Criminal usurper antipope declares Novus Ordo the “unique expression” of the Roman Rite… TLM restricted to special permission only… good thing he holds no office and has no authority

Tell me again why it doesn’t really matter who is pope. Explain to me how knowing the identity of the true Vicar of Christ is virtually impossible, is none of our business, has nothing to do with the visibility of the Church, shut up you peasant laynothing. Not even “Saint” Paul VI, of unhappy memory, claimed that the Novus Ordo was the “unique expression” of the Roman Rite. Pray for our priests. Pray especially for our seminarians, who as of today need explicit permission from Rome to say the TLM if they are to be loyal to an antipope (Art. 4). See how that works?

Our Lady of Mount Carmel, pray for us.

APOSTOLIC LETTER

ISSUED “MOTU PROPRIO”

BY THE SUPREME PONTIFF (sic)

FRANCIS (sic)

“TRADITIONIS CUSTODES”

ON THE USE OF THE ROMAN LITURGY PRIOR TO THE REFORM OF 1970

Guardians of the tradition, the bishops in communion with the Bishop of Rome constitute the visible principle and foundation of the unity of their particular Churches.[1] Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, through the proclamation of the Gospel and by means of the celebration of the Eucharist, they govern the particular Churches entrusted to them.[2]

In order to promote the concord and unity of the Church, with paternal solicitude towards those who in any region adhere to liturgical forms antecedent to the reform willed by the Vatican Council II, my Venerable Predecessors, Saint John Paul II and Benedict XVI, granted and regulated the faculty to use the Roman Missal edited by John XXIII in 1962.[3] In this way they intended “to facilitate the ecclesial communion of those Catholics who feel attached to some earlier liturgical forms” and not to others.[4]

In line with the initiative of my Venerable Predecessor Benedict XVI to invite the bishops to assess the application of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum three years after its publication, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith carried out a detailed consultation of the bishops in 2020. The results have been carefully considered in the light of experience that has matured during these years.

At this time, having considered the wishes expressed by the episcopate and having heard the opinion of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, I now desire, with this Apostolic Letter, to press on ever more in the constant search for ecclesial communion. Therefore, I have considered it appropriate to establish the following:

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.

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.

Art. 3. The bishop of the diocese in which until now there exist one or more groups that celebrate according to the Missal antecedent to the reform of 1970:

§ 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;

§ 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);

§ 3. to establish at the designated locations the days on which eucharistic celebrations are permitted using the Roman Missal promulgated by Saint John XXIII in 1962.[7] In these celebrations the readings are proclaimed in the vernacular language, using translations of the Sacred Scripture approved for liturgical use by the respective Episcopal Conferences;

§ 4. to appoint a priest who, as delegate of the bishop, is entrusted with these celebrations and with the pastoral care of these groups of the faithful. This priest should be suited for this responsibility, skilled in the use of the Missale Romanum antecedent to the reform of 1970, possess a knowledge of the Latin language sufficient for a thorough comprehension of the rubrics and liturgical texts, and be animated by a lively pastoral charity and by a sense of ecclesial communion. This priest should have at heart not only the correct celebration of the liturgy, but also the pastoral and spiritual care of the faithful;

§ 5. to proceed suitably to verify that the parishes canonically erected for the benefit of these faithful are effective for their spiritual growth, and to determine whether or not to retain them;

§ 6. to take care not to authorize the establishment of new groups.

Art. 4. Priests ordained after the publication of the present Motu Proprio, who wish to celebrate using the Missale Romanum of 1962, should submit a formal request to the diocesan Bishop who shall consult the Apostolic See before granting this authorization.

Art. 5. Priests who already celebrate according to the Missale Romanum of 1962 should request from the diocesan Bishop the authorization to continue to enjoy this faculty.

Art. 6. Institutes of consecrated life and Societies of apostolic life, erected by the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, fall under the competence of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies for Apostolic Life.

