I’m that overwhelmed altar boy. I’m that priest offering Mass in Latin. But it seems that every day (Cardinal)(Arch)bishops are dictatorially, tyrannically forbidding Latin and ad orientem worship in the Novus Ordo, which directly contradicts the validly celebrated ecumenical council of Vatican II and directly contradicts both the Institution of the Missal (otherwise called the GIRM) and also the in-line rubrics printed in the Altar Missal, not to mention Post-Conciliar Papal interventions such as Paul VI’s Iubilate Deo, none of which was never rescinded. These (Cardinal)(Arch)bishops hypocritically shriek: “To hell with Vatican II and all post-Conciliar reform! I’m the one! I’m the only one!”
So, as (Cardinal)(Arch)bishops forbid such things, the question is this: can they do this legitimately? Are they acting ultra vires, beyond their powers?
The answer comes from expert Canon Lawyers and Liturgists. No. It’s not legit. But then they are quick to add: “But if you don’t submit to their tyrannical hatred of Christ, they have a thousand ways to F*** you up. And they will. And they have always done this: “No one in Rome is going to take the side of the law, or stand with Christ Jesus, and certainly they will not come to your rescue. Get over it.”
So, my question is this: If everyone is compliant with effeminate (Cardinal)(Arch)bishops steamrolling over the Sacred Liturgy, over Christ, over Jesus’ priests, who is it that will ever stand alongside Jesus in His trials? Anyone? Ever? Jesus doesn’t say, “Blessed are you who ran away so as not to stand with me in my trials.” No. He said: “Blessed are you who have stood by me in my trials.”
The other week I had a many hours conversation with a priest friend on the famous “Day Off”. These are often over the top, intense exchanges on all things spiritual, philosophical, theological, liturgical, political, ecclesial, the usual solving all the problems of the Church and the world all at once.
This time around it was all about what is commonly held to be the so called abrogation of the TLM, the Traditional Latin Mass, as well as the so called promulgation of the Novus Ordo, the New Ordo of Mass. After all, the full implementation of Traditionis custodes is afoot, though this action of suppression is more likely to be that which is expected to be delivered with a jackboot in some (arch)dioceses.
“Read it aloud,” my priest friend suggested. Every few sentences I would stop and make an exasperated comment about ambiguity, lack of logic, and complain about the strong emphasis on the mere feelings of Paul VI which he categorized as “desire” (see “placet” in the Latin). In fact, the entire document is not about abrogation of the TLM, but the mere desire of Paul VI that the Novus Ordo Missae be received. He said nothing whatsoever about any promulgation. It’s a statement of feelings. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Of particular mention is the last paragraph before the dating and signing. Stare at the logic. It’s not what you might expect:
“The effective date for what we have prescribed in this Constitution shall be the First Sunday of Advent of this year, 30 November. We decree that these laws and prescriptions be firm and effective now and in the future, notwithstanding[“non obstantibus”], to the extent necessary, the apostolic constitutions and ordinances issued by our predecessors and other prescriptions, even those deserving particular mention and amendment.”
But what is it that he has prescribed? It’s found in the immediately preceding paragraph about Paul VI’s desires of expectations:
“After what we have presented concerning the new Roman Missal, we wish [that’s a simple desire, not legislation: “placet”] in conclusion to insist on one point in particular and to make it have its effect. When he promulgated the “editio princeps” of the Roman Missal, our predecessor St. Pius V offered it to the people of Christ as the instrument of liturgical unity and the expression of a pure and reverent worship in the Church. Even though, in virtue of the decree of the Second Vatican Council, we have accepted into the new Roman Missal lawful variations and adaptations, our own expectation in no way differs from that of our predecessor. [Paul VI’s wish, desire, expectation…] It is that the faithful will receive [part of any promulgation is any reception, which is up in the air as of his writing and still today] the new Missal as a help toward witnessing and strengthening their unity with one another; that through the new Missal one and the same prayer in a great diversity of languages will ascend, more fragrant than any incense, to our heavenly Father, through our High Priest, Jesus Christ, in the Holy Spirit.”
I’m sure there are apoplectic knee-jerk reactions to that (“But we know what he means!”). So, let’s take a closer look at that very official closing paragraph:
“The effective date for what we have prescribed in this Constitution [his sharing of a wish] shall be the First Sunday of Advent of this year [1969], 30 November. We decree that these laws and prescriptions [actually, just his sharing of a wish] be firm and effective now [how rigid, especially about what he feels about wishes!] and in the future, notwithstanding, to the extent necessary, the apostolic constitutions and ordinances issued by our predecessors and other prescriptions, even those deserving particular mention and amendment [note the logic of that usage of “notwithstanding”, “non obstantibus” (see the parsing below)].”
Here’s the deal: This is simply a statement that Paul VI wishes, desires, expects, has feelings about… everyone everywhere and all the time knows of his wishes (his laws and prescriptions merely having their final referents in his wishes), so that while those mere wishes are known, all the apostolic constitutions and ordinances issued by his predecessors and other prescriptions, even those deserving particular mention and amendment, all retain their force. Just because something is not held to stand in the way doesn’t mean that it is abrogated. Yep. Stunning, isn’t it? And just because Paul VI has a desire doesn’t mean anything is promulgated. Yep. Stunning, isn’t it?
Anachronistic to all this is “Feelings” which debuted four years later, but perhaps might have been inspired by Paul VI’s feelings.
See link in video show notes for full story. What follows are a few snippets and then some comments.
CNA August 23, 2021 Costa Rican bishop suspends priest for saying Ordinary Form Mass in Latin ad orientem
Fr. Sixto Eduardo Varela Santamaría has been suspended by the Bishop of the Diocese of Alajuela in Costa Rica after the priest said Mass in the Ordinary Form in Latin and ad orientem. at his parish of St. Peter the Patriarch – ACI Prensa
ACI Prensa, the Spanish sister news agency of CNA, confirmed that the Diocese of Alajuela, in the Northern region of Costa Rica, ordered Fr. Sixto Eduardo Varela Santamaría to be suspended from all ministries for six months, and will be sent to a psychological treatment clinic for celebrating in Latin the Mass of the Missal of Pope Paul VI, also known as the Ordinary Form or “Novus Ordo.”
[… Even though Father Sixto said a Novus Ordo Mass] “Bishop Buigues Oller gave as a truly confusing reason [for punishing Father Sixto, because,]: according to him, the only way we could keep celebrating the Traditional Latin Mass was for us to either be in existence before 1970 or to be related to the schismatic Society of St. Pius the X (SSPX,) something that is not mentioned either by Summorum Pontificum or Traditiones Custodes,” the association told ACI Prensa.
[…] “Fr. Varela Santamaría revealed that he has temporarily been sent to his sister’s home, and that the diocese will send him to a retreat house/clinic that will provide him, “spiritual, psychological and medical attention, at least according to the website of this place.”
This is where we are headed. Can the bishops be that insanely ignorant? I doubt it. But — hey! — we’re to think the best of others, right? I guess we have a lot of insanely ignorant bishops. Meanwhile, Jesus’ own priests are effectively getting their throