Clicks1.6K
en.news
21

Anti-Summorum Pontificum: Benedict’s Friends Turn Out to Be His Enemies - Surprised?

Francis’ furious Traditionis Custodes letter which cracks down on the Roman Rite “fearlessly hits the nail on the head," a sycophantic Archbishop Augustine Di Noia, secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith who owes his career to Benedict XVI, ranted in front of CatholicNews.com (July 20).

Without presenting facts, Di Noia alleges that the Roman Rite movement "hijacked" the initiatives of John Paul II and Benedict XVI to its own ends. Di Noia doesn't name these "ends."

Di Noia piles up gratuitous accusations, “What we have got now is a movement within the Church herself, seemingly endorsed by her leaders, that sows division by undermining the reforms of the Second Vatican Council through the rejection of the most important of them: the reform of the Roman Rite.”

In reality, division is sown by radicals like Bergoglio and Di Noia while the Roman Rite communities have been peacefully worshipping for decades. Further, Vatican II's "reform of the Roman Rite" was the 1965 Missal which was quickly overturned by Paul VI's [failed] Novus Ordo although a Commission of Bishops had rejected the latter.

According to Di Noia, since Benedict’s Summorum Pontificum “the thing has gotten totally out of control and become a movement, especially in the U.S., France and England—a movement that aggressively promotes the Traditional Latin Mass among young people and others as if this ‘extraordinary form’ were the true liturgy for the true church.”

The truth is the opposite: The Novus Ordo has "gotten totally out of control" and is only appealing to an overaged and dying public. Di Noia tries to resolve this problem by blaming those parts of the Church which have remained healthy. At least, he admits this by saying that “the way to address abuses is not by adopting the ‘extraordinary form,’ but by promoting the true renewal of the liturgy which, in many places, has simply not happened.”

It has become a common place in the Council church to claim that "Vatican II was not yet implemented" or "the true renewal of the liturgy didn't happen yet" while not doing anything about it.

According to Di Noia "many people with a desire for Latin in the liturgy (sic!) would have been better served by the ‘novus ordo’ in Latin than by the repristination of the pre-conciliar liturgy.” How could this happen if - as Di Noia just admitted - "the true renewal of the liturgy" never happened?

Picture: Augustine Di Noia, © wikicommons, CC BY-SA, #newsOpannchdgp

Dr Bobus
Di Noia is a scholar who is not a thinker. And he's from the generation that prizes above
all being a "company man".

Because of his work on the US Bishops' doctrinal committee, he was rewarded in 2009 with the miter and a job in Rome. But they never really found a job that he could do.

He is a Dominican who obviously cannot see the value of the Dominican Rite mass.

Like Pope Francis, Abp DiNoi…More
Di Noia is a scholar who is not a thinker. And he's from the generation that prizes above
all being a "company man".

Because of his work on the US Bishops' doctrinal committee, he was rewarded in 2009 with the miter and a job in Rome. But they never really found a job that he could do.

He is a Dominican who obviously cannot see the value of the Dominican Rite mass.

Like Pope Francis, Abp DiNoia is out of touch.
John A Cassani
It’s sad to see this. Di Noia used to be a pretty solid Thomistic theologian. As such, he can’t fail to see the way that the current regime has rendered JPII’s most important work, Veritatis splendor to the dustbin. He must care more about Bergoglio’s esteem than the havoc he has caused.
chris griffin
Evangelium Vitae was JPIIs most important work. He made the condemnation of abortion the same weight as the founding of the Church by Christ, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and all the Marion doctrines.
Dr Bobus
No, Veritatis Splendor was JPII's most important document. It is the foundation for EV.
chris griffin
That is not accurate. VS only mentions abortion once in a list along with 15 other evils. JP2 himself said that EV was generated from the constant Tradition of the Church believed always and everywhere, from previous Popes and especially naming Pope Paul VI and from Vatican 2. EV’s condemnation of abortion is infallible and included with the basic doctrines of Catholicism.
Dr Bobus
Veritatis Splendor was written to re-state the prohibition against doing intrinsic evil. When it is a matter of the moral norms prohibiting intrinsic evil, there are no privileges or exceptions for anyone.

VS cites Romans 3:8, so it obviously qualifies as traditional. And equally obvious is that it is is the basis for EV.
Caroline03
We are all called to be obedient to the Dogmatic Declarations laid down at the Council of Trent regarding the Rite of Mass that was called by those at the Council "The Mass of the Roman Catholic Church". The very name "Tridentine" derives from the name of the Town where the Council was held. ie "Trent"(check a dictionary.)