Art. 7. The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments and the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, for matters of their particular competence, exercise the authority of the Holy See with respect to the observance of these provisions.

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

Everything that I have declared in this Apostolic Letter in the form of Motu Proprio, I order to be observed in all its parts, anything else to the contrary notwithstanding, even if worthy of particular mention, and I establish that it be promulgated by way of publication in “L’Osservatore Romano”, entering immediately in force and, subsequently, that it be published in the official Commentary of the Holy See, Acta Apostolicae Sedis.

Given at Rome, at Saint John Lateran, on 16 July 2021, the liturgical Memorial of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, in the ninth year of Our Pontificate (sic).

FRANCIS (sic)

25 thoughts on “Criminal usurper antipope declares Novus Ordo the “unique expression” of the Roman Rite… TLM restricted to special permission only… good thing he holds no office and has no authority

  1. To the holy priests reading this: you know deep down in your heart and mind that Bergoglio is not the Pope. Therefore, you do not have to follow his directive. This is the time now more than ever to be the Church Militant. Don’t fall into the trap of the church effeminate. Carry on saying The Mass. Change nothing. When some Karen shows up asking for a novus ordo, refer her to the nearest novus ordo parishes. Let nothing other than forced imprisonment or execution (martyrdom) stop you. We the laity have your backs.

  2. MD: “Tell me again why it doesn’t really matter who is pope.”

    Yes.

    The Roman Catholic Church is built upon that foundation – directly through the visible Vicar of Jesus Christ to our Trinitarian God and to the Mother of Jesus Christ our Lord – Queen of Heaven and Earth.

    Through Him. “ And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church…” (Matt 16:18a)

    The ongoing blithe acceptance of the abomination of two visible Popes – the occupant of the See of Rome does not possess the Munus of the Papacy – is the source of all evil in the Church today: the destruction of Holy Mass; sodomy and gross immorality; witchcraft and idol worship; destruction of respect for the divine authority of the Pope to rule in God’s Name; unity with the pagan world, disunity within Christendom.

    It all starts with the faulty resignation of our currently reigning Pope and the blithe acceptance of Emeritus and two (+) Popes. We cannot heal and recover until this two (+) headed abomination within the Papacy is rectified.

  3. TRADITIONIS CUSTODES? more like TRADITIONIS DELENDES (or whatever the correct conjugation for destroy would be).

    I really appreciate you crossposting so much with Ann because it gives me a place to vent my spleen!

  4. Fortunately for Holy Mother Church, neither you, Mr. Docherty, not any other disgruntled misfit, determines who is Pope. The Holy Spirit has determined this with unfailing Wisdom. Please, for heaven’s sake, don’t be so blind: since March 13th, 2013, our Holy Father Francis is Pope–Gloriously reigning! If you don’t want to accept this, just ask Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI!

    1. Terry Di Sangregorio:

      What is not in accord with the Magisterium of Holy Mother Church will wither and die. What is disconnected from Sacred Tradition and the long straight line that leads to Jesus Christ is already dead. This “Motu Proprio” is what they call, in economics, a dead cat bounce. A meaningless thump.

      This sad, tragic moment in time means little in the economy of eternity. The pews will continue to empty. Vocations will continue to disappear. Tithes will dry up. Churches will close. No one will care about this emptied out Faith. Other religions will advance; paganism will advance; Catholicism will shrink. And no one will listen to the “Pope” or his Bishops anymore. What was a force of power in the world whereby God met Mankind will now be a godless pathetic shell of an NGO that most people will either laugh at or be shocked by.

      Why? The Pope is nobody, if he does not name the Name above all names, Jesus Christ and speak in union with our Lord in Scripture and in Sacred Tradition. Pope St. Pius V already declared anathema against anyone who dared to act against the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as defined by Dogmatic Council of Trent. And so, the “Holy Spirit”, which you claim, has withdrawn Himself in anger, pending the imposition of judgement. Judgement is coming. The Holy Mass belongs to God and to eternity. Motu Proprio’s against it are void by definition.

