AH AND UGH! SAINT AMBROSE CATHEDRAL IN DES MOINES, IOWA

 I think the “cathedra” of a cathedral is important, especially since the word cathedral comes from cathedra which is the bishop’s throne in his parish church. 

But post Vatican II nostalgia for the 3rd Century way churches and cathedrals were oriented, believed that the recovery of placing the bishop’s throne and priest’s chair dead center and higher than the altar and everything and everyone else was a great idea. Never mind that through centuries of organic development, Catholics rightfully understand that Christ is the highest and the center of the Church, not the bishop, so altars became the highest point in cathedrals and churches and thrones and chairs placed lower and to the side. 

Thanks be to God, there has been a recovery of placing thrones and chairs to the side, although in these configurations, often the altar remains lower and because of that obscured, while chairs and thrones, although to the side, are higher. What’s up with that?

Here is a before and after of the bishop’s throne at St. Ambrose Cathedral  in Des Moines:

Before:

After:

Certainly the after is far better and more beautiful, although the red color is a bit too bright and too red for my more sensible and better tastes; maybe more muted would have been better?

But then look at where this throne is situated:

In the wedding liturgy photo, even from the angle of the choir loft, the altar, because it is too forward, too small and too low, is obscured, but not the bishop’s throne, which in this wedding liturgy, is not used, since no bishop is celebrating this wedding. The entire space where the throne is situated as the primary focal point of this cathedral is wasted space when no bishop is celebrating a Mass or liturgy of some kind. 

Why in the name of God can the bishop and his majestic throne be at the highest and most predominant place in this cathedral and the altar, a symbol for Christ, is at the lowest apex in the sanctuary and insignificant looking when compared to the bishop’s throne?

The recovery of 3rd century placement of liturgical furnishings is truly backwardism in its worst form and negates the organic development for centuries that shows that Christ is the center of the Church, not the bishop or the priest.

Today, though, 15th century synodality is being recovered by Pope Francis, which will place it, synodality, at the center of the Church, not Risen Christ. 

DOES ANDREA GRILLO EXPECT ANYONE, ESPECIALLY BISHOPS, TO TAKE HIM SERIOUSLY?

This is an embarrassment for the liturgist most influential with Pope Francis, the Italian Andrea Grillo. I post a google translate of his brief Italian article about Pope Francis’ clarification/rescript of his original sloppy Traditionis C. 

What Grillo writes, though, but in a way he did not mean, but subconsciously observes, is how devastating the ideology of discontinuity is not only from the Council of Trent to Vatican II but also the devastating discontinuity between Popes St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI compared to the papacy of Pope Francis. 

Discontinuity creates chaos and we’ve had it for the last 60 years. Thanks be to Pope St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, some of that confusion dissipated and a happier course for the Church was set until Pope Benedict’s abdication and the election of Pope Francis on 03/13/13.

The other peculiar thing that Grillo writes is that the Vetus Ordo (TLM) does not allow for ritual pluralism or diversity as does the Modern Mass. This assertion is absurd. There are several “rites” in the Vetus Ordo, and one of the most famous is the Rite in Milan, which even today in its post Vatican II form is slightly different in major ways compared to the current MRM. 

Also, in the Vetus Ordo, attempts were made at inculturation and chanting the Latin parts of the Mass in a new style and in Africa with an African-centric cadence and sound! Vestments too, could have cultural differences as we have seen in pre-Vatican II Japanese and Chinese Masses. 

Pope Francis reinitiated the discontinuity prevalent in Catholic theology in the immediate aftermath of Vatican II that lasted until the election of Pope St. John Paul II in the fall of 1978.

Here’s Grillo’s commentary:

Vescovi esautorati dal Rescritto?

di Andrea Grillo

Bishops deprived of authority by the Rescript?
 by Andrea Grillo

Since following the Rescript of last February 20 there have been reactions that are hardly justifiable, if not in a logic of blindness from alignment against the current pope, I would like briefly to refute one of the positions that emerged from the debate and which rests on a sort of "forgetfulness ” about the real profile of the issue at stake.

 I leave the floor for a moment to an attentive observer like Giovanni Marcotullio, who summarized his position regarding the document as follows:

 "it must be observed that the current trend tends to reproduce (equal and opposite) the error already complainable in Summorum pontificum, and that is the dismissal of the Bishops."

 I take your summary because it seems to me calm and capable of expressing, with classical brevitas, a reservation that has emerged from various fronts, which, however, in my opinion is completely unfounded, precisely because, by overturning an originally founded argument (that of exhaustion) the nature of and applies it beyond its possible justification.

