Traditiones Custodes: The Hermeneutic of Arbitrariness

On February 4, Pope Francis received two priests from the Society of St. Peter who were able to express their concerns about the implementation of Traditionis Custodes. On February 11, he granted the Society of St. Peter a special decree on Traditionis Custodes.

Argentine blogger Wanderer, “ a traditional Catholic in unity with Rome,” has been running the Caminante-Wanderer blog for many years. A few days ago he published a hermeneutics of arbitrariness. In it, he tries to give a slightly different interpretation to the decree for the Society of St. Peter, with which Pope Francis largely freed this Ecclesia Dei community from the yoke of the Motu proprio Traditionis Custodes, and to draw attention to some aspects that, in his view, have not been sufficiently addressed so far have received attention.

Hermeneutic of Arbitrariness

by Wanderer

The Decree of February 11, by which Pope Francis authorized the Society of St. Peter (FSSP) and with it, it seems, the other Ecclesia Dei Institutes to use the surviving liturgical books, including the Roman Pontifical, has triggered countless comments. Few of us expected such a measure, and it came as a surprise, especially to those who claim that the pontiff was possessed of a particular hatred of the traditional liturgy. Traditions Custodes was certainly bad news and seemed to confirm this assumption: Francis is attempting to suppress the traditional liturgy and, by forbidding the use of the Roman Pontifical before liturgical reform, effectively condemns the traditionalists to extinction or to relying on one or the other to join the Society of Saint Pius in any other way, which would result in the “resignation” from the Church.

In this blog, however, we have always maintained that Pope Francis is neither a traditionalist nor a progressive on liturgical matters. He's a Jesuit, maybe the best Jesuit who ever lived, and as such he doesn't care about the liturgy. He does not understand them, for a purely practical mind is unable to understand the worship offered to God for its own sake. He is interested in politics and pastoral action. The rest is incomprehensible to him. The decree favoring the Society of Peter confirms this hypothesis.

The surprise has led many observers to speak of a kind of papal "schizophrenia": the pope issues a motu proprio fatal to the traditional liturgy and shortly thereafter opens the floodgates for a sizeable group of traditionalists to continue celebrating their Latin Masses as they want. And we must not forget that the authorization granted to the Society of St. Peter is not the first, that of the motu proprio deviates from what he himself had proclaimed. In addition to several granted by him on a personal level, and despite intense pressure, he has granted others that are public. For example, in St. Peter's Basilica, where even the rite of Paul VI. cannot be celebrated privately, according to Traditions Custodes, two solemn masses are celebrated in the traditional Rite.

The possible papal "schizophrenia" is not the only explanation for the decree. I propose the following hermeneutical keys to the papal contradiction:

1. We all know how good Pope Francis is with the language of gestures, for better or for worse. Suffice it to recall, for example, the grim and sullen face with which he can be seen in photos with Donald Trump or Mauricio Macri. With the priests of the Society of St. Peter, on the other hand, he shows a smiling and satisfied face, which suggests that the conversation took place in the best conditions and that he felt comfortable with them, and this is one of the traditionalist groups, considered the most rigid, as you can imagine.

2. The conversation is said to have lasted an hour, which is a very long time for a papal audience granted to two priests who hold important positions within the Society of St. Peter but are not its supreme authority. Perhaps a reader more knowledgeable than I can tell us whether Pope Francis frequently receives Superiors General of religious orders and congregations and, if so, how long these audiences last.

3. It is known, because it has also been published, that the origin of the audience was a letter that some priests of the Society of St. Peter sent to the Pope expressing their concern about the consequences of Traditions Custodes, and in response to the letter they were summoned to Rome to meet with the Holy Father. And I believe that the initiative for such a privilege came directly from the pope and not from a secretary of the papal household. No halfway skilled and loyal subordinate would put his superior in an embarrassing and compromising situation. Everyone knew it was a touchy and thorny subject. This fact and the two points mentioned above suggest that the Holy Father has no particular aversion to the traditional liturgy. If that were the case, it would be easy for him, plain and simple, to apply Traditions Custodes to demand what he has every right in the world to do. Or, as is his habit, he would avoid any interviews or meetings where he expects a confrontation. It should be remembered that Francis practically suspended the consistories at which cardinals and other Roman prelates meet with the pope to discuss ecclesiastical matters. Bergoglio, as Bishop of Buenos Aires, has always avoided confrontations and therefore avoids granting audiences or going to places where he foresees a difficult situation. I know a number of people who have asked for a personal audience with the Pope and have not even received an answer. The Priests of the Society of Peter were summoned to Santa Marta by Pope Francis to discuss the motu proprio.