    2. Terry, do you have a couple of hours to spare? This video by Ann Barnhardt is well worth your time:

      Not convinced and have a couple more hours? Here’s part two. Yes, the evidence that Jorge Bergoglio is not the pope is so overwhelming that Ann had to do a second video.

      And if these two informative videos aren’t enough, just ask yourself if God the Father wants us to believe that a man who allowed the pachamama demon to be publicly worshipped inside the Vatican is his Vicar on Earth? A man who accepted a bowl of dirt representing the demon from a pagan, Amazonian witch and placed that demonic thing directly on the altar of St. Peters during Mass before the consecration?

      1. “Man gotta be the man, fish gotta be the fish.”
        Denzel Washington, The Equalizer. Commentary about “The Old Man and the Sea.”

  5. Is there a canon lawyer in the house we have a legalistic hairsplitting alert in need of conformation…

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

    It is interesting to note that NOWHERE do we find the explicit abrogation of SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM.
    It abrogates the PONTIFICAL COMMISSION’S – INSTRUCTION ON THE APPLICATION OF THE APOSTOLIC LETTER SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI GIVEN MOTU PROPRIO
    https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/motu_proprio/documents/hf_ben-xvi_motu-proprio_20070707_summorum-pontificum.html

  6. From the catacombs of Northern Ontario, wisdom as described by the local cleric.

    …”Greetings on this beautiful afternoon.
    Bishop Desrochers has asked that we publicize a Development and Peace meeting to be held on Zoom or via phone on Thursday, July 22nd at 6:30 pm.
    The movement of the province into “Stage 3” has resulted in capacity limits for religious services being guided by the ability to remain 6 feet in distance from other people not in your immediate family. Effectively, this brings us back to what we enjoyed last year at this time, with an attendance number limited to about 110 people. We welcome the continued progress in relaxing restrictions and are grateful to you for your prudence and care for one another, an experience clearly evident in our weekend liturgies. The other precautions remain in effect: recording your name and phone number for contract tracing on the sheets provided at the church entrances, sanitizing your hands upon entry to the church, and wearing a mask.
    Enjoy these remaining days of July!
    Blessings and peace.
    Fr. John.”…

    Is this what the Holy Ghost wants? I am not sure and will not speculate, but will continue to have our Sunday Masses in our home in the country. This is only going to get worse, physically and spiritually.

    And from this mornings reading, from the Psalms, St. Josephs favourite book in the bible, memorizing many verses.

    http://www.drbo.org/chapter/21026.htm

    …”Expect the Lord, do manfully, and let thy heart take courage, and wait thou for the Lord.”…

  7. Dear Friends,
    Please read this prayerfully and with an open mind towards our Holy Father Pope Francis. His letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church explains what is truly in his Christ-like heart:
    ___________

    Rome, 16 July 2021

    Dear Brothers in the Episcopate,

    Just as my Predecessor Benedict XVI did with Summorum Pontificum, I wish to accompany the Motu proprio Traditionis custodes with a letter explaining the motives that prompted my decision. I turn to you with trust and parresia, in the name of that shared “solicitude for the whole Church, that contributes supremely to the good of the Universal Church” as Vatican Council II reminds us.[1]

    Most people understand the motives that prompted St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI to allow the use of the Roman Missal, promulgated by St. Pius V and edited by St. John XXIII in 1962, for the Eucharistic Sacrifice. The faculty — granted by the indult of the Congregation for Divine Worship in 1984[2] and confirmed by St. John Paul II in the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei in 1988[3] — was above all motivated by the desire to foster the healing of the schism with the movement of Mons. Lefebvre. With the ecclesial intention of restoring the unity of the Church, the Bishops were thus asked to accept with generosity the “just aspirations” of the faithful who requested the use of that Missal.