Tridentine

/trɪˈdɛntʌɪn,trʌɪˈdɛntʌɪn/

adjective

relating to the Counci…More
We are all called to be obedient to the Dogmatic Declarations laid down at the Council of Trent regarding the Rite of Mass that was called by those at the Council "The Mass of the Roman Catholic Church". The very name "Tridentine" derives from the name of the Town where the Council was held. ie "Trent"(check a dictionary.)

Tridentine

/trɪˈdɛntʌɪn,trʌɪˈdɛntʌɪn/

adjective

relating to the Council of Trent, especially as the basis of Roman Catholic doctrine.

Although the Tridentine Rite, predated Trent by over a thousand years, after The Council of Trent it became known as "The Tridentine Rite" (due to the fact that it was the Rite spoken of in all statements pertaining to the Liturgy in the Trent Canons. The Tridentine Rite is forever protected by Trent. It can not ever be abolished. Trent was a Dogmatic Council. Vatican I and II were not! In fact the statements made by those at the Council of Trent pertaining to the Tridentine Mass, prove this Moto Proprio to be a schismatic act and therefore invalid and should be viewed by everyone with suspicion as the Holy Ghost would not change His view on what He urged to be Dogmatically proclaimed by The Council of Trent and all the other Popes who historically have abode in that which they knew had been stated by God through that Council.

Jorge Bergoglio has incurred all of the anathema's decreed by Trent for he attempts to abolish the historical Rite which has been defined to be the Mass of the RC Church. Forever. No new Rites is the authoritative view point

When we read the statements made at Trent relating to "The Mass" they are referring to the Mass of that Council NOT the Novus Ordo.The Tridentine Rite.

thecounciloftrent.com/ch22.htm

Also binding is the Papal Bull of Pope St Pius V known as"Quo Primum" 1570. It contains Dogmatic eternally binding declarations of adherance to his Missal, and commanded that "No new Rites of Mass" can EVER be foisted upon the Church. So, basically, if Jorge Bergoglio hates the Tridentine Rite of Mass and seeks to have it removed, he is pronounced disobedient to Dogmatically binding historical Papal Documents and he can be viewed as having no authority to change a thing or he is "anathema" and outside the Church, therefore not able to be the one Leading Her.

papalencyclicals.net/pius05/p5quopri.htm

Why doesn't Rome listen to it's Canon Lawyers? Fr Hesse stated everything that we all need to be aware of as regards Canon Law and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass
youtube.com/watch?v=sKtO1Vq9lFA

I wouldn't rebuke on my own authority - all I have written here was divulged by a Vatican trained Roman Catholic Canon Lawyer

youtube.com/watch?v=sKtO1Vq9lFA
P N F
Caroline03, I want to say that I agree with you that Quo Primum is inviolable, meaning any priest of the Roman Rite has the permission to use the missal of St. Pope Pius V when saying the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. As Benedict XVI said in Summorum Pontificum, that missal was "never abrogated."

Here's where we disagree. Traditionis Custodes only regulates the "missal of 1962," the missal…More
Caroline03, I want to say that I agree with you that Quo Primum is inviolable, meaning any priest of the Roman Rite has the permission to use the missal of St. Pope Pius V when saying the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. As Benedict XVI said in Summorum Pontificum, that missal was "never abrogated."

Here's where we disagree. Traditionis Custodes only regulates the "missal of 1962," the missal of John XXIII. All of the post-Vatican II regulations related to the Traditional Latin Mass, from John Paul II to Bergoglio, reference "the 1962 missal," exclusively. They do this because they are trying to trick us. They cannot lawfully regulate the missal of St. Pope Pius V because that missal is protected by the dogmatic declaration in Quo Primum.

So, this latest trick by Bergoglio is meant to mislead and divide traditional Catholics. Some will believe (incorrectly) that Bergoglio has restricted "the Latin mass" and those people will deal with the obedience/truth dilemma. But in the case of Traditionis Custodes, there is no dilemma.

Traditional Catholics should simply accept that "the 1962 missal" is restricted/regulated. Who cares? Priests should then be told to use the "pre-1962 missal" (preferably the "pre-1955 missal") when they say mass. There are no legal restrictions on this and there never will be because Quo Primum protects the missal of St. Pope Pius V in perpetuity.