4. To what extent can Traditiones Custodes be considered as a Franciscan manifesto against the traditional liturgy? This is certainly the first and simplest reading, but the facts on which we are commenting allow for other interpretations that were not possible until recently. Let's look at some facts:

a. The motu proprio comes from the office of Archbishop Arthur Roche and his staff. This English Archbishop was appointed by Benedict XVI. as Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and is not a liturgist, which suggests that all his liturgical knowledge and consequent bungling is the fruit of the express training he received from Andrea Grillo, and this is no exaggeration as illustrated: The text of Traditiones Custodes repeats almost verbatim many paragraphs from articles and other writings that Grillo has been publishing for at least fifteen years ( here, here and here ), and the principles on which it is based are exactly the same ones propagated by this Bolognese liturgist since Pope Ratzinger promulgated the Summorum Pontificum. In short, Traditiones Custodes was not written or conceived by Bergoglio; he merely signed what others wrote for him.

b. I don't mean to say that Bergoglio didn't know what he was doing. He knew that very well. For years he was under constant pressure from the Italian bishops, who were alarmed at the growth of the traditionalist movement and, above all, at the strong sympathy among young priests for the traditional Mass. And the Pope did not want to have any problem with the Italian bishops, especially in the midst of the excesses that he committed and still commits himself in that episcopacy (suffice it to say the recent appointment of the new Archbishop of Turin). And he gave in to the pressure.

c. Bergoglio was also aware of the American bishops' functional sympathy for conservative and traditionalist positions. Bergoglian hostility towards Americans deepened after the shocking incident of the American Bishops' Conference virtually flouting papal wishes regarding Biden and the admission of pro-abortion politicians to Communion. To obstruct the traditional Mass would be to anger Americans, which, being a good Peronist, he abhors, all the more so when it threatens his power.

5. Several traditionalist websites rightly argue that the permission given to the Society of St. Peter is an "indult" and can therefore be revoked at any time, which would prove the malice and duplicity of Francis. It is true that it is a gesture of mercy, but we should keep a few points in mind:

a. For Bergoglio, everything is a gesture of grace, even canon law. He made several reforms to the code just a few weeks ago. The only thing he hasn't changed is the Scriptures. We cannot expect him to proclaim a universal law.

b. It should be remembered that for decades the only way to celebrate the traditional Mass was by indult and that there had to be a “schism” for it to be granted. According to some scholars,  Benedict XVI's authorization given in Summorum Pontificum is also an indult. The curious thing is that with both the indults of John Paul II and Pope Ratzinger, a long time must have passed and/or extraordinary events must have taken place. The indult to the Society of St. Peter was granted immediately after an audience.

c. What other legal form was possible besides an indult? Only one: the abolition of the Missal of Paul VI, which is the only "ordinary" form of celebration of the Latin Rite. We can't expect that much.

i.e. Many believe that the Indult is a very fragile legal form and that its days are numbered. We recall, however, that this is not always the case: the Crusade Bull is an indult that has been, or is still, valid for more than eight centuries, and we traditionalist Spaniards rely on it to eat meat on Fridays. Or Communion in the hand is an indult that still applies and is unlikely to be abolished.

6. It is also said that the papal decree insists on Traditions Custodes in the last paragraph and I think this is one of the most interesting and positive aspects of the situation. There it is suggested ( suadet ) that as far as possible ( quantum fieri potest ) this motu proprio should be carefully considered ( sedulo cogitetur ) . It's something minimal, remarkably minimal. The priests of the Society of Peter are not even obliged to read Traditionis Custodes . They are just suggested to think about it, if possible.

7. It is also said that the indult was not published and is therefore of dubious validity. However, it should be noted that this is not a law that comes into force upon its publication in the country's official gazette. It is permission given to a specific group within the Church. One could make a long list of indults that have never been published and yet whose validity has not been compromised. For example, the so-called "Agatha Christie Indult," which makes it possible for the traditional Mass to continue to be celebrated in the United Kingdom under certain circumstances.

I think that the above facts lead to the conclusion that for Pope Francis, Traditions Custodes is a document of political rather than liturgical significance, while for Archbishop Roche and his collaborators in the Congregation for Divine Worship it is an eminently liturgical measure with a clear intention to destroy the traditional liturgy. Consequently, and paradoxically as it may seem, Pope Francis is our main or only advocate on liturgical questions, for whatever reason.

Precisely for this reason, it makes sense to reconsider the strategy of groups and analysts from the traditional world who, after the publication of the motu proprio, devoted themselves to the violent attacks on Francis, even committing incomprehensible mistakes, the consequences of which we are all feeling. The priests of the Society of St. Peter have shown us a path that has led to the goal.

