said...

I am still processing this development and therefore do not yet have an informed opinion about it. However, I have just read the following article and have a question: Do you think the author’s experiences are common or exceptional?

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

A 2, I read the article and understand where he is coming from but in both ways he is elitist. He found the light in the EF Mass and then he found out he was arrogant and still is even though he doesn’t attend it anymore. It is a personality defect that can’t be blamed on either form of the Mass and we all have it to one extent or another.

The problem though is that the reform of the Mass went off the rails very quickly after the 1970 missal was promulgated. Time and time again Pope Paul VI begged that the new missal’s rubrics be followed and not improvised. The music introduced into the Mass was atrocious and everyone was pleased or displeased simultaneously.

Today the music is better and obedience to the form of the Mass better too, but there are things missing which could easily be recovered in terms of reverence without changing the OF missal dramatically. No one in authority including the pope wants to do that. I have always insisted that the way forward is what the Ordinariate’s Divine Worship, the Missal has and it was promulgated by Pope Francis!

Three things though, would go a long way—-requiring all the propers to be said or chanted; ad orientem and kneeling for Holy Communion—no other change to the missal.

But, this is the kicker, the pope has the German Church advocating for women priests, homosexual marriage and transgender ideologies. This is the biggest threat to the Church’s unity as bishops are promoting it. yet he is mild in his criticism and endorses their process. It is a scandal that he picks on the traditionalists and gives the heterodox a pass.

Anonymous 2 said...

Father McDonald,

Thank you for your response. Those are all good points, but I am still left wondering: how common are the various attitudes the author experienced?

In processing the development severely restricting use of the EF, my starting point is that both forms should be permitted without undue restriction. But clearly if a substantial number of those adhering to the EF look down upon and disparage those adhering to the OF (and vice-versa), that would seem to be a problem that needs to be addressed. Mutually demonizing narratives are not helpful or healthy. Only if this is in fact the case, though, would we then need to ask what the best solution might be.

Is it your sense that a substantial number of those adhering to the EF do look down upon and disparage those adhering to the OF? And if so, would the reforms to the OF you advocate change this attitude?

I believe that someone on this thread referenced the first Sunday reading this week. But isn’t the second reading even more appropriate?