    Many in the Church came to regard this faculty as an opportunity to adopt freely the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and use it in a manner parallel to the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Paul VI. In order to regulate this situation at the distance of many years, Benedict XVI intervened to address this state of affairs in the Church. Many priests and communities had “used with gratitude the possibility offered by the Motu proprio” of St. John Paul II. Underscoring that this development was not foreseeable in 1988, the Motu proprio Summorum Pontificum of 2007 intended to introduce “a clearer juridical regulation” in this area.[4] In order to allow access to those, including young people, who when “they discover this liturgical form, feel attracted to it and find in it a form, particularly suited to them, to encounter the mystery of the most holy Eucharist”,[5] Benedict XVI declared “the Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and newly edited by Blessed John XXIII, as a extraordinary expression of the same lex orandi”, granting a “more ample possibility for the use of the 1962 Missal”.[6]

    In making their decision they were confident that such a provision would not place in doubt one of the key measures of Vatican Council II or minimize in this way its authority: the Motu proprio recognized that, in its own right, “the Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the lex orandi of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite”.[7] The recognition of the Missal promulgated by St. Pius V “as an extraordinary expression of the same lex orandi” did not in any way underrate the liturgical reform, but was decreed with the desire to acknowledge the “insistent prayers of these faithful,” allowing them “to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass according to the editio typica of the Roman Missal promulgated by Blessed John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as the extraordinary form of the Liturgy of the Church”.[8] It comforted Benedict XVI in his discernment that many desired “to find the form of the sacred Liturgy dear to them,” “clearly accepted the binding character of Vatican Council II and were faithful to the Pope and to the Bishops”.[9] What is more, he declared to be unfounded the fear of division in parish communities, because “the two forms of the use of the Roman Rite would enrich one another”.[10] Thus, he invited the Bishops to set aside their doubts and fears, and to welcome the norms, “attentive that everything would proceed in peace and serenity,” with the promise that “it would be possible to find resolutions” in the event that “serious difficulties came to light” in the implementation of the norms “once the Motu proprio came into effect”.[11]

    With the passage of thirteen years, I instructed the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to circulate a questionnaire to the Bishops regarding the implementation of the Motu proprio Summorum Pontificum. The responses reveal a situation that preoccupies and saddens me, and persuades me of the need to intervene. Regrettably, the pastoral objective of my Predecessors, who had intended “to do everything possible to ensure that all those who truly possessed the desire for unity would find it possible to remain in this unity or to rediscover it anew”,[12] has often been seriously disregarded. An opportunity offered by St. John Paul II and, with even greater magnanimity, by Benedict XVI, intended to recover the unity of an ecclesial body with diverse liturgical sensibilities, was exploited to widen the gaps, reinforce the divergences, and encourage disagreements that injure the Church, block her path, and expose her to the peril of division.

    At the same time, I am saddened by abuses in the celebration of the liturgy on all sides. In common with Benedict XVI, I deplore the fact that “in many places the prescriptions of the new Missal are not observed in celebration, but indeed come to be interpreted as an authorization for or even a requirement of creativity, which leads to almost unbearable distortions”.[13] But I am nonetheless saddened that the instrumental use of Missale Romanum of 1962 is often characterized by a rejection not only of the liturgical reform, but of the Vatican Council II itself, claiming, with unfounded and unsustainable assertions, that it betrayed the Tradition and the “true Church”. The path of the Church must be seen within the dynamic of Tradition “which originates from the Apostles and progresses in the Church with the assistance of the Holy Spirit” (DV 8). A recent stage of this dynamic was constituted by Vatican Council II where the Catholic episcopate came together to listen and to discern the path for the Church indicated by the Holy Spirit. To doubt the Council is to doubt the intentions of those very Fathers who exercised their collegial power in a solemn manner cum Petro et sub Petro in an ecumenical council,[14] and, in the final analysis, to doubt the Holy Spirit himself who guides the Church.