But what is the goal we are striving for? To protect as much as possible the position that Pope Benedict XVI. has won for the traditional liturgy, to preserve it as much as possible, or to make a name for oneself with constant attacks on the Holy Father for what he does or does not do on liturgical questions? If it is the first option, we should be cautious and meek, which does not mean that we remain silent in the face of the devastation the Argentine Pope is wreaking on the Church. But it means having clear goals in mind and using the necessary common sense.

Translation: Giuseppe Nardi 

Image : Caminante Wanderer

Trans: Tancred vekronn99@hotmail.com

AMDG

Francis Celebrates Ad Orientem at Tomb of John Paul II for Centenary

(Rome) On Monday, Pope Francis celebrated the first Mass since the re-admission of public services in Italy - and that versus Deum. It should also be the last to be broadcast on the media due to the Corona crisis.

Among all the measures that have been taken because of the Coronavirus by the Church,  this was Pope Francis' most radical. In his diocese of Rome he had all services suspended on March 8th and all churches and chapels closed on March 12th. No diocese worldwide has gone this far. After only 24 hours and an impending uprising, the priests rowed back. At least the parish churches were reopened, all other churches and chapels remained closed. The Pope's diocese remained on the most radical path. The corresponding decrees were signed by Cardinal Vicar Angelo De Donatis, who heads the diocese on behalf of the Pope. The cardinal vicar is formally an auxiliary bishop who acts as vicar general. Cardinalatial dignity has been associated with this since 1558. De Donatis indicated that the order had come directly from Francis. No other would be conceivable. No vicar general would take such a drastic and historically unprecedented step on his own. Since the Vatican had hermetically sealed itself at the beginning of March, Pope Francis also celebrated without the people in the past ten weeks . Only two or three priests, a religious and an organist took part in the morning celebrations in Santa Marta. In return, the Pope's morning mass was carried over the world through direct channels. The Mass last Monday morning was the last to be broadcast because public services have been allowed again in Italy since the same day.

Franziskus at Sebastian's Altar (St. Peter's Basilica)

The direct transmissions were not concluded from Santa Marta, but from St. Peter's Basilica, namely from the Sebastian chapel. It is located in the north aisle in front of the chapel. The tomb of John Paul II has been under the altar of this chapel dedicated to the proto-martyr, since 2011. The remains of the Vatican Grottoes, the first burial place, were brought to the beatification. The canonization took place three years later, on April 27, 2014.

At the Sebastian's altar above the tomb of the Polish Pope, who ruled the Church from 1978 to 2005, Pope Francis celebrated the last of the morning Masses that were broadcast. The occasion was the 100th birthday of John Paul II, who was born on May 18, 1920 in the Polish town of Wadowice. Here Pope Francis celebrated versus Deum . It's a direction of celebration that gives his House Liturgist, Andrea Grillo, a flush of anger.

Pope Francis had already celebrated at the Sebastian Altar in the past and in each case versus Deum as an alternative to the direction of celebration that was taken for granted in Church tradition, in the direction of the rising sun, towards the returning Christ who would come from the east.

For the first time, however, the celebration was broadcast by the media on Monday, which is why the unusual direction of celebration since the great liturgical reform of 1969/70 was given special visibility. Photos of the celebration were also distributed by international press agencies such as AFP.

The tomb of John Paul II has been under the altar since 2011

It is said that the Pope celebrated "with his back" to the people, as the actual direction of celebrations has been discredited for half a century, because the previous way of things were adhered to. In plain language: There is no "people's altar" in the chapel of St. Sebastian. Another inaccurate claim, because in the past it has been demonstrated many times over how quickly a portable altar can be set up at any location. Pope Benedict XVI had one removed from the Sistine Chapel, where John Paul II usually celebrated. For the Thanksgiving Mass with the Cardinals, his first mass as Pope the day after the election, Francis had it brought back to the Sistine Chapel.

The unusual orientation for Francis  was no tribute to John Paul II. Be that as the people's altar was shuffled into the Sistine Chapel, undoubtedly the celebration versus populum is preferred.

Liturgical gestures by Benedict XVI. paid special attention because Francis knew how serious the liturgical question was to him. The media rush to judgement. Probably for the exact opposite reason of his predecessor.

Gestures that cannot really be classified are an essential feature of the current pontificate.

Text: Giuseppe Nardi 
Image: MiL

Open Letter Calling for End of Summorum Pontificum by Papal Favorite

Open letter on the “state of liturgical exception”

To all theologians,

scholars, and

students of theology [And the gay disco]

The great liturgical tradition, which has always accompanied and supported the Church in her history of grace and sin, hears the groaning of individuals and nations in this pandemic crisis, which brings suffering and affliction to those who are sick, and fear, isolation and loneliness to everyone else.  The ordinary rhythm of the Lenten and Paschal journey is altered and subverted, in solidarity with our common suffering. We would never have thought, however, that a small but not marginal suffering would also come at the same time through the exercise of ecclesial authority and through the decrees Quo magis e Cum sanctissima, which the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published on 25 March 2020.