Bishops will probably not go along with this. So laity will possibly need to open their homes for priests to say mass. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass must be said daily. Viva Cristo Rey!
Caroline03
@P N F Good evening to you. This is all I can say in response. He is clearly aiming to rid the world of the Latin Mass. I post a video link below, it is very informative - if you have time, - take a look! God Bless

Art. 1. The liturgical books promulgated by Saint Paul VI and Saint John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II, are the unique expression of the lex orandiMore
@P N F Good evening to you. This is all I can say in response. He is clearly aiming to rid the world of the Latin Mass. I post a video link below, it is very informative - if you have time, - take a look! God Bless

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

That can not be said to be true. As Vatican Council II was only a Pastoral Council and did not therefore have the authority to change what had been dogmatically declared at the DOGMATIC Council of Trent. Namely, that the Mass of the RC Church is the Latin (Tridentine - pertaining to Trent) Rite of Mass

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

Here again is an offense against Pope SAINT Pius V's lawful Papal Bull !Quo Primum" 1570. In which he states that it is HIS MISSAL ALONE which is to be used within every Church in perpetuity. He also adds that no person WHOMSOEVER can change his Decree. Since there is only ONE person who has the authority to decree that a new rite of Mass must be used. It is clear that the "Whomsoever" referred to by Pius V in his Bull MUST refer to any Pope who comes after him.

Art 3 § 1. is to determine that these groups do not deny the validity and the legitimacy of the liturgical reform, dictated by Vatican Council II and the Magisterium of the Supreme Pontiffs;

It is Francis who is denying the validity and perpetual Legitimacy of the Dogmatic Statements of the Council of Trent and the Papal Bull of Pius V. NO NEW RITES are ever to be used within the RC Church.

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

This is out and out Blasphemy. He is stating (with the malice of the Devil and obviously NOT with under the guidance of the Holy Spirit) That the Holy Banquet of Our Lord, Our Suffering Christ hitherto robbed of all his fine furnishings within His Temples, may now be degraded even further, designated to be worshiped in any old garage, attic or scout - hut. The Holy Spirit is clearly NOT the author of this demonic request. For it is a sin (and a spiteful one at that) against the Precious Body and Blood of Our Lord and of His Divine Majesty. Of course the Holy Ghost would never have consigned the Mass of the Ages, the Supreme Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, (where Our Lord is truly present ) to be offered in un-consecrated huts. Ludicrous!

Skipping forward a few lines.... Not that it is okay, it's clearly not....


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

Those very "norms" "instructions" "Permissions" and "Customs" (he stops short of saying "Traditions") were Dogmatically defined during the Sacred Council of Trent.. So, basically he is no respecter of the Dogmatic Pronouncements of Trent relating to the Latin Mass" - and since those same pronouncements regarding the Mass, refer only to the Old Rite, then Francis is rendering the Dogmas of Trent - outside HIS ecclesial group. Neither does Francis seem to care that that very Council anathematizes him. Without any authority to use that Novus Ordo Missal, promulgated by a rogue Council which has zero Dogmatic Authority, he hereby declares (is he Lucifer?) that he has the authority to render Dogmatic Decrees overturned and his OWN self-made Magesterium needs to replace the one usually adhered to by the Church..... No Pope has that right! He is completely off his rocker and is obviously a heretic that is also promulgating an Act of Schism. All the great Saints attended that Mass!!! He needs to show greater humility and respect their Judgement

If we permit him to claim the authority to render Null and Void Catholic Laws, and Dogmatic Constitutions and hencefort overturn the Proclamations of our VALID Councils - then we are in communion with him and his hypocrisy and not the true Church of Christ.

We are ALL called (including Francis) to be obedient to the Declarations of Trent and the entire 2000 year history of Popes, upkeeping every single decree they made (under the guidance of the Holy Ghost.) A "Spirit" that preaches contrary to Trent is to be viewed with suspicion, - he is clearly the very same "spirit of Vatican II" that all Roman Rite Catholics are worried about.
Vatican II, if it taught anything that was NOT declared Dogmatically at Trent, is not to be listened to or accepted as a new truth replacing that which was old. .

Hold Fast to the Traditions. Said St Paul..... 2 Thess 2:15

youtube.com/watch?v=t7T4zMgXKhk
Dr Bobus
Whomsoever above should be whosoever.