    The objective of the modification of the permission granted by my Predecessors is highlighted by the Second Vatican Council itself. From the vota submitted by the Bishops there emerged a great insistence on the full, conscious and active participation of the whole People of God in the liturgy,[15] along lines already indicated by Pius XII in the encyclical Mediator Dei on the renewal of the liturgy.[16] The constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium confirmed this appeal, by seeking “the renewal and advancement of the liturgy”,[17] and by indicating the principles that should guide the reform.[18] In particular, it established that these principles concerned the Roman Rite, and other legitimate rites where applicable, and asked that “the rites be revised carefully in the light of sound tradition, and that they be given new vigor to meet present-day circumstances and needs”.[19] On the basis of these principles a reform of the liturgy was undertaken, with its highest expression in the Roman Missal, published in editio typica by St. Paul VI[20] and revised by St. John Paul II.[21] It must therefore be maintained that the Roman Rite, adapted many times over the course of the centuries according to the needs of the day, not only be preserved but renewed “in faithful observance of the Tradition”.[22] Whoever wishes to celebrate with devotion according to earlier forms of the liturgy can find in the reformed Roman Missal according to Vatican Council II all the elements of the Roman Rite, in particular the Roman Canon which constitutes one of its more distinctive elements.

    A final reason for my decision is this: ever more plain in the words and attitudes of many is the close connection between the choice of celebrations according to the liturgical books prior to Vatican Council II and the rejection of the Church and her institutions in the name of what is called the “true Church.” One is dealing here with comportment that contradicts communion and nurtures the divisive tendency — “I belong to Paul; I belong instead to Apollo; I belong to Cephas; I belong to Christ” — against which the Apostle Paul so vigorously reacted.[23] In defense of the unity of the Body of Christ, I am constrained to revoke the faculty granted by my Predecessors. The distorted use that has been made of this faculty is contrary to the intentions that led to granting the freedom to celebrate the Mass with the Missale Romanum of 1962. Because “liturgical celebrations are not private actions, but celebrations of the Church, which is the sacrament of unity”,[24] they must be carried out in communion with the Church. Vatican Council II, while it reaffirmed the external bonds of incorporation in the Church — the profession of faith, the sacraments, of communion — affirmed with St. Augustine that to remain in the Church not only “with the body” but also “with the heart” is a condition for salvation.[25]

    Dear brothers in the Episcopate, Sacrosanctum Concilium explained that the Church, the “sacrament of unity,” is such because it is “the holy People gathered and governed under the authority of the Bishops”.[26] Lumen gentium, while recalling that the Bishop of Rome is “the permanent and visible principle and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the multitude of the faithful,” states that you the Bishops are “the visible principle and foundation of the unity of your local Churches, in which and through which exists the one and only Catholic Church”.[27]

    Responding to your requests, I take the firm decision to abrogate all the norms, instructions, permissions and customs that precede the present Motu proprio, and declare that the liturgical books promulgated by the saintly Pontiffs Paul VI and John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II, constitute the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite. I take comfort in this decision from the fact that, after the Council of Trent, St. Pius V also abrogated all the rites that could not claim a proven antiquity, establishing for the whole Latin Church a single Missale Romanum. For four centuries this Missale Romanum, promulgated by St. Pius V was thus the principal expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite, and functioned to maintain the unity of the Church. Without denying the dignity and grandeur of this Rite, the Bishops gathered in ecumenical council asked that it be reformed; their intention was that “the faithful would not assist as strangers and silent spectators in the mystery of faith, but, with a full understanding of the rites and prayers, would participate in the sacred action consciously, piously, and actively”.[28] St. Paul VI, recalling that the work of adaptation of the Roman Missal had already been initiated by Pius XII, declared that the revision of the Roman Missal, carried out in the light of ancient liturgical sources, had the goal of permitting the Church to raise up, in the variety of languages, “a single and identical prayer,” that expressed her unity.[29] This unity I intend to re-establish throughout the Church of the Roman Rite.