It is no surprise that This Congregation should devote its attention to the liturgy. But special and singular is the fact that it modifies the ordines, introduces prefaces and formularies for feasts, and modifies calendars and criteria of precedence. And it does this on a 1962 missal. How is this possible? The Congregation, as is known, in this case moves in the space of an exceptional authority, which dates back 13 years, in accordance with motu proprio Summorum pontificum. But since time is greater than space, what is possible on the regulatory level is not always appropriate. Therefore, it is crucial to engage in critical reflection on the logic of this development.

Time, in fact, has unveiled to us the paradox of a competence on the liturgy being taken away from the Bishops and the Congregation of Worship: this was arranged, in Summorum pontificum, with an intention of solemn pacification and generous reconciliation, but soon it changed into a serious division, a widespread conflict, and became the symbol of a “liturgical rejection” of the Second Vatican Council. The greatest distortion of the initial intentions of the motu proprio can be seen today in those diocesan seminaries where it is expected that the future ministers will be trained at the same time in two different rites: the conciliar rite and the one that denies it. All this reached its most surreal point the day before yesterday, when the two Decrees were released. They mark the culmination of a distortion which is no longer tolerable, and which can be summed up as follows:

- the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith acts as a substitute in exercising competences conferred by the Second Vatican Council on Bishops and the Congregation for Divine Worship;

- it undertakes to elaborate “liturgical variants” of the ordines without having the historical, textual, philological and pastoral competences;

- it seems to ignore, precisely on the dogmatic level, a grave conflict between the lex orandi and the lex credendi, since it is inevitable that a dual, conflictual ritual form will lead to a significant division in the faith;

- it seems to underestimate the disruptive effect this “exception” will have on the ecclesial level, by immunizing a part of the community from the “school of prayer” that the Second Vatican Council and the liturgical reform have providentially given to the common ecclesial journey.

A “state of exception” is also happening today on the civil level, in its harsh necessity, and this fact allows us greater ecclesial foresight. To return to an ecclesial normality, we must overcome the state of liturgical exception established 13 years ago in another world, with other conditions and with other hopes, by Summorum pontificum. It no longer makes sense to deprive diocesan bishops of their liturgical powers; neither does it make sense to have an Ecclesia Dei Commission (which has in fact already been suppressed), or a Section of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith which take away authority from diocesan Bishops and the Congregation of Divine Worship; it no longer makes sense to enact decrees to “reform” a rite that is closed in the historical past, inert and crystallized, lifeless and without vigor. There can be no resuscitation for it. The double regime is over; the noble intention of SP has waned; the Lefebvrians have raised the barhigher and higher and then run away, insulting the Second Vatican Council and the present pope along with all three of his predecessors. Continuing to nourish a “state of liturgical exception” – one that was born to unite, but does nothing but divide – only leads to the shattering, privatization, and distortion of the worship of the Church. On the basis of these considerations, we resolve together to request that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith immediately withdraw the two decrees of 25/03/2020 and restore all powers concerning the liturgy to the diocesan Bishops and the Congregation for Divine Worship. Obviously, we ask this without prejudice to the powers that this Congregation retains in doctrinal matters.

So let us leave the “state of liturgical exception”. If not now, when?

With best wishes to all colleagues and students, besieged but not conquered in life, during these bitter yet still generous times.

Andrea Grillo

Pope’s House Liturgist: “Limit Access to the Traditional Rite”

Andrea Grillo, the liturgist who is heard by Pope Francis, prefers to dispose of Summorum Pontificum today rather than tomorrow and is looking for crown witnesses.

(Rome) In the spirit of its political analogues, the ecclesiastical left demands the end of freedom. The liturgical scientist Andrea Grillo, a dogged opponent of the Motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, who finds an open ear in the Italian Episcopal Conference and in Santa Marta, is calling for stricter access to the traditional rite.

The free exercise of religion for believers and especially priests of the tradition should, according to the liturgist Andrea Grillo, be restricted. As reason for his demand he identifies the Motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, that of Pope Benedict XVI., adopted in 2007. Summorum Pontificum, which have a homeland to the traditional form of the Roman rite, leads, according to Grillo, to an "ever more paralyzing embarrassment" in the Corpus ecclesiae, which is why it urgently needs a return to a unified rite - and that could only be the Novus Ordo.

Andrea Grillo teaches liturgical sciences at the Roman Pontifical Athenaeum Sant'Anselmo of the Benedictine Order. He is not an isolated gambler, but is much appreciated in Santa Marta as a kind of "house liturgist" by Pope Francis.