Popes not Councils promulgate Missals. Trent didn't promulgate the 1570 Missal, and Vat II didn't promulgate the 1970 Missal.
Caroline03
@Dr Bobus I think we're in agreement that the Roman Rite of Mass IS the Mass that is being spoken of in all the documents pertaining to the Mass at the Council of Trent. Tridentum is apparently the Latin name of Trento - the location of the Council.. 😇

Another document that concerns me is this one.... We have apparently (since 1958) gained far too many Cardinals. According to "Postquam …More
@Dr Bobus I think we're in agreement that the Roman Rite of Mass IS the Mass that is being spoken of in all the documents pertaining to the Mass at the Council of Trent. Tridentum is apparently the Latin name of Trento - the location of the Council.. 😇

Another document that concerns me is this one.... We have apparently (since 1958) gained far too many Cardinals. According to "Postquam Veras" a Constitution of Sixtus V, (December 3rd, 1586)
We are eternally bound to have no more than 70 Cardinals governing the Church. The document says in extremely persuasive language, that any more than that are "null and void"

writelatin.org/papal/postquamveras.html
Dr Bobus
1. Pius V imposed the Roman Rite on the Latin Church, with exceptions only of Rites that were more than 200 years old.

The last time I was in Rome I heard a lecture by a Prof-essa from Germany, who said that the Roman Rite was unique because from the beginning the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist was emphasized. It was not for hundreds of years that rites of the Eastern Churches began to …More
1. Pius V imposed the Roman Rite on the Latin Church, with exceptions only of Rites that were more than 200 years old.

The last time I was in Rome I heard a lecture by a Prof-essa from Germany, who said that the Roman Rite was unique because from the beginning the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist was emphasized. It was not for hundreds of years that rites of the Eastern Churches began to incorporate it.

One priest pointed out the link between the Roman Rite and the Letter to the Romans, wondering how the Eastern rites could have ignored the sacrificial nature.

2. Quo Primum is not just an exercise of papal jurisdiction but also a recognition of the historical importance of Rome and the Roman Rite. Nb: Pius refers to the wrath of Peter and Paul, both of whom were martyred in Rome.

3. The 70 limit of Cardinals was important because the Church then was almost completely in Europe. And adding more Cardinals would probably mean more influence from Northern Europe

One pope can put the limit at 70, another can increase the number. There is no historical basis for any number.
Caroline03
@Dr Bobus
"There is no historical basis for any number."

It says in the document that there IS! 😊
Dr Bobus
I could only find a reference to the 70 elders of Moses. In so far as there were not Cardinals for hundreds of years after Christ, that number cannot be used as a limit on the number of Cardinals
Caroline03
@Dr Bobus Hello again Dr Bobus

Having done a bit more research (and read the document again) the Pope states that the number is linked with Judaism. Apparently there were 70 Elders in Israel (71 incl, Moses) and that continued as a rule after Moses as time went forward, and the period of the Sanhedrin came, there were 71 Governing over Israel as Officials of the Sanhedrin! (including the High …More
@Dr Bobus Hello again Dr Bobus

Having done a bit more research (and read the document again) the Pope states that the number is linked with Judaism. Apparently there were 70 Elders in Israel (71 incl, Moses) and that continued as a rule after Moses as time went forward, and the period of the Sanhedrin came, there were 71 Governing over Israel as Officials of the Sanhedrin! (including the High Priest) Clearly, this is what Pope Sixtus V is referring to when he says " And so that the figure of the old synagogue may respond to the truth of the Holy & Apostolic Church," As there were 70 Elders chosen by Moses, and then 70 leaders in the Sanhedrin, the Pope is commanding that the former Tradition be obeyed from that moment forth. Apparently the Popes believed it was worthy to be obeyed. From the moment it was Dogmatically Proclaimed in 1586 to the Papacy of John XXIII, as no Pope until John XXIII for 400 years! - ever disobeyed that document by consecrating more than 70 Cardinals. I understand that Paul VI was the 70th Cardinal Consecrated by John XXIII. It is pretty apparent that Sixtus V used Dogmatic Language and was threatening the vengeance of God & the wrath of St Peter and St Paul upon a Pope who did not obey the document.

The Constitution concludes similarly to all the Dogmatic Declarations of the Sacred Council of Trent. So it's clearly Dogmatically pronounced. Whether we like it or not!

" But if any one shall presume to attempt this, let him know that he will incur the indignation of Almighty God, and of the blessed Peter and Paul, His apostles."
Caroline03
@Dr Bobus PS Read the 1917 Code of Canon Law no, 231 It's decreed in that also.

Canon 231 (1983 CIC 350) § 1. The Sacred College [of Cardinals] is divided into three orders: episcopal, to which belong only those six Cardinals over the various suburbicarian dioceses; presbyteral, which consists of fifty Cardinals; and diaconal, which [consists of] fourteen [Cardinals]. § 2. Every Cardinal …More
@Dr Bobus PS Read the 1917 Code of Canon Law no, 231 It's decreed in that also.

Canon 231 (1983 CIC 350) § 1. The Sacred College [of Cardinals] is divided into three orders: episcopal, to which belong only those six Cardinals over the various suburbicarian dioceses; presbyteral, which consists of fifty Cardinals; and diaconal, which [consists of] fourteen [Cardinals]. § 2. Every Cardinal priest and Cardinal deacon has his own title or diaconate assigned in the City by the Roman Pontiff.
Dr Bobus
The authority of Canon Law is based on Papal Jurisdiction. Another pope has equal authority and can ignore or change it.

Once again: the primacy of the Missal of 1570/1962 is that it is the historical Roman Rite, with roots going back at least to Gregory the Great--also in certain ways to the Letter to the Romans. Pius V merely recognized that fact.
Caroline03
@Dr Bobus However, I was just pointing out to you Sir, that at the time the 1917 Code of Canon Law was compiled, "Postquam Verus" was considered just as binding as the Pronouncements of the Sacred Council of Trent.

It is well known that hitherto, Traditions, centuries old, have been protected by Papal Documents so that they can be formally enshrined in law and preserved unaltered for …More
@Dr Bobus However, I was just pointing out to you Sir, that at the time the 1917 Code of Canon Law was compiled, "Postquam Verus" was considered just as binding as the Pronouncements of the Sacred Council of Trent.

It is well known that hitherto, Traditions, centuries old, have been protected by Papal Documents so that they can be formally enshrined in law and preserved unaltered for posterity. Pronouncements such as the Dogma of Our Lady's Immaculate Conception. Which although only recently enshrined in Church Law, (Pius XII??) was continually upheld throughout Church History prior to it being formally declared so it might never be tampered with. It was enshrined in Law so it could never be questioned or changed to suit the whim of a less Dogmatic future Pontiff perhaps? The fact that Our Lord, even during the time of the Old Law, continually formally called for the Church Leader to be assisted by "70 Consecrated Virtuous Helpers) - a Tradition carried through to the time of the second Temple when the Sanhedrin consisted of 70 pious men governed by the High Priest, should not be raised to the ground or sneered at, since Our Lord clearly is unalterable in ALL His Decrees and His Dogmas are eternally binding on ALL. He instructed St Paul to write that we must all "Hold Fast to the Traditions" and has mentioned elsewhere that not one jot of the Law can be overturned. Judaic Christianity is founded on Laws, or we risk adhering ourselves to a House constructed on sand. The House built on the Rock means EVERY SINGLE POPE must be obeyed, not just those who sought to unbind the poor Church from everything bound PRIOR to Vatican II.

"Postquam Verus" is part of the Church's Sacred Magisterium. It is a custom of every Pope to swear obedience to the Magisterium. He swears to respect ALL that former Popes formally enshrined in Law. The Pope is the SLAVE of the Popes that came before him when it comes to Documents of the Sacred Magisterium. I heard that the Church stands on a 3 legged Stool. Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Sacred Magisterium. It is known that if one of those 3 is not adhered to, all collapses. That is why the Church has enshrined all Her Sacred Traditions to start with. Doing so, has previously restrained the Church from apostatizing or (like many try to) creating a new edifice which is illegally wrought which is not the true Church of Christ. That is why Popes swear allegiance to the Sacred Magisterium, fidelity to Laws that can not be broken, and in doing so swears an oath to uphold and never change Church Teaching or risk being excommunicated cast out, JUDGED apostate b the very Church he is elected to preserve from falling into error.

All our Sacred Traditions must be adhered to. Or risk the calamity of following a Pope into everlasting damnation. One who endeavours to unbind the entire Church from the Sacred Magisterium with an aim to construct a false Church . Since not one Law from the TRUE Church is alterable, those already professed by Christ through His Church remain as stated forever. The less faithful members prefer to despise all that came before & risk being swept off to a church that is counterfeit and false.
prince0357
Oppression and suppresion of the sacrifice!
De Profundis
In less than a week it looks as if most bishops are unimpressed by Trad Cust. Therefore we should expect some kind of outburst of rage. What do think he will do next?
Georgia59
Betrayal of Chinese Catholics, Pagan ceremony for Pachamama at the Vatican, suppression of the Mass God gave the Saints -- next? Is he just warming up? Perhaps we must ask --What would Satan do?