 The decisive question that had been raised for some time, starting in 2007, was that the Bishops were deprived of their authority over the liturgy, since Summorum Pontificum effectively instituted a ritual parallelism together with a parallelism of competences.  If the Bishops and the Congregation of worship were competent for the ordinary form, a Commission (Ecclesia Dei) was competent for the extraordinary form, which deprived both the Bishops and the Congregation of worship.  In fact, both the Bishops and the Congregation were bypassed in the judgment on the exercise of the "extraordinary form" of the Roman rite.  This fact, however, obviously also affected the authority over the "ordinary form", since it structurally limited its effectiveness.  There was always "another table" where someone could play relying on Roman cover.

 What is happening today cannot in any way be read as an "equal and opposite error", because there is no longer that "ritual parallelism", instituted by SP and superseded by TC, which would allow today to say to the bishops that they "have lost the authority on the extraordinary form".  The paradox is that the Bishops have never had, after 2007, an authority on the extraordinary form: the authority was guaranteed to them by Ecclesia Dei.  Today, however, they cannot have it, not because they are deprived of authority, but because there is no longer any "extraordinary form" of the Roman rite, but only one ritual form, which corresponds to the single post-conciliar ordo.  Any exception to this can be granted, for reasons of discernment or prudence, directly or indirectly, by the Apostolic See.

 If this new balance, determined by Traditionis Custodes in 2021, finds opposition in some Bishops, it is only because the Bishops continue to think with a logic of "double existing form".  Perhaps this is also due to the fact, subjectively not secondary, that in order to become Bishops, at least until 2013, many of them had to give specific proof of a particular sensitivity towards the VO: but it is equally certain that the Bishops should be convinced that they work for the unity of the Church through the single existing rite.  If they then encounter particular conditions (not in their hearts, but in their territories) then they can turn to the Holy See.  They are certainly deprived of the temptation of being able (or having to) protect at all costs any possible resistance to the Second Vatican Council: it is not part of their charisma to engage pastorally in rearguard battles.

 Last curiosity to report.  One of the captious objections to Pope Francis' latest provision is this: so much rhetoric on difference, participation and the plurality of cultures, but then in the liturgy only gestures of harsh centralism.  I think it would be helpful for everyone to read things in a more subtle way.  The VO did not admit any ritual difference, while it is the NO that has within it a possible plurality, of implementation or adaptation.  Placing the rite of Pius V in parallel with the Congolese missal is historically and theologically absurd.  When the pope says that "only one is the lex orandi" he keeps the path of plurality open.  It is those bishops who would always like to keep their foot in two shoes who do not give up the hypothesis that the Catholic Church is true only if it remains (at least at the altar) visibly Tridentine.  Liturgically, keeping your foot in both shoes is not for bishops: on this the Rescript is adamant.

IS MY ASH WEDNESDAY MASS AT SAINT GREGORY THE GREAT IN BLUFFTON, SOUTH CAROLINA, THE LOW COUNTRY, PRE-VATICAN II?????

 

This has been said to me many times over my past 43 years as a priest. Someone who has never been to a Mass that I have celebrated, where I chant the parts that pertain to the priest, will say to me after Mass that they liked the pre-Vatican II elements that I inserted into the Mass, especially the chant.

Now, keep in mind that the Mass I am celebrating is in no way the pre-Vatican II Roman Missal and it is not in Latin, whatsoever! I simply chant my parts as written and do the red! That’s it. Otherwise the music and lay participation and the various ministries of the laity are very, very, very post-Vatican II Roman Missal!

Unbeknownst to me at the time, the 4 PM Ash Wednesday Mass with their choir, which I celebrated, was live-streamed on St. Gregory’s Facebook page.

You can view the Mass I celebrated HERE as a link to their facebook page.  The Mass begins at 15:20:

MY ASH WEDNESDAY MASS AT SAINT GREGORY THE GREAT CHURCH, IN THE LOW COUNTRY OF SOUTH CAROLINA, BLUFFTON.

ONCE AGAIN THE PILLAR HITS IT OUT OF THE PARK ABOUT THE INCOHERENCE OF THE PAPACY OF POPE FRANCIS: WILL THE POPE REACT TO THE PILLAR AND SET THINGS STRAIGHT?

 

I really like the Pillar. It tells the truth to power and then power reacts. That’s great. However, Ed Condon and J.D. Flynn better watch out. Vatican II’s call for the laity to take their rightful place in the Church, like teaching the truth and reporting the truth, might be rolled back by Pope Francis if Ed Condon’s commentary which I link below is true. Pope Francis seems not so much to be enamored with the spirit of Vatican II or even its actual documents, but with the spirit of Vatican I and papal micromanagement of bishops as branch managers under the authority of the Roman Curia of which the pope is the boss. 

We all know there is a sort of incoherence, well not sort of of, radical incoherence actually, to Pope Francis’ papacy. Some would call this “Gaslighting” from the remake of a 1930’s movie in the 1940’s, a really great movie by the way and the remake better than the first one.

Press the Pillar’s title for the entire commentary. I have a money byte below the title:

Does Roche’s rescript dispense with Vatican II?

Tuesday's rescript answers some questions about Traditionis custodes, but raises even more about the reality vs theory of Pope Francis’ signature reforms.