Hate object Summorum Pontificum

In mid-2017, he attacked Cardinal Robert Sarah, Prefect of the Roman Congregation for Worship and the Order of the Sacraments, with unbelievable severity. He insulted the Cardinal for being "incompetent" and "unsuited" for his office. At the same time, he accused Benedict XVI, whom he called only "Ratzinger", of being the cause of the Church's "failure".

Grillo's enemy image of the traditional rite

The wrath of the Novus Ordo liturgist was challenged by Cardinal Sarah's persistent call to all priests to return to the East or ad Deum celebrations, as well as Benedict XVI's. ordered reform of Missal translations in the vernacular languages.

Grillo is a key figure of the inner-Church secret commission that Pope Francis established in late 2016. He works behind the back of Cardinal Sarah, the prefect responsible, but with the consent of Pope Francis at an "ecumenical Mass". It would be the definitive "liturgical revolution" after the radical liturgical reform of 1969, as Riccardo Cascioli, the editor-in-chief of Nuova Bussola Quotidiana, wrote in June 2017.

The existence of this commission, which was revealed by the Vatican Marco Tosatti on December 26, 2016, has not been confirmed by the Vatican, but denied at the end of 2017. The corresponding rumors and hints persist, however, and do not allow any reasonable doubt as to the existence of this liturgical commission. In January 2017, Spanish columnist Francisco Fernandez de la Cigoña even revealed the names of the commissioners - including Andrea Grillo.

Grillo is one of those in the papal entourage who is worried about a "renunciation of renunciation." What if Benedict XVI, who has continued to maintain his pope's name and numerous visible signs of papal dignity, resigns from his resignation and reclaims his powers as pope? Such an option seems increasingly unlikely due to age. Nevertheless, Grillo hinted at what might happen if Pope Francis was to die and to be replaced by Benedict XVI. The fear of a possible reaction of Benedict drives the liturgist, to ever new, increasingly explosive attacks. Nothing will change that as long as the German church leader lives.

While others are silent, Cardinal Sarah replied on 6 June 2017 to the attacks against Benedict XVI .:

"The arrogance, the violence of the language, the lack of respect and the inhuman contempt for Benedict XVI. are diabolical and cover the Church with a cloak of sadness

and shame. The people destroy the Church and its deeper nature. The Christian does not fight anyone. He has no enemies to defeat. "

At the same time, he emphasized that before and after the Council, the Church was and always must be the same Church, because there is no Church with two identities.

A hard patch for the traditional rite

Italy has always been a hard patch for the traditional rite. There are several reasons for this. The Italians as a Mediterranean people are quite emotional, but not dogmatic. In addition, the bond with Rome is a matter of course. The change from Vetus to Novus Ordo was correspondingly untraumatic. And corresponding difficulties are encountered by the faithful of the traditional rite for obtaining Mass locations. The bishops are largely deaf to their wishes.

There is also another factor: the massive presence of a strictly Moscow-based Communist Party and another galaxy surrounding other Marxist parties and organizations after the Second World War made a part of Catholicism eager to seek an alliance between socialism and Christianity and to accept the corresponding politicization. As a result, the Catholic world and its institutions have gradually been interspersed and disintegrated since the 1960s.

This alliance became apparent when, on 1 June 2018, the new Italian government of the Five-Star Movement and Lega was sworn in. They took power, like family minister Lorenzo Fontana. Andrea Grillo lunged at him with incredible vehemence. What makes Fontana the hate object of a liturgist? He is opposed to abortion, mass immigration, gay marriage, gender ideology and visits Mass every Sunday in the traditional rite.

Grillo initiated a conflict  and employed choice words that were previously known only by the radical left. He cursed Fontana as a "fascist" and wrote on Twitter:

Summorum Pontificum is "fascism"

"One of the requirements for Fontana's fascism is Summorum Pontificum. Memento ... "

In other words, the "home liturgist" of Pope Francis sees Summorum Pontificum as an expression of "fascism" and implicitly also Benedict XVI. as "fascists.” Grillos' verbal derailment reveals the radical nature of the unholy fusion of left-catholicism with the left-leaning left - especially in the language. The fact that he was not condemned or even reprimanded by the episcopal side or by the university where he teaches, clarifies the drama of the inner-church situation.

Fontana reacted calmly:

"The hatred of the elites does not scare me."

Crown witness Hans Urs von Balthasar

In recent months, the attacks on Summorum Pontificum in Italy have become more conspicuous, so conspicuous. It is unclear whether this is an organized thrust. Recently, Andrea Grillo also participated in this with an essay on his blog. The blog Come se non, parked on the website of Munera - a European Cultural Magazine, highlights how pinned Grillo is to the enemy image of the Summorum Pontificum, to which numerous entries are devoted.

