Skip to comments.The thread from which Summorum Pontificum hangs
Posted on 08/08/2013 5:20:08 PM PDT by ebb tide
On August 6th, Andrea Tornielli of "Vatican Insider" published an interview with Fr. Alessandro Apollonio, the Procurator General of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate, in which they discussed the Holy See's recent decision to restrict the order's use of the so-called "Extraordinary Form."
The decree issued by the Congregation for Religious, with the approval of Pope Francis, reads in part:
"The Holy Father Francis has directed that every religious of the congregation of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate is required to celebrate the liturgy according to the ordinary rite and that, if the occasion should arise, the use of the extraordinary form (Vetus Ordo) must be explicitly authorized by the competent authorities, for every religious and/or community that makes the request."
After some initial confusion, the picture is becoming more clear, and let's just say, it ain't real pretty.
In his interview with Tornielli, Fr. Apollonio said, "Fr. Lombardi has clearly stated that the decisions taken regarding our Institute are not a disavowal of the Motu Proprio [Summorum Pontificum.] However,..."
Please allow me to translate these carefully chosen words:
In spite of Fr. Lombardi's claim to the contrary, the restriction being placed on the traditional liturgy is precisely that, a restriction, the likes of which are expressly nullified in Summorum Pontificum wherein it states with regard to the celebration of the ancient rite, "The priest has no need for permission from the Apostolic See or from his Ordinary."
Fr. Apollonio then suggests a rather obvious and as yet unanswered question: From whom precisely are the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate now required to seek "explicit" permission in order to celebrate the traditional Mass?
For my part, I'm even more interested in discovering the answer to a question that far too few seem to be asking:
Permission to celebrate the traditional Mass will either be granted, or denied, based upon what criteria?
Only a fool can be confident that this same, or a similar, criteria won't eventually end up being applied in the regulation of the traditional Mass in dioceses (and parishes) wherein the local ordinary (or pastor) is either ambivalent or hostile toward the ancient rite. And why not? Rome has given such men (if they ever really cared about the mind of the pope in the first place) all they need to claim justification for doing so.
Look, Summorum Pontificum was a tremendous gift, but let's be honest, it has from day one been a less than perfect solution to what Cardinal Ratzinger once described as the "banal on the spot fabrication" that is the Novus Ordo.
Furthermore, those bishops who went-along-just-to-get-along with Summorum only reluctantly, or one might even speak of those who merely tolerated it, did so in large measure in deference to Benedict's personal affinity for the ancient rite. (More on that in a moment.) This was apparently even true of the very men who worked in the Roman Curia during his papacy.
When asked by Tornielli whether it is "true that before the apostolic visit, the Ecclesia Dei commission had cautioned the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate to be prudent in their use of the old missal," Fr. Apollonio answered, "Yes, we tried to be as prudent and discreet as possible..."
One cannot help but wonder why it would ever be necessary to exercise "prudence" in such a matter, offering this centuries old, ever-valid and eminently praiseworthy rite of the Catholic Church only with "discretion"? The very idea is utter madness.
The bottom line is this: From the very moment Summorum Pontificum was issued, the powers-that-be in Rome, Pope Benedict included, have ever been at pains to prop up the Novus Ordo Missae, careful to paint it as an equal to the Usus Antiquior, (thus the clumsy labels "Ordinary Form / Extraordinary Form") that differed only in externals, like paint colors on an automobile, with the underlying suggestion being that the Mass of Paul VI is utterly beyond reproach.
Even so, anyone who took the time to read Pope Benedict's writings on the Mass, in particular as presented in "The Spirit of the Liturgy" written as Cardinal Ratzinger in the year 2000, realized that the former Pontiff himself didn't view the two "uses" as mere equals.
This brings us to the elephant in the room; neither does the current pope view them as equals, difference being, however, he seems rather obviously to hold the exact opposite opinion as his predecessor.
And that, my friends, is the thread from which Summorum Pontificum now hangs.
This is precisely why, I suspect, we are witnessing from the Holy See the re-emergence of the pre-Summorum suggestion that the Novus Ordo Missae is in some way superior to the traditional Mass that it supplanted, an inverted notion of reality that subtly makes itself known in the decree pertaining to the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate.
Two weeks before Pope Benedict XVI formally abdicated, I wrote the following:
We will know what the immediate future holds for the Church based upon just one observation; namely, the liturgical mindset of Pope Benedict's successor. If the man who is chosen has a distaste for the Traditional Mass, then rest assured, regardless of any apparent orthodox bona fides the new pope may have, the modernists will succeed in making Catholic life difficult. If, however, they elect a man who loves the Tridentine Rite, celebrates it often, and continues to do so as pope, know for a fact that while tribulation is most certainly coming, we are moving in the right direction.
Now, nearly five months into the papacy of Pope Francis, I stand firmly by that assessment.
© Louie Verrecchio
hey guys I’m a (honorary) Baptist not a Roman Catholic but I agree it looks, brothers and sisters, like there is a problem here. the word of the Lord is not ‘yes and no.’
I have to disagree a little. At least the way I see it, it's not that Pope Francis sees the Novus Ordo as superior to the EF, it's that Pope Francis sees liturgy altogether as a distraction from the Church's mission. If it was easier to use the EF, and get rid of the NO, he'd do that. It just happens, that is not easier. I almost imagine he's just assume get rid of Mass altogether and replace it with something, "more productive."
“I almost imagine he’s just assume get rid of Mass altogether and replace it with something, “more productive.”
You may be on to something. I’ve never seen an archbishop or Pope who is adverse to personally offering Holy Communion at his Masses.
Wow, and I thought the thread was already terrible and then you have to add your spurious opinion.
I don’t know which is worth. Catholic reporting on FR or Catholic reporting on the MSM.
Which church do you belong to?
Roman Catholic Church. How about you?
What did I do? I just said what I observed.
Same. Got any citations to back up your opinion?
Observed? You’ve been to mass with the pope?
You first, Bub.
You’re the one making the assertion that Pope Francis doesn’t like to perform mass... Where’s the evidence for this?
Didn’t say that. What I said was that he refuses to distribute Holy Communion at his Masses.
Look it up.
Your job is to prove that statement. Show me.
Your source does not support your conclusion.
1. It was written less than 8 weeks into the papacy of Pope Francis. Apparently we can pick up his habits this early on into his papacy and form solid conclusions about them.
2. You oddly neglected to correctly distinguish between the consecration of the blessed sacrament. Francis, in every one of the masses he performs the consecration. What he sometimes refrains from doing is distributing the sacrament.
Why? As your own source says:
“He doesn’t wish to provide the photo opportunity by which those who are manifest sinners can use to justify their conduct”.
Something you did not manage to say earlier.
Your source needs to do some serious research into Catholicism so that they can properly understand what ‘consecration’ means.
You know what bugs me about all this traditionalist navel-gazing? There’s a disturbingly ultramontanist tendency to minutely dissect every little statement and preference of Pope Francis and treat him as this superhuman legislator who can change the entire direction of the Church on a whim.
Does it make any difference what Francis’s opinion of the traditional Mass is? Really?
Summorum Pontificum is the law of the land. The 1962 Missal was never abrogated. Period. So let’s use its provisions to push as hard as we can for continued growth of the Latin Mass. And then if anyone—bishop or Pope—tries to curtail that, we patiently but firmly say at every turn “Sorry Your Excellency, this Mass is part of our right and heritage as Catholics and we are sticking to it.”
That’s it. No stomping our feet, no whining, no schism, just stick to what is right and don’t be cowed, and don’t let your obedience to the Teaching Authority of the Church make you forget that that authority has its due limitations, which *need to be respected* by the Pope and everyone else.
The whole reason we are in this mess is that too many of us just laid down and took it when Paul VI and the bishops completely gutted the Mass of the Ages. We are wrong, and foolish, as Catholics to act like the Pope is an absolutist monarch who can do whatever he wants with regard to the sacred liturgy. That idea has already done untold damage to the Church. Let’s abolish that from your minds, and start thinking of the Pope—and all of us really—as *custodians* of sacred tradition.
I get what you're saying, but the bishops--good, bad, indifferent--aren't really even in the picture anymore according to the law. If a group comes together with a priest willing to say it...bam. That's all you need.
Now, I realize that bishops can make it uncomfortable and in some cases prohibitive to say the Latin Mass, but we have to shake off this indolent overreliance on centralized authority and just put out into the deep. We have to stop acting like we still have to grovel for the thing, instead of boldly claiming a right that all of us are entitled to.
The "law" was just a written statement" Then-Cardinal Bergoglio didn't follow the motu proprio, and neither did any other bishop who didn't want to. And bishops can suppress it and do.
“Summorum Pontificum is the law of the land. The 1962 Missal was never abrogated. Period.”
Nope; it’s not the law of the land. Not anymore, with the new sheriff in town. Ask the Franciscans of the Immaculate.
“You oddly neglected to correctly distinguish between the consecration of the blessed sacrament.”
Now you’re grasping at straws. The Consecration was never mentioned in any of my posts.
P.S. “Blessed Sacrament” should be capitalized if you truly believe in transubstantiation. So I now have a good idea about you.
“The Consecration was never mentioned in any of my posts.”
You used the phrase, ‘offered mass’. Your source stated that while Pope Francis performed the consecration, he allowed others to distribute the mass. This is the distinction you did not make.
“So I now have a good idea about you.”
Oh. Perhaps you should share with the rest of us rather than merely insinuating that my Catholicism is less pure than yours.
No thanks. I keep most of my ideas about other people to myself.
Once again, you’re grasping at straws. Any priest who offers a Mass must perform the Consecration. Don’t you know better? Otherwise It’s not a Mass!
“No thanks. I keep most of my ideas about other people to myself.”
I am encouraging you to be forthright. This is your chance.
In any case, ask Cronos, ask Salvation. I have always defended the Blessed Sacrament. I believe in the Real Presence (which is the actual doctrine), you were questioning.
“Any priest who offers a Mass must perform the Consecration. Dont you know better? Otherwise Its not a Mass!”
You claimed that ‘Pope Francis was refusing to offer mass’ earlier up. Are you now recanting what you said earlier?
Quote me in full context. Otherwise, grow up and learn your religion.
I did. You explicitly said that Pope Francis, “does not offer mass”. I proved that this was false, from your own source.
Your own source explicitly states that Francis does the consecration but sometimes has others distribute.
Why did you never say this?
Please identify which specific post I said what you are saying I said. Thanks in advance.
Otherwise, I’m not holding my breath for an apology from you.
What part of full context do you not understand? You paraphrased me.
Didn’t you just insinuate that I didn’t believe in the Real Presence?
Seems to me like I’m the one owed an apology. Anytime is good.
“Ive never seen an archbishop or Pope who is adverse to personally offering Holy Communion at his Masses”
This is what you’ve said.
I challenged this assessment. You cite a source demonstrating that while Francis does personally offer Holy Communion (in performing the consecration), that he sometimes chooses not to distribute it.
You used ‘offer’. I haven’t distorted anything that you’ve said, while you’ve impigned on the character of a fellow Catholic, as well as attacked Pope Francis.
Post number 5. Along with the one where you agreed with the fellow saying that ‘he believed that Pope Francis wanted to replace the mass altogether’.
And you call yourself a Catholic? Wow. Sad. I’ve seen other Catholics like you, but rarely do they attack Francis so openly. Sounds to me like you need to go join SSPX.
“Isnt that nice! And hes worried about photo ops? Gimme a break! He lives for them.”
Go join SSPX, Lefebevre.
“Go join SSPX, Lefebevre.”
Whoever taught you how to spell must have also taught you your religion.
Hark, I hear a schismatic!
“You cite a source demonstrating that while Francis does personally offer Holy Communion (in performing the consecration), that he sometimes chooses not to distribute it.”
When you’re talking about Holy Communion, and if you truly believe in the Real Presence, you wouldn’t refer to the Sacred Species, as “it”. You are doing nothing but reenforcing my ideas about you.
And I don’t consider you to be a fellow Catholic; just like I don’t consider Nancy Pelosi to be a fellow Catholic.
Where is he? I don’t hear him.
What was that schismatic?
You opened up this by agreeing with someone saying that ‘Maybe Pope Francis wants to replace the mass altogether’. As in not celebrate it ever.
That is a serious accusation!
You’re accusing Francis of heresy. Do you not see this? Do you not understand why any practicing Catholic who has submitted to Rome is offended by it?
“I dont consider Nancy Pelosi to be a fellow Catholic.”
Good, I don’t have much patience for schismatics who attack Francis and make wild unsubstantiated allegations. Why would I be concerned that a schismatic would consider himself out of communion with me? That’s a mark of honor.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Right, because I believe that marriage is a sacrament. You can’t get rebaptized and you can’t get remarried with a living spouse. Deviations from this principle erode the sacrament.
What’s your explanation for attributing heresy to Francis? Is he just not the pope for you? I’m told there are plenty of protestants that believe the exact same thing. Some of them have their own popes.
You should join them since you don’t seem to like Francis very much.
“Whats your explanation for attributing heresy to Francis?”
Once again, please back up you accusation. In what post(s) did I accuse Pope Francis of heresy?
I already quoted the post. Several times in fact.
You didn’t post it one time. I have never accused Pope Francis of heresy.