The council’s dogmatic constitution on the Church, Lumen gentium, emphasized that within the bounds of ecclesial communion, “the pastoral office, or the habitual and daily care of their sheep, is entrusted to [the diocesan bishop] completely.”

Explaining that local bishops are successors to the apostles in their own right, the council taught that bishops are not “to be regarded as vicars of the Roman Pontiffs, for they exercise an authority that is proper to them.”

Vatican II’s texts had been understood in previous pontificates to be aimed at decentralizing ecclesiastical governance authority - in light of the Church’s theology of the episcopate - after centuries of concentrated authority in Rome - and as an essential complement to the emphasis on the papacy expressed in Vatican I.

In Christus dominus, St. Paul VI’s decree on the pastoral office of bishops, the pope who closed the Second Vatican Council emphasized that “To bishops, as successors of the Apostles, in the dioceses entrusted to them, there belongs per se all the ordinary, proper, and immediate authority which is required for the exercise of their pastoral office.”

For this reason, St. Paul VI wrote, “The general law of the Church grants the faculty to each diocesan bishop to dispense, in a particular case, the faithful over whom they legally exercise authority as often as they judge that it contributes to their spiritual welfare, except in those cases which have been especially reserved by the supreme authority of the Church.”

Yet, under Pope Francis, those special cases appear to be becoming increasingly common, even while the pope has aimed his curial reforming efforts in the opposite direction, towards “sound decentralization.”

The result appears to be a new willingness to stretch the essential link between the exercise of governance in the Church and pastoral care of souls, meant to be bound up together in the office of the diocesan bishop.

And that’s where the pope could face questions. If rescripts like the one granted to Cardinal Roche this week become a normal part of Vatican governance, it could leave Francis with a set of bishops asking whether his legacy embodies the texts of Vatican Council II, or the spirit of Vatican I.

PLEASE DON’T TELL PRECIOUS THE ALLIGATOR, who lives in my backyard lagoon, about this!

 

THE LOWLY LAYMAN, J.D. FLYNN, OF THE PILLAR, CORRECTLY POINTED OUT THAT TRADITIONIS CUSTODES WAS SLOPPILY WRITTEN AND HAD NOT GIVEN AUTHORITY TO CARDINAL ROCHE TO MICROMANAGE LOCAL BISHOPS AND TO BE THEIR BOSSS…

 

Three things are amazing about Pope Francis’ clarification and making canonically correct the role of boss over the bishops that Cardinal Roche has as Prefect of the Dicastery of Divine Worship and micromanaging local bishops and parish bulletins.

 The first is that a lowly layman who is a canonist, pointed out that Traditionis Custodes, as written, gave no canonical authority to Cardinal Roche to be the boss of bishops, priests or laymen. 

The second is that the super ultramontane blog, “Where Peter Is” was upset with J.D. Flynn and the Pillar for pointing the facts out to other lowly laymen and women through the Pillar (and to bishops too!) and thus was able to ask Cardinal Roche, the boss, for his opinion of the article. Cardinal Roche, the boss, threw a hissy fit. But then he realized J. D. Flynn was right. 

The third is related to the dismal treatment Pope Francis gave to the Dubia cardinals, but not to Fr. James Martin, SJ. Unlike the dubia cardinals, when Fr. Martin asked Pope Francis to clarify sloppy remarks he made about homosexuality being a sin, Pope Francis without hesitation and in record time made that clarification in a hand written note. How quaint. 

Then, when Cardinal Roche stormed into Pope Francis’ humble home  at the Vatican Motel 6 and pointed out that a lowly layman was correct in pointing out how sloppily written Traditionis Custodes was and that Pope Francis had to make canonically correct that Cardinal Roche is the boss of bishops when it comes to micromanaging their efforts at accompanying those who prefer the TLM and micromanaging bulletin content regarding the TLM. 

Immediately, unlike with the dubia cardinals, the Pope clarified in a canonical way what he had written sloppily in TC. Cardinal Roche is the boss!

Thus, both Cardinal Roche, the liturgical boss of bishops, thanks to the lowly layman, J.D. Flynn, understood that Flynn was right and as sloppily written as TC was, he wasn’t really the boss. Cardinal Roche let the pope know that a lowly layman, J.D. Flynn was right and the pope needed to clarify in a proper canonical way that Cardinal Roche is the boss. And the pope did! He really did!

Compare this to what a Cardinal in Quebec  recently said about priests and the synodal way:

 “Well, our main role is to be pastors. We’re not managers, we’re not the boss: We’re pastors, shepherds.” 

Pope Francis clarifies two points of ‘Traditionis custodes’

Pope Francis publishes a rescript related to the motu proprio “Traditionis custodes”, and clarifies that bishops must obtain authorization from the Holy See before granting permission for parish churches to be used for Eucharistic celebrations with the preconciliar rite and before allowing priests ordained after 16 July 2021 to use the 1962 Roman Missal.

WOW! WE CAN BLAME THE PILLAR’S JD FLYNN AS WELL AS THE BLOG, “WHERE PETER IS” FOR CARDINAL ROCHE HAVING A HISSY FIT ABOUT HIS ROLE IN MICROMANAGING BISHOPS AND PARISH BULLETINS

 I wish that “Where Peter is” would have been around when so many were complaining about the Supreme Pontiff, Pope Benedict XVI’s Summorum Pontificum and not allowing it to be implemented as written. 

I wonder why Pope Benedict did not instruct the then Prefect of the Congregation of Divine Worship to make sure bishops implemented Summorum Pontificum and made sure that the Extraordinary Form of the Mass was placed in to bulletins to indicate the times and places this Mass is celebrated. 

Here is J D Flynn’s take on Cardinal Roche seeking Pope Francis’ validation of Cardinal Roche’s ability and mandate to micromanage diocesan bishops and make sure that parish bulletins don’t advertise the TLM.

Just so you know, JD Flynn wrote a piece for the Pillar which complained about Cardinal Roche overstepping his authority since Pope Francis legislation did not give him the power to micro manage bishops in regards to TC or micromanage parish bulletins. 

“Where Peter is” was able to point out to Cardinal Roche what JD Flynn had written. The good cardinal was inflamed by the impudence  of this lay person, JD Flynn, writing about Canon Law and the pope and denigrating Cardinal Roche’s role in imposing TC on bishops and micromanaging bulletin content.

That strikes me as a bit of clericalism. But I digress. 

Cardinal Roche got Pope Francis to legislate the Prefect’s ability to micromanage local bishops and parish bulletins. 

JD Flynn is humbled to have play such a role in such an important aspect of today’s Church, her greatest problem the celebration of the TLM by faithful priests and laity. The German apostasy as well as various cardinal’s apostasy, one in this country, pales in significance to these dreadful TLM Catholics  and their bulletins who pose a greater threat to the authority of the pope:

A rescript and some canon law, if you like

 Yours in Christ,

JD Flynn
editor-in-chief
The Pillar

I woke up this morning to one of the biggest surprises of my life. 

To be honest, readers, I’m not even sure exactly where to start. I guess at the beginning.

Ok, here we go: 

You might recall that almost two weeks ago, I wrote an analysis which addressed some canonical problems - identified by me and by other canonists with whom I regularly compare notes - about the implementation of Traditionis custodes, as undertaken and overseen by the Vatican’s Dicastery for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.

The central point of that analysis was that Cardinal Arthur Roche has made some canonical claims which do not conform to canon law. Most notably, the cardinal recently told some U.S. bishops by letter that Traditionis custodescontained a kind of implicit reservation to the Apostolic See of the power to dispense from its disciplinary norms, including the prohibition of celebrating the Extraordinary Form in parish churches.

The analysis pointed out that the cardinal had seemingly overstepped his authority, because can. 87 §1 provides that a bishop is only prevented from locally dispensing with universal disciplinary laws when their dispensation is “specially reserved to the Apostolic See.” 

Since Traditionis custodes makes no mention of any special reservations, I wrote, there was not then a legal basis upon which to claim that bishops can’t dispense from the parish church requirement. I added that whether Cardinal Roche was doing so with or without the tacit consent of the pope, the cardinal was claiming authority which exceeded the limit of his dicastery’s legal mandate.

To my surprise, Cardinal Roche responded to my analysis last week. In response to a request for comment on the analysis, he told the website “Where Peter Is” that:

“It is an absurdity to think that the prefect of a dicastery would do anything other than exercise the wishes of the Holy Father as clearly outlined in their mandate and the General Norms of Praedicate Evangelium. The article in the Pillar is not really an attack on me but on the Pope’s authority which for Catholics is an astonishing act full of hubris.” 

Don’t worry, I didn’t take it personally.

But I did write a response, which I’d meant to include in this newsletter. The response, some 2,000 words worth, aimed to explain that, per can. 87, the reservation of a dispensation to the Apostolic See, rather than to the diocesan bishop, must be made explicit in the law. 

The response had footnotes and pictures and everything.

But this morning, in a rescript ex audientia sanctissimi, Pope Francis made a new law. 

The law said that “the use of a parish church or the erection of a personal parish for the celebration of the Eucharist using the Missale Romanum of 1962” is now among “dispensations specially reserved to the Apostolic See.”

That about settles it. The pope saw fit to change the law, and he did so, using the genre of legislation called the rescript ex audientia sanctissimi.

Believing, as I do, in the pope’s authority as the universal legislator of the Church, I take his special reservation of that dispensation to the Apostolic See as an important piece of clarity about the implementation of Traditionis custodes, and am grateful that bishops can better implement the law with clarity about what prerogatives are theirs, and which belong to the Dicastery for Divine Worship.