Hans Urs von Balthasar Little Primer for the Unsettled Laity (1980)

On February 18, he led Hans Urs von Balthasar as a witness for the necessary and legitimate "end of Vetus Ordo" in the field. In his book "Little Primer for the Unsettled Layman," published in 1980, Balthasar states "with great clarity" that the traditional rite "was definitively overcome by the liturgical reform". Balthasar writes that against all criticism of the "traditionalists", whom he accuses of "sectarian" behavior, everything ultimately speaks "for the Council Church and against the traditionalists.” The Holy Mass required an urgent renewal, especially the participatio actuosa of all believers in the sacred action, which was a matter of course in the first century. The Roman canon had remained unchanged and Communion received while standing  in the hand was common until the 9th century.

Traditionalism, on the other hand, does not lean on living theology and philosophy, and for that very reason it can not claim validity today. Balthasar refers to the view of various theologians, including Joseph Ratzinger, that the traditional rite could have survived a transitional period parallel to the Novus Ordo, but then dissolved in an "organic" way and will would completely replaced by the New Rite.

So far, these are some aspects that led Balthasar in his writing. Not only do they inspire Grillo, because Balthasar can not be dismissed as a "progressive", as the liturgist emphasizes in his remarks. It is likely to encourage him because Balthasar in his remarks is repeatedly called upon by the then theologian and Archbishop of Munich-Freising, Joseph Ratzinger.

Grillos quarantine claims

Grillo draws from this his conclusions. In "Ratzinger's autobiography,”  he attributed the liturgical form to a "supplementary character" and described the Tridentine rite in the version of 1962 as "inviolable". But Balthasar's remarks would emphasize, with reference to Ratzinger, that the liturgical reform of 1969 was an "inescapable necessity," even though the previous form of the Roman rite in a "provisional and limited" wat could continue to enjoy protection. Grillo's quintessence:

Ordinary for Liturgical Sciences at the Benedictine School of Sant'Anselmo in Rome

Professor of Liturgy at the Benedictine School of Sant'Anselmo in Rome

"If one hears the words of Balthasar again at an interval of 40 years, they point out the only possible way to get out of an increasingly paralyzing embarrassment."

From this the liturgical scientist formulates his demands:

-The upswing of liturgical reform can not take place unless all work on a single rite.

-Access to the previous rite is destined to extinguish,  and can only be performed in exceptional circumstances, under the supervision of the locally competent authority.

-The "development" of the new rite, with all the corrections and necessary promotions, can only be done at a "single table": there is no other possibility that forms two rites, one of which has arisen to replace the other, other than division, disruption and discord.

Finally, Andrea Grillo triggers the guillotine:

"He [Balthasar] knew already 40 years ago that the model of 'structural rite parallelism' was not an ecclesiastical rematch of the past versus the future, but the sectarian delirium of a past that has no future."

It is "extremely worrying" that a man like Andrea Grillo is heard by Pope Francis, said  in early 2017, the Spanish columnist Francisco Fernandez de la Cigoña.

Text: Giuseppe Nardi

Image: Munera / Come non / NLM (Screenshots)

Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com

AMDG

A Pact Between Pope Francis and the Society of Saint Pius X for the Isolation of Tradition?

Is Pope Francis preparing to eliminate the Ecclesia Dei communities with the help of the Society of Saint Pius X. 

(Rome) More and more voices are dealing with the rumors that the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei is about to be dissolved.

The two authors Fabrizio Cannone and Alessandro Rico see it as a papal maneuver to assassinate tradition from behind. Fabrizio Cannone, born in 1974, holds a Doctorate in Church History and Religious Studies, and has written for Corrispondenza Romana, Fides Catholica, Homme Nouveau and numerous other Catholic media. Most recently, he published the book: "The Inconvenient Pope. History and background of the beatification of Pius IX." (1)

Alessandro Rico, born in 1991, studied philosophy at the Sapienza and Political History of Ideas at the LUISS in Rome. In 2017 he published together with Lorenzo Castellani the book "The end of politics? Technocracy, Populism, Multiculturalism". (2) He calls himself a "Catholic, Conservative and Opponent of Political Correctness". Both are close to the Catholic tradition.

Italian Bishops Attacking Summorum Pontificum

Benedict XVI: Some Italian bishops attack Summorum Pontificum and want to erase his pontificate.

(Rome) At the autumn plenary assembly of the Italian Bishops' Conference an attempt was made to torpedo the Motu proprio Summorum Pontificum of Benedict XVI. This was reported by the traditional website Messa in Latino.

In the two Romance states bordering on the Mediterranean, Spain and Italy, there is still an understanding of close ties with Rome. It is true that in these countries, especially Spain, there were far greater concerns about the liturgical reform of 1969-70 than in the German-speaking world. 6,000 Spanish priests asked the Pope for a dispensation from the liturgical reform and permission to continue celebrating in the traditional form of the Roman rite. As Pope Paul VI.  uninterrupted, continued the liturgical reform and rejected the request, the clergy submitted obediently. Since then, tradition in these countries has found it particularly difficult to gain a foothold. Obvious "deviations" are not desired. So far in a condensed and much shortened form the historical context.

