Rorate Caeli reports this:
Basta! - Enough!
That was the tone of Francis to the bishops of France -- the first group to proceed to the periodical Ad Limina Visit to Rome met with him earlier today (it was the group of the bishops of the South of France and Eastern Catholics).
French Catholic weekly Famille Chrétienne has a summary of the visit, including this paragraph on Traditionis custodes:
Motu proprio: "It is necessary to establish a limit, and basta."
Regarding the Motu proprio Traditionis custodes, the pope, "insisted on the fact that it must be avoided that the celebration of the ancient rite be a pretext to refuse Vatican II." "A limit must be established, and basta," he insisted before the French prelates, so that a liturgical attachment will not be the façade for an ideological position. At the same time, the successor of Peter encouraged them to adopt a "paternal attitude" towards the faithful.
If bishops were doing their jobs in their particular dioceses, they should have questioned and supervised priests who were celebrating the EF Mass for the lay faithful to determine from them if the priest himself and those who attended these Masses in fact rejected Vatican II and then take steps to correct the priest and the community.
Of course that would have meant that these bishops would need to attend in choir dress, if they did not want to celebrate the EF Mass, and preach at these Masses showing pastoral solicitude toward these communities and correcting any schismatic attitudes developing in these communities concerning Vatican II.
While I know there are some radical Catholics in traditional communities as there are in progressive parishes (which by the way go way beyond what the 1970 Roman Missal requires) how many are doing this? A handful I suspect but not entire communities.
The greater problem the Holy Father needs to address as well as local bishops is the interpretation of Vatican II, is it heretical or orthodox? Enough, or Basta, I would say to heretical interpretations that pit the pre-Vatican II Church against the Post Vatican II Church.
The Holy Father could also encourage bishops to allow for celebrations of the 1970 Roman Missal in Latin and in a way that is in continuity with the Mass from which new Missal was revised.
I have posted a daily Mass in the Ordinary Form but celebrated in an EF way and in Latin except for the Liturgy of the Word as a template for moving forward.
But a part from that, the Holy Father could ask the Congregation for Divine Worship to revised the 1970’s Roman Missal to be in continuity with the Ordinariate’s Divine Worship, the Missal in terms of the options explicitly stated that ad orientem and kneeling for Holy Communion are clearly allowed and regulated, the options of the PATFOTA, revised order of the Introductory Rite, the option of the older Offertory Prayers and rubrics more in continuity with the 1962 Roman Missal as well as a revision of the Roman Calander more like the Ordinariate’s which is more like the 1962 Missal.
The look of the Missal should copy the Ordinariate’s Missal which looks more like the 1962 Missal.
Maybe the current Holy Father or his successor should say “BASTA” to the hermeneutic of rupture in terms of INTERPRETING VATICAN II and thus accepting its letter not some nebulous manipulative interpretation of its so called spirit.
Well we clergy and communities who also reject Vatican II by ignoring the mandates of Sacrosanctum Concilium and celebrate "Mass" according to their whims. They are rejecting Vatican II, no? What is Santita going to do about them? Also, what is he going to do about Catholics who reject Trent?
"Manipulative"--that's putting it mildly! DECEPTIVE and UNJUST would be a bit more like it!
Father, your very headline opens a can of worms. This is the Council that defined no new dogmas and has no anathemas!
So, in a manner of speaking, there is nothing to reject anyway--the Council has it's own built-in irrelevance.
This is the council which, AS A MATTER OF HISTORICAL RECORD, was undermined by rebellious bishops and their periti, casting aside the schemata that the Supreme Pontiff and his staff had prepared in open rebellion!
Can any Catholic with any respect for authority be BOUND to accept a "Council" so tainted with villainy as a "binding Ecumenical Council"?
Then there is the problem of the footnote to Lumen Gentium which reads, ""Taking conciliar custom into consideration and also the pastoral purpose of the present Council, the sacred Council defines as binding on the Church only those things in matters of faith and morals which it shall openly declare to be binding."
Faith and morals, by their very nature, are UNCHANGING and not subject to "evolution". No, our faith reflects a God who is the same yesterday, today and forever.
And, as you noted yourself Father, the Novus Ordo (which some here disingenuously keep insisting "IS the Traditional Mass"--yeah, sure) was concocted by a panel dominated by Protestants, led by a disgraced Freemason and only retains about 20 percent of the Traditional Mass in the first place. It is this "Mass" concoction that DEFIES Sacrosanctum Concilium by casting aside the use of Latin and stripping the Mass of its sacrificial nature that our current pope demands we adhere to as the "Mass of the Council"! Again, yeah, right.
Our Church--which I am not leaving, no matter how much it continues to leave me--STINKS from the very top, with deceit, corruption and disorder. These are not the fruits of the Holy Spirit. No, they are the fruits of a very, very opposite force.
Vatican II is rotten, stinking, festering, manipulated, deceitful, unclear hotbed of ambiguity and its fruits have destroyed our Church. No Catholic is "bound" to obey disobedience. And this "ecumenical Council" was a festival of disobedience cloaked in respectability. In truth, it reeks.
When are Catholics going to rise up and face this pope and shout, "BASTA!"?
TG, it is your mentality that might be common in some circles that has led to the Supreme Pontiff’s decision to severely limit the EF Mass. I hope you are in the minority, but if the majority of EF communities, the pope did the right thing. I have been warning for years on my blog from comments like this, that traditionalists were shooting themselves in the foot. I was wrong! They were shooting themselves in the head!