I am flummoxed, I must admit, or humbled, to see that an analysis I wrote sits on a direct trajectory that led to a change in the universal law of the Church. That doesn’t happen every day.

And there might well be traditionalist Catholics who are wishing I’d kept my trap shut. Oh well. I’m not their advocate. But I care a lot about good governance, and I call it like I see it.

—
I’ll offer a few other notes, which will get into the canonical weeds a bit. Skip ahead if that’s not your cup of tea. I won’t be offended.

Note one: 
There seems to be some question, based upon the wording of the text, about whether the pope has made new law, or whether he has authentically interpreted the original text of Traditiones custodes, or given instruction as to how it should be applied.

I’m of the mind that the pope made new law, for a few reasons.

In the first place is that the rescript ex audientia sanctissimi is a mechanism by which, among other things, the pope legislates, as Pope Francis has done before. No one would argue that the pope’s 2019 changes to the Normae de gravioribus delictis, for example, were an authentic interpretation of the law — they were a change to the law itself. This case is similar.

Second, if the pope were authentically interpreting the law as written, he would presumably say so directly, in order for the authentic character of the interpretation to be made known. And if he were giving an instruction, he would do so using the legal instrument called - believe it or not - an instruction, which, according to can. 34, “clarifies the prescripts of laws and elaborates on and determines the methods to be observed in fulfilling them.” 

Third, if the pope were interpreting the law, he would be setting an extraordinary precedent — namely, the Holy Father would be indicating that dispensations can be implicitly reserved to the Apostolic See, despite the specialiter of can. 87, and the preponderance of canonical scholarship to the contrary. 

I don’t think he’d do that, but if he did, the implications would be monumental. Plus, there is the text of the rescript itself, in which Pope Francis affirms that bishops might have already granted the newly reserved dispensations, and he does not call those acts invalid — he just says they should contact the Dicastery for Divine Worship to address them.

-
Next note: 
In 2021, the Dicastery for Divine Worship issued a document, called the Responsa ad dubia, which addressed a number of implementation questions regarding Traditionis custodes. 

While some claimed that document had binding force of law in the Church, others, including canonical scholars and canonically-trained journalists, disagreed. One scholar noted that the Dicastery for Divine Worship has itself clarified that responsa ad dubia - responses to questions - do not possess official force unless they are published in the official journals of the Church. He also noted that such responses don’t, in themselves, create new law. They are meant to help bishops apply laws in their dioceses — but when private responses deviate from the stated law, the stated law prevails.

And he noted that while the Dicastery for Divine Worship does have the prerogative to execute the law, to oversee Traditionis custodes, and to help bishops apply it, the pope did not give the dicastery the authority to authentically interpret the law — to officially explain what it means, or to write new laws.

Nevertheless, there will likely be some claims today that when the pope mentioned in his rescript the Responsa ad dubia, he was affirming that the text had had some binding legal force. But for my part, I do not actually see that in the text of the pope’s rescript. Instead, the pope affirmed this morning that the dicastery exercises vicarious administrative authority with regard to Traditionis custodes — a fact that I don’t think anyone has called into question.

And since we’re talking about the Responsa ad dubia, it’s worth noting that the 2021 text never actually claimed that the “parish church dispensation” was reserved. 

Here’s the text of the relevant section:

The Responsa asks this question: “Can the diocesan Bishop ask the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments for a dispensation from the provision of the Motu Proprio Traditionis custodes, Art. 3 § 2, and thus allow [the Extraordinary Form] in the parish church?

The answer to that question is yes, just like Roche’s dicastery said it was. 

Of course the bishop can ask the dicastery for a dispensation! The dicastery is competent for a lot of things. But that’s not the question some cardinals believed it was. It was a different question from this one: “Must the diocesan bishop petition the dicastery for a dispensation because the dispensation is reserved, or can he give it himself?”

Must the diocesan bishop petition the dicastery because the dispensation is reserved? 

“Yes,” Pope Francis answered today, “it is now.” That’s the law now. Per canon 9, it is not retroactive, but it is the law now. 

But as to the Responsa ad dubia: Even if it had binding interpretative or legislative authority - which it doesn’t - it didn't actually reserve the dispensation. It just affirmed that the dicastery had dispensing power, without actually making a formal or explicit judgment on the prerogative of the diocesan bishop.

-
Third note:
I’ve seen questions this morning about whether this particular reservation is really in keeping with the instruction of Christus dominus 8 regarding the proper prerogative of the diocesan bishop, or in accord with the pope’s vision of a more synodal and decentralized Church. 

I leave that to others to debate, but with this caveat: It’s up to the Roman pontiff to apply the Church’s doctrinal principles in law, and the See of Peter is judged by no one.  

We’ll cover reactions and debate, but from my point of view, the pope has spoken, and his law is binding. 

-
Final note:
There is, actually, a legal issue worth examining in the pope’s Feb. 21 rescript, mentioned to me this morning by a canonist who preferred not to be named. 