Archbishop Radaelli's attack

Archbishop Carlo Roberto Maria Radaelli of Gorizia, a canon lawyer trained at the Gregoriana, allegedly said in the plenary session of the bishops, Pope Paul VI. had abolished the Missal Romanum of Pope John XXIII. of 1962, according to which the Ecclesia Dei communities celebrate. This is the opposite of what Pope Benedict XVI. stated in the Motu proprio Summorum Pontificum  and made it the law of the universal Church.

According to Radaelli, therefore, the legal premises were wrong, among those enacted by Benedict XVI. in Summorum Pontificum. The motu proprio is therefore null and void as far as the alleged continuity is concerned, that is, the continued existence of the traditional rite in the form of 1962. Summorum Pontificum was a legal nonsense and therefore the "Tridentine" liturgy was not restored legitimately. In short: According to Archbishop Radaelli, the motu proprio has no legal validity, which is why there is no "freeing" of the traditional rite, as Benedict XVI. wanted and ordered.

The Archbishop of Gorizia's remarks are the most far-reaching attack on the Motu proprio Summorum Pontificum since Pope Benedict XVI's unexpected resignation. The German writer Martin Mosebach formulated the tough verdict in the spring of 2013: if anything at all about the pontificate of Benedict XVI. will remain, it will only be Summorum Pontificum. In other words, the attack on Summorum Pontificum wants the total annihilation of the pontificate of the eighth and for the time being, last German Pope.

Behind this is the desire of those bishops who are the most hostile to the traditional rite, ignoring requests from the faithful  for Mass locations, and even eliminating the Mass sites that have emerged since September 14, 2007.

The legal claims of Archbishop Radaelli can easily be refuted by reference to Paul VI.’ self-granted Indult. In the same way it can just as easily be proved that the continuity of the traditional rite was preserved, since it was always celebrated, that is, by no means abolished. Rather Radaelli's attack document the hostility that exists in parts of the Church against the traditional form of the Roman Rite and ultimately against Pope Benedict XVI. and his pontificate.

The secondaries

In addition to Radaelli, Luigi Girardi, the rector of the Institute for Pastoral Liturgy based at the Benedictine Abbey of Santa Giustina in Padua, also spoke up. Andrea Grillo, the progressive house liturgist of Pope Francis, who attacked only in June 2018 Summorum Pontificum also teaches there. The institute is a center of the liturgical "aggiornamento" and thus postconciliar liturgical experiments and aberrations.

Girardi is convinced that from the pastoral point of view Summorum Pontificum is "harmful" because it contradicts the will of the Council Fathers. According to Girardi, these would have demanded a radical change of the Missal. The opposite can be inferred from the Council Constitution Sarosanctum Concilium, as to whether the necessary consent to this were given.

The attack against Summorum Pontificum may not have happened spontaneously, as an Apulian bishop whose name is not known spoke in the same vein, and also Bishop Franco Giulio Brambilla of Novara. Brambilla belonged in 1989 to the signatories of the Italian version of the Cologne Declaration against Pope John Paul II by the moral theologian Bernhard Häring (see also: Pope Francis and Bernhard Häring).

Both Radaelli and Brambilla were raised by Benedict XVI. to their respective episcopal chairs.

"The Excellencies" who "worry" about changing traditions such as the Gloria and the Lord's Prayer - such a decision was taken at the autumn meeting, even though no one from among the people would have asked or felt a need - "but do not waste time analyzing the true reasons for the crisis of faith,” says the traditional website Messa in Latino. The introdiction by Pope Benedict XVI., however, to change the translation of the words of consecration of per multis from "for all" to "for many" has not implemented by the Italian bishops until today. Of liturgical sensitivity, or even sensitivity to the sensitivity of traditional faithful, which should be expected in bishops is little felt by the hierarchy. Even the scandal of "horrible episodes of homosexual abuse and pederasty," has not moved the majority of the bishops and on the evils of clerical homosexuality there is nothing.

"The case of the Franciscans of the Immaculate and the hatred of the traditional form of the Roman rite is a clear example of a mad frenzy of shipwrecking, trying to overturn even the few seaworthy craft in the Church instead of climbing aboard or building more." says Messa in Latino.