    Vatican Council II, when it described the catholicity of the People of God, recalled that “within the ecclesial communion” there exist the particular Churches which enjoy their proper traditions, without prejudice to the primacy of the Chair of Peter who presides over the universal communion of charity, guarantees the legitimate diversity and together ensures that the particular not only does not injure the universal but above all serves it”.[30] While, in the exercise of my ministry in service of unity, I take the decision to suspend the faculty granted by my Predecessors, I ask you to share with me this burden as a form of participation in the solicitude for the whole Church proper to the Bishops. In the Motu proprio I have desired to affirm that it is up to the Bishop, as moderator, promoter, and guardian of the liturgical life of the Church of which he is the principle of unity, to regulate the liturgical celebrations. It is up to you to authorize in your Churches, as local Ordinaries, the use of the Missale Romanum of 1962, applying the norms of the present Motu proprio. It is up to you to proceed in such a way as to return to a unitary form of celebration, and to determine case by case the reality of the groups which celebrate with this Missale Romanum.

    Indications about how to proceed in your dioceses are chiefly dictated by two principles: on the one hand, to provide for the good of those who are rooted in the previous form of celebration and need to return in due time to the Roman Rite promulgated by Saints Paul VI and John Paul II, and, on the other hand, to discontinue the erection of new personal parishes tied more to the desire and wishes of individual priests than to the real need of the “holy People of God.” At the same time, I ask you to be vigilant in ensuring that every liturgy be celebrated with decorum and fidelity to the liturgical books promulgated after Vatican Council II, without the eccentricities that can easily degenerate into abuses. Seminarians and new priests should be formed in the faithful observance of the prescriptions of the Missal and liturgical books, in which is reflected the liturgical reform willed by Vatican Council II.

    Upon you I invoke the Spirit of the risen Lord, that he may make you strong and firm in your service to the People of God entrusted to you by the Lord, so that your care and vigilance express communion even in the unity of one, single Rite, in which is preserved the great richness of the Roman liturgical tradition. I pray for you. You pray for me.

    FRANCIS

    __________________

    [1] Cfr. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church “Lumen Gentium”, 21 november 1964, n. 23 AAS 57 (1965) 27.

    [2] Cfr. Congregation for Divine Worship, Letter to the Presidents of the Conferences of Bishops “Quattuor abhinc annos”, 3 october 1984: AAS 76 (1984) 1088-1089.

    [3] John Paul II, Apostolic Letter given Motu proprio “Ecclesia Dei”, 2 july 1988: AAS 80 (1998) 1495-1498.

    [4] Benedict XVI, Letter to the Bishops on the occasion of the publication of the Apostolic Letter “Motu proprio data” Summorum Pontificum on the use of the Roman Liturgy prior to the reform of 1970, 7 july 2007: AAS 99 (2007) 796.

    [5] Benedict XVI, Letter to the Bishops on the occasion of the publication of the Apostolic Letter “Motu proprio data” Summorum Pontificum on the use of the Roman Liturgy prior to the reform of 1970, 7 july 2007: AAS 99 (2007) 796.

    [6] Benedict XVI, Letter to the Bishops on the occasion of the publication of the Apostolic Letter “Motu proprio data” Summorum Pontificum on the use of the Roman Liturgy prior to the reform of 1970, 7 july 2007: AAS 99 (2007) 797.

    [7] Benedict XVI, Apostolic Letter given Motu proprio “Summorum Pontificum”, 7 july 2007: AAS 99 (2007) 779.

    [8] Benedict XVI, Apostolic Letter given Motu proprio “Summorum Pontificum”, 7 july 2007: AAS 99 (2007) 779.

    [9] Benedict XVI, Letter to the Bishops on the occasion of the publication of the Apostolic Letter “Motu proprio data” Summorum Pontificum on the use of the Roman Liturgy prior to the reform of 1970, 7 july 2007: AAS 99 (2007) 796.

    [10] Benedict XVI, Letter to the Bishops on the occasion of the publication of the Apostolic Letter “Motu proprio data” Summorum Pontificum on the use of the Roman Liturgy prior to the reform of 1970, 7 july 2007: AAS 99 (2007) 797.

    [11] Benedict XVI, Letter to the Bishops on the occasion of the publication of the Apostolic Letter “Motu proprio data” Summorum Pontificum on the use of the Roman Liturgy prior to the reform of 1970, 7 july 2007: AAS 99 (2007) 798.

    [12] Benedict XVI, Letter to the Bishops on the occasion of the publication of the Apostolic Letter “Motu proprio data” Summorum Pontificum on the use of the Roman Liturgy prior to the reform of 1970, 7 july 2007: AAS 99 (2007) 797-798.

    [13] Benedict XVI, Letter to the Bishops on the occasion of the publication of the Apostolic Letter “Motu proprio data” Summorum Pontificum on the use of the Roman Liturgy prior to the reform of 1970, 7 july 2007: AAS 99 (2007) 796.

    [14] Cfr. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church “Lumen Gentium”, 21 november 1964, n. 23: AAS 57 (1965) 27.

    [15] Cfr. Acta et Documenta Concilio Oecumenico Vaticano II apparando, Series I, Volumen II, 1960.

    [16] Pius XII, Encyclical on the sacred liturgy “Mediator Dei”, 20 november 1947: AAS 39 (1949) 521-595.

    [17] Cfr. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Costitution on the sacred liturgy “Sacrosanctum Concilium”, 4 december 1963, nn. 1, 14: AAS 56 (1964) 97.104.

    [18] Cfr. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Costitution on the sacred liturgy “Sacrosanctum Concilium”, 4 december 1963, n. 3: AAS 56 (1964) 98.

    [19] Cfr. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Costitution on the sacred liturgy “Sacrosanctum Concilium”, 4 december 1963, n. 4: AAS 56 (1964) 98.

    [20] Missale Romanum ex decreto Sacrosancti Oecumenici Concilii Vaticani II instauratum auctoritate Pauli PP. VI promulgatum, editio typica, 1970.

    [21] Missale Romanum ex decreto Sacrosancti Oecumenici Concilii Vaticani II instauratum auctoritate Pauli PP. VI promulgatum Ioannis Pauli PP. II cura recognitum, editio typica altera, 1975; editio typica tertia, 2002; (reimpressio emendata 2008).

    [22] Cfr. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Costitution on the sacred liturgy “Sacrosanctum Concilium”, 4 december 1963, n. 3: AAS 56 (1964) 98.

    [23] 1 Cor 1,12-13.

    [24] Cfr. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Costitution on the sacred liturgy “Sacrosanctum Concilium”, 4 december 1963, n. 26: AAS 56 (1964) 107.

    [25] Cfr. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church “Lumen Gentium”, 21 november 1964, n. 14: AAS 57 (1965) 19.

    [26] Cfr. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Costitution on the sacred liturgy “Sacrosanctum Concilium”, 4 december 1963, n. 6: AAS 56 (1964) 100.

    [27] Cfr. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church “Lumen Gentium”, 21 november 1964, n. 23: AAS 57 (1965) 27.

    [28] Cfr. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Costitution on the sacred liturgy “Sacrosanctum Concilium”, 4 december 1963, n. 48: AAS 56 (1964) 113.

    [29] Paul VI, Apostolic Constitution “Missale Romanum” on new Roman Missal, 3 april 1969, AAS 61 (1969) 222.

    [30] Cfr. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church “Lumen Gentium”, 21 november 1964, n. 13: AAS 57 (1965) 18.

    [01015-EN.01] [Original text: Italian]

    1. Terry Di Sangregorio: St. Pius V and the Bishops in communion with him at the Dogmatic Council of Trent prohibit anyone, including Jorgé Bergóglio, from limiting, much less excluding the Missal promulgated there. It is protected for the Faithful on pain of anathema.

      Jorgé Bergoglio’s Motu Proprio has as much binding authority against the Traditional Latin Mass as another Motu Proprio from him might have prohibiting the Rosary.