You might have noticed that the rescript addresses two things — the parish church issue, and the issue of the bishop’s need for permission from Rome before he permits recently ordained priests to offer the Extraordinary Form.

When Traditionis custodes was first published, the initially promulgated texts, in various languages, said that a bishop must consult with the Dicastery for Divine Worship before permitting priests ordained after the motu proprio to celebrate the older liturgy. In December 2021, Roche’s dicastery said that was actually a problem with translation, and that the official Latin edition, which had not previously been released, required that bishops do more than consult — that they needed to get permission from the dicastery before letting newly ordained priests offer the older Mass.

All of that was a bit controversial, and some people cried foul about the appearance of a switch from the published versions of the text to a suddenly emerging official version with a different meaning.

The Feb. 21 rescript apparently aims to address that — it says that with regard to “the granting of permission to priests ordained after the publication of Motu proprio Traditionis custodes to celebrate with the Missale Romanum of 1962,” the “dispensation” is “reserved in a special way to the Apostolic See.”

Here’s the question: What dispensation?

A dispensation, according to can. 85, is “the relaxation of a merely ecclesiastical law in a particular case.”

A permission is not the relaxation of a law, formally speaking — and in fact can. 59 distinguishes between “dispensations” and “permissions,” when it says they are both species of rescripts, administrative acts in law.

So what’s going on here? 

It seems clear that the pope probably means to say: “Hey. You bishops really have to get the dicastery’s permission before you allow young priests to say the old Mass.”

Fair enough.

But that’s not concretely what the law actually says, since dispensations and permissions are not the same thing. Formally speaking, the new law now refers to an unnamed dispensation - perhaps it would be formally interpreted to mean a dispensation from the requirement of obtaining permission.

In that case, today’s rescript would be saying something like this: “Hey bishops, if you want a dispensation from the requirement of asking us for a permission, you need to ask for that dispensation from us.”

I don’t know if this will be clarified or not, but I do know that what the law says, and what the pope seems to mean are not nearly aligned in the text.

-
Ok, just one more thing:
Some of you might be asking what any of this has to do with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

It’s a very fair question. Canonists have to answer it all the time. 

And for me, the answer is this – Our law is meant to order our ecclesial society in such a way that grace, faith, and charisms have primacy. The law is meant to ensure that we all respect one another, and respect God himself, as we work together for the mission of the Church: the proclamation of the Kingdom, the worship of God, the care of the poor.

Law aims to “safeguard the unity of God’s people.” — Pope Francis said that.

He also said that canon laws “reflect the faith” - that they’re drawn from our doctrine - and that they have a “salvific end.”

In other words, being a society of laws helps us to be a society of Christians. And because I believe the pope believes that, I think it’s worth wanting the law to be clear about what’s expected of every member of the Church. Knowing that helps us to live our vocations. Ambiguity about that leads too often to confusion, frustration, and hurt. 

Law gives us clarity, or it’s meant to, and without it, societies became afraid, sclerotic, or disenchanted.

I don’t want Christians to be disenchanted. I don’t want to be disenchanted myself, for that matter, which is why I think that it’s important curial officials observe the law, and Catholics - at least some of us - be attentive to what the law is.

Because good governance helps us become saints.

In the meantime, there may well be another round of all this. But for now, whatever Catholics think of the pope’s new legislation, I am grateful that the pope aimed to address an issue of real difficulty in the Church’s life, in the manner he judged best.

I’m grateful for Cardinal Roche, and grateful to have him as a Pillar reader. 

And I know he is right that I often have too much hubris. I will work on it this Lent, I’m sure of it.

I’m also grateful for the gift of the Church, and, as a Catholic, grateful that God has given us a pope as his vicar, and a Roman curia to assist him.  

May Our Lady, the Mirror of Justice, pray for us all.

Yours in Christ,

JD Flynn
editor-in-chief
The Pillar

GOING FORWARD, THERE IS A NEED TO RECOVER THE NOBLE WAY OF CELEBRATING THE MODERN ROMAN MISSAL BY THOSE WHO HAVE EXCLUSIVELY FOCUSED ON THE TLM…

 For many years, Fr. Z at his blog, emphasized the need to “do the red and read the black” as it concerns the Modern Roman Missal. Various parishes and religious houses who celebrate the MRM well were highlighted and praised and used as a model for priests to emulate. 

There are many fine examples of the Modern Mass being celebrated either in Latin or the vernacular, ad orientem or toward the nave. 

I think the focus now should be this, which was the focus prior to Summorum Pontificum:

1. Excellence in hymnody and chant with a penchant for enabling the laity to participate in the sung part of the Mass which pertain to them

2. Training priests to chant the priestly parts of the Mass for Sunday’s principal Mass and on more solemn or festive feast days. 

3. Training lectors, acolyte and others involved in the liturgy to take their role seriously and to carry them out solemnly with a strict dress code for lay clothing or allowance of liturgical garb. 