Text: Giuseppe Nardi

Picture: MiL

Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com

AMDG

"Now There is Even a Pseudo-Ratzinger" -- Sharp Attaks by Ultrabergoglians Against Benedict XVI after Meisner-Requiem

(Rome) Last Saturday the requiem and the funeral of Joachim Cardinal Meisner took place in Cologne. The emeritus Archbishop of Cologne had passed away last July 5th in his 84th year. Benedict XVI Gave greetings to the ceremony, which was read by his personal secretary, Archbishop Georg Gänswein, in Cologne Cathedral. The former Pope's message triggered violent reactions among the Ultrabergoglians.



Cardinal Meisner, who had to witness expulsion from his East German home Silesia as a child, and afterwards more than 40 years of communist dictatorship in Central Germany, is one of the four signatories of Dubia (Doubts) on the controversial post-synodal letter Amoris laetitia by Pope Francis. The four cardinals who addressed five questions to Francis in September 2016 have been regarded as the principal enemy of the papal court and convinced Bergoglians. Undaunted, Cardinal Meisner held fast to the questions which are a critique of the latest developments in the Church. He was "returned home" (Benedict XVI) without receiving from the ruling Pope his answers, and without being received by him in audience, which he had requested along with the other signatories in April.



Convicted shepherds were sought, "who resist the dictatorship of the temporal spirit"



Benedict XVI's greetings were, therefore, particularly badly received in the Pope's circle. The Pope, who had resigned in a surprise in 2013, said in Cologne that the Church "urgently, especially needs  convincted shepherds, who resist the dictatorship of the Zeitgeist, and live and think decisively from the faith."



Benedict XVI did not answer directly to the conflict of the deceased Cardinal with Pope Francis' agenda and the Dubia to Amoris laetitia. Nevertheless, he made every effort to make it clear that he saw Cardinal Meisner as such a "convicted shepherd" who resisted "the dictatorship of the Zeitgeist."



This unmistakable distinction for the man, who, together with three other cardinals, challenged the ruling pope, drove some Bergoglians to be red in the face with anger. This also applies to a further passage in the greeting of Benedict XVI, where he compares the current state of the Church with a boat "almost filled to capsizing". This image was also used in the Missa Pro Eligendo Pontifice of 2005, which preceded the Conclave, where he was elected Pope. Once again, he spoke in 2012 when he blessed the participants in the pilgrimage of the Catholic Action of Italy, who had come to Rome in the year of their faith.


Ultrabergoglians demanded Benedict XVI's silence

Melloni against Benedict XVI.

The reactions could not fail, as some Ultrabergoglians have already bitterly complained to public statements from Benedict XVI in recent months. In connection with a greeting to Cardinal Robert Sarah, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Order of the Sacraments, which was added as an epilogue to his latest book, "Power of Silence", led the rabid frothing of leading progressive representatives, who have been particularly zealous since the election of Francis as pope. Alberto Melloni, the director of the Bologna Progressive School, and Andrea Grillo, influential liturgist in the era of Francis, clearly demanded that Benedict XVI. be silent.

This, however, can not be forbidden, and he gave a greeting to his secretary, Archbishop Georg Gänswein, which he read in Cologne.

Alberto Melloni, head of the School of Bologna, whose main work, the multi-volume history of the Second Vatican Council, was translated into German at the expense of the German Bishops' Conference, made a poll on Twitter. Melloni doubted polemically that the words came from Benedict XVI. He wrote the disparaging tweet,

"There is a Proto-Ratzinger, a Deutero-Ratzinger and now also a pseudo-Ratzinger with negative allusions to the ruling pope."

Melloni's like-minded historian colleague Massimo Faggioli seconded:

"It would be nice to know who wrote the message of Joseph Ratzinger for the funeral of Cardinal Meisner."

Both regard Benedict XVI's words as a criticism of Pope Francis.

The ghostwriters of Francis and the memory gaps of the pope

It is widely known that Benedict XVI personally, as Pope, wrote by hand all the texts which were important to him. Nothing could have changed in this practice of the frequent author. Francis, who has never written a book, knows, however, that he is using documents with the help of ghostwriters. Have the two Bergoglians, Melloni and Faggioli, perhaps, confused Benedict XVI. with Francis?

Their polemic is aimed at Benedict XVI, who has already resigned from the papacy. It may, therefore, be doubted that the two Bergoglians, with their pages, were alluding to Pope Francis. However, on 16 April 2016, on the return flight from Lesbos, a few days after the publication of Amoris laetitia, he had to admit to the question of the journalist Jean-Marie Guénois of Le Figaro that he could not remember exactly what he had put down in the recently published Apostolic Letters.

On the same occasion, instead of responding to the question of Francis Rocca from the Wall Street Journal, Francis referred to his colleagues: "I recommend you to read the presentation given by Cardinal Schönborn, who is a great theologian. He is a member of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and is well acquainted with the teachings of the Church. In that presentation your question will be answered. Thank you."

Text: Giuseppe Nardi
Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com
AMDG