      The Traditional Latin Mass, like the Rosary, belongs to the Roman Catholic Church. Period.

    2. Also, it is telling (predictable) that all footnotes begin and end with Vatican II – which was explicitly NOT a Dogmatic Council but Pastoral.

      But for Jorgé Bergóglio and the Bishops in union with him there is *nothing* from the treasure of the Church that binds or guides them other than the words of this *NON-BINDING* pastoral Council.

      Please demonstrate what authority is granted to overturn the anathemas of Trent in protection of this holy Liturgy dogmatically promulgated by the Pope (now a Saint) and the Bishops in Council with him – from the treasury of the Church PRIOR to 1960.

      Pastoral: to give guidance and advice (ex: II Vatican Council)
      Dogmatic: incontrovertibly true; a truth revealed by God, which the magisterium of the Church declared as binding – must be believed to be Catholic (Council of Trent)

      To be true in the Catholic sense of true, the footnotes must go back beyond 50 years, and demonstrate harmony with the Church’s Magisterium and not just reference itself.

  8. It always puzzled me that Benedict XVI called the traditional form of the Mass which was permitted the “Extraordinary Form”.To me, extraordinary implies that there is an Ordinary Form which is the normal form to be used. Does anyone know why he called it the Extraordinary Form?

  9. Interesting probe.

    Just recently read a piece that responds to your question.

    The source escapes me but I will do a bit of research to locate.

    The author suggested that Benedict used the terms ordinary and extraordinary so that both forms were part of the “same rite” implying a “unity of integrity” making it much more difficult to abrogate permission to celebrate the TLM as a “stand alone form” vs. linked to the Novus Ordo and essentially sharing the same form. Seems that Benedict was engaging in a subtle attempt to insulate the TLM knowing the hatred and animosity that existed towards it’s celebration.

    Perhaps Benedict was trying to tap into the expression “organic development of the Liturgy.”

    “The Organic Development of the Liturgy: The Principles of Liturgical Reform and Their Relation to the Twentieth-century Liturgical Movement Prior to the Second Vatican Council
    Book by Alcuin Reid”

    Alcuin Reid, Adrian Fortescue and Klaus Gamber provide some great insights.

    Perplexing to me is why Benedict once stated that there was “no difference” between the TLM and the Novus Ordo…on other occasions Benedict would refer to the Novus Ordo as “banal and insipid.”

    Could be he was nervous about the wolves.

    1. @jmarrenjr: “Could be he was nervous about the wolves.” HA! Absolutely. Could be he’d read the entire Third Secret of Fatima and had some kind of heads up about a sort of kind of “immaculate Conception” type of solution to those ravenous wolves from whom he did NOT flee: He knew that he could and so he did.

      Also, per your pending answer to Aqua re: the young FSSP priest’s “everybody’s worshipping the same ‘Big Hombre in the sky'” and by extension then goes to heaven in a big row boat, probably…I, too, would benefit from the sources that you are looking for on that same topic.

      I do not recall the Gen B anecdote regarding Abp Emeritus Chaput. Is it in a past blog post? If so, I will look.
      Thank you.

  10. Hello Islam.

    Here’s an email I received from Ann regarding her Abp Emeritus Chaput experience:

    “Ann Barnhardt
    Sun, Mar 31, 2019, 7:42 PM
    to me

    Didn’t walk out of the Mass, but yes, after hearing him go out of his way to say that musloids “worship the same God we do” I never went to his 18:30 Sunday evening Mass at the Denver Cathedral again. It was no great loss – music was guitars and bongos. No joke.
    Always worked my travel schedule so that I could attend a Trad Mass from there forward.

    Fun fact: Chaput doesn’t write his own books. He just takes credit for them. They are ghosted by a woman in Denver.

    Furthermore, I consider that islam must be destroyed.”

    Regarding the “Hombre in the sky and the FSSP position.” The situation is fragile.

Comments are closed.