Here is a “low Mass” celebrated by the Dominicans. This gives you an idea of how the celebrate the simple form of the Modern Roman Missal with dignity and reverence:

OH WELL! POPE FRANCIS DOUBLES DOWN ON THE TLM; ON THE GERMAN AND OTHERS APOSTASY, NOT SO MUCH….

 

Pope Francis clarifies two points of ‘Traditionis custodes’

Pope Francis publishes a rescript related to the motu proprio “Traditionis custodes”, and clarifies that bishops must obtain authorization from the Holy See before granting permission for parish churches to be used for Eucharistic celebrations with the preconciliar rite and before allowing priests ordained after 16 July 2021 to use the 1962 Roman Missal.

By Vatican News

Pope Francis has unequivocally reiterated two precise points of Traditionis custodes. The motu proprio was released in July 2021, and redefined the norms regarding the use of the 1962 Roman Missal by restoring authority over these celebrations to the bishops.

The Pope made the clarifications in a rescript issued on Tuesday, following a private audience on Monday with the Prefect of the Dicastery for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Cardinal Arthur Roche.

Authority of Apostolic See

The two points addressed have been subject to various interpretations and recent discussions, including in the media.

These concern the use of parish churches and the possibility of establishing personal parishes for groups celebrating according to the 1962 Missal, promulgated by Pope John XXIII before the Second Vatican Council; and the use of the 1962 Missal by priests who were ordained after 16 July 2021, in other words after the publication of the motu proprio.

In his rescript, the Pope reaffirmed the text of Traditionis custodes, explaining that the document was already sufficiently clear regarding these points.

The relevant permissions fall under the authority of the local Bishop, who must seek authorization from the Dicastery for Divine Worship before issuing a decision.

According to the motu proprio, this step exercises the authority of the Holy See in the matter. The Dicastery, therefore, will decide whether or not to allow the diocesan ordinary to permit the request, depending on the circumstances.

The rescript reiterates—beyond even the most remote possibility of misunderstanding—that the two cases in question are "dispensations reserved in a special manner to the Apostolic See." Bishops are obliged to seek authorization from the Holy See.

Confirming Traditionis custodes

Pope Francis' rescript also notes, "Should a diocesan bishop have granted dispensations in the two cases mentioned above, he is obliged to inform the Dicastery for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, which will evaluate the individual cases."

Therefore, every Bishop who has conceded the use of parish churches, established personal parishes, or given the nihil obstat for the use of the 1962 Missal to priests ordained after 16 July 2021 without the assent of the Apostolic See will be required to submit a request to the Dicastery and await its response.

Finally, Pope Francis’ rescript published on Tuesday "confirms what was established" in the responses to the dubia which had emerged after the publication of Traditionis custodes. Those responses were published along with several explanatory notes on 4 December 2021.

RESCRIPTUM EX AUDIENTIA SS.MI, 21.02.2023

 The Holy Father, in the Audience granted on 20 February this year  to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect of the Dicastery for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, he confirmed the following regarding the implementation of his Motu Proprio Traditionis custodes of 16 July 2021.

 These are dispensations reserved in a special way to the Apostolic See (cf. C.I.C. can. 87 §1): the use of a parish church or the erection of a personal parish for the celebration of the Eucharist using the Missale Romanum of 1962 (cf. Traditionis custodes art. 3 §2);  the granting of the license to priests ordained after the publication of the Motu proprio Traditionis custodes to celebrate with the Missale Romanum of 1962 (cf. Traditionis custodes art. 4).

 As established by art.  7 of the Motu proprio Traditionis custodes, the Dicastery for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments exercises the authority of the Holy See in the cases mentioned above, supervising compliance with the provisions.

 If a diocesan Bishop has granted dispensations in the two cases mentioned above, he is obliged to inform the Dicastery for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments which will evaluate the individual cases.

 Furthermore, the Holy Father confirms - having already expressed his assent in the audience of 18 November 2021 - what was established in the Responsa ad dubia with the annexed Explanatory Notes of 4 December 2021.

 The Holy Father has also ordered that this Rescript be published in L'Osservatore Romano and, subsequently, in the official commentary of the Acta Apostolicae Sedis.

 From the Vatican, 20 February 2023

 Arthur Card. Roche

 Prefect

AN INTERESTING VATICAN NEWS STORY

 

On Tuesday, 21 February, the Church will celebrate the Feast of the Chair of Saint Peter. The celebration, which is traditionally observed on 22 February, has been brought forward by one day, as this year it coincides with Ash Wednesday.

The statue of St. Peter Basilica to be dressed in solemn pontifical vestments 

On the occasion, the Chair and the Statue of the Apostle in St. Peters’ Basilica will be decorated by the ornaments that traditionally enrich the celebration of this Solemnity.

Following an ancient tradition, the so-called “Sanpietrini,” the workers responsible for the upkeep of the Basilica and its art works, will dress the Bernini's famous bronze statue in solemn pontifical vestments and will install decorations and one hundred candles around it, the Fabbrica of St. Peter announced in a press release on Monday.