REALLY Father? Is THAT going to be your fallback position? IT HAS ALREADY BEEN DISPROVEN about all this anecdotal "evidence" against us "mean" "intolerant" traditionalists who sow division in the Church and YOU KNOW IT'S BUNK!
You've been offering the Traditional Mass long enough to know that the overwhelming majority of us treat Vatican II with respect and deference and seek common ground with the Novus Ordo establishment.
All my previous comment did was reveal the emptiness of the current mindset of our "shepherds" at the Vatican. Do you think if I met the pope I would actually have the chutzpah to repeat that to HIM?
No, no, no Father. We Traditional Catholics have been good little patsies for years and, again, YOU KNOW IT.But once in a while, the obvious needs to be pointed out and your forum seemed like a safe place to state it--or are we just supposed to keep taking the lies and remaining silent?
How long must Catholics swallow lies from their "shepherds" and remain silent? Tell me? Where is the virtue in tolerating dishonesty from the very people who owe us truth?
No Father. YOU of all people can do better than fall back on the old "blame the vicitms" game.
This whole "you brought it on yourself" canard is so old its got whiskers on it.
Nope. Not buying it and I don't think your readers are either.
You are a fine priest, but please stop trying to sell us Francis' pabulum.
This is misinformation and calumny. First, if both forms are valid then all who dislike and oppress its practice are using Vatican II as a pretext for that purpose. I am also becoming concerned that this is not his goal at all, but that he wants to remove any opposition to a much more radical agenda.
Vatican II was/is an unmittigated "pastoral" failure. A seven decades plus cradle Catholic is here to tell you so. But who you gonna believe? me, or your own eyes?
It isn’t Vatican II but an ideological implementation of first with the manner in which the Roman Missal was revised, post Vatican, the allowance of silly experimentation and change that went beyond what Vatican II taught. Pope Benedict was on the right path with his leadership of reform in continuity.
Father, I've really WANTED to believe that for a long time. But sometimes the truth stares us down and we have to stop lying to ourselves.
To curb my verbose tendencies, I'll give just one example: Since its existence, the Church has demanded that we have an OBLIGATION to assent to the truth in regards to faith.
Vatican II, in its infinite wisdom shifted the gears on that, giving mankind the "religious liberty" to embrace falsehood. Suddenly we have a "right" to be wrong.
I can play footsie with all this "reform in continuity" stuff some more but at some point, I have to get real and say, "No." NO!
We ALL have to stop lying to ourselves. This whole "The council isn't the problem but the interpretation is" lullaby isn't helping anyone.
Sad, just very, very sad. There is nothing too reject in the Council documents per se. Plenty to reject in shiffa-fa written and spoken regarding its so called spirit. I have nothing clever to add to this conversation just saying that the HF would be more in the right if he picked on Bishops who tolerate lovely Novus Ordo liturgists. Such so called clerics do more damage to the faith than the few obscure TLM militants.
Blaming the latter often and loudly will not fool any one. It is the theologian termites selling their pet theories as authentic Catholic teaching that the Holy Father needs to watch. Yes, them and the Vatican "money lenders". Get a stick Holy Father and chase after the gender bending theologians at America magazine (US) right after disciplining the Luther-loving German clerics in Roman collars. Have they been warned to stop their heretical anti-Traditionalist activities? You know, they have inflicted more damage on Vatican 2 legitimacy than the half-dozen cranky TLM attendees you worry about so much.
Fr. McDonald, you could help out and let our Pope know that in our country the Catholic President (who commands the loyalty of millions of his Catholics followers) rejects the scientific fact that life begins at conception and agitates for abortion on demand. This is a dangerous anti-life and anti-Catholic movement. It reflects on all who support Vatican Council 2 because the President and his friend Cardinal Gregory are staunch Vatican 2 supporters. Yes, I know the HF is a busy man but surely he would call our President and remind him of his faith obligation to protect the most vulnerable among us. Surely he would act if He know about this?
Nice little can of worms you've got there, Pastor.
Some might even liken it to Pandora's Box....
Why the obsession with the Tridentine PATFOTA? In a sung Mass (which is normative) they are overlaid by the singing of the Introit and they are very lengthy compared with other Uses of the Roman Rite such as the Dominican.
As for the Offertory, a glance at pre-Trent Uses (Dominican, Sarum et al. where both elements are offered together) shows that the most important prayer is the Suscipe Sancta Trinitas. In the Tridentine Use it is added almost as an afterthought, between the Lavabo and Orate Fratres, and even when the OF Offertory is used it can and should be said at this point. Since the default position of the Offertory prayers is that they be said quietly (GIRM 141-145), few will notice, and a crucial element of the Offertory will have been restored.
As for the Ordinariate missal, it's a dog's breakfast of options, and the Ordinariate priests I have met prefer the EF. I attended Fr Hunwicke's ordination (which was of course in the Novus Ordo) but for his first Mass the following day he used the Tridentine Mass. It was the rite he had used as an Anglican priest.
A joke that has been doing the rounds since the 1960s:
Pope John XXIII dies and meets St Peter at the gates of heaven. Peter does not let him in.
'But I am Pope John XXIII!'
'I know, but it's rather embarrassing. It's the Holy Spirit, you see. Apparently you invited him to your Council and he didn't turn up.'
I see a worm has shown up to offer nothing but snark
Post a Comment