Pilgrims and visitors will thus be able to admire the statue of the Apostle and the suggestive "luminaria", symbolizing the Magisterium of the Supreme Pontiff.

The Feast of the Chair of St. Peter will be celebrated with a Mass presided over by the Archpriest of the Papal Basilica of St. Peter, Cardinal Mauro Gambetti O.F.M. Conv., at the Altar of the Chair, or “Cathedra”. 

YOU ROCK DR. JANET SMITH!

 I am convinced that if the attempt to suppress the 1962 Missal occurs in most dioceses and we revert to the days prior to Pope St. John Paul’s liberalism, although stringent allowance of the 1962 Missal, that there needs to be a re-enchantment of the Modern Missal with elements from the 1962 Missal which has about 1,500 years of development to that point. 

I have indicated that the Ordinariate’s optional allowance of Tridentine sensibilities in their Divine Worship, the Missal, must be granted to the normative Latin Rite Mass—it must be and it can be!

At any rate, here is Dr. Janet Hunt’s third installment of her commentary  at Crisis on the 1962 Missal and the Modern Missal. It is very good:

OPINION

The Genesis of the Novus Ordo and “Theological and Spiritual Flaws” of the TLM

Part Three of a response to Cavadini, Healy, and Weinandy's critique of the traditional Latin Mass.

• Janet E. Smith

I AM ALWAYS LEFT SCRATCHING MY HEAD OVER WHAT THE PONTIFF SAYS AND OTHERS SAY ABOUT THE PONTIFF AND THE PAPAL NUNCIO’S DENSE EVALUATION OF THE TEN YEARS OF POPE FRANCIS IS NO EXCEPTION

 Archbishop Christopher Pierre offers an in-depth apologetic for the 10 year old papacy of Pope Francis:

Ever since Vatican II we have been told about the new evangelization and the call to holiness of the laity. These two aspects of Vatican II are perhaps the two greatest aspects of Vatican II and propagating this has not always been done without conflict, but over time I think it is taking root.

The only problem is that Vatican II also weakened the institutional Church in terms of the clarity the Magisterium was to bring to rank and file Catholics so that they could become holy, live lives of holiness and be evangelizers.

Maybe the bishops and clergy and those Catholics in ghetto communities where Catholicism was the predominant religion lived insular lives. Those of us Catholics in the south’s Bible Belt did not. 

We were and still are a minority. In days past, prior to ecumenism, we had to deal with blatant anti-Catholicism, not like those in Muslim nations, but prejudice against Catholics was palpable. 

But the Church, through her parishes, but more so through her institutions like schools, universities and hospitals, evangelized in a positive way the masses although the Catholic Church was in a minority. 

The beauty and mysticism of our pre-Vatican II liturgies drew non-Catholics to the Church through our parishes and many Protestants loved going to Christmas Midnight Mass and Ash Wednesday Mass and were welcomed with open arms but not proselytized. Even in pre-Vatican II times non-Catholics were told they need not kneel at Mass if they chose not to do so.

In Augusta, there were many drawn to the Church by nuns and brothers in our schools that had immediate contact with non-Catholic children and their parents and parents and children (later in life) often converted to Catholicism. So did non-Catholic spouses. 

Our hospital in Augusta made a greater impact on a larger swath of non-Catholics and all of Augusta, Catholic and non-Catholic were proud of St. Joseph Hospital with its Sisters of St. Joseph of Corondolet. Prior to Vatican II there were up to 20 nuns in that hospital in full habit. Today that hospital has been sold to a for profit hospital, changed it name and now is a part of a larger corporation called Piedmont Hospital.

Today in Augusta there is perhaps one or two sisters at the most compared to the mid 1960’s when in the metro area there may have been upwards to 80 to 100. 

I think, though, that Catholics in my neck of the woods always integrated with the culture, be it with Protestants, Jews or those with no religion. We did not demand that everyone we know not be gay, adulterers or wife beaters. We worked and lived among a diverse reality of people and hoped to help when help was required. 

Laity are filling in but often are so confused about what the Church stands for today, that they can’t be a voice of contradiction in a world so imbued with secular ideologies opposed to religion and Divine truth which renders them ineffectual.

The confusion Pope Francis has allowed in his papacy is nothing short of madness. That must be challenged and God willing, the next pope will need to restore sanity and stability to the Magisterium and what is the Deposit of Faith and Morals of the Church as well as her anthropology upon which the Sacraments are built. 

Read the Archbishop’s papal apologetic for a confused people of God:

The Leadership of Pope Francis (Missionary Spirit; synodality; reform)

We are now in the tenth year of this Pontificate, and much has been written about Pope Francis and the way in which his Petrine Ministry is charting a course for the Church in the present age. His words and actions have been considered through the lenses of various ideological mindsets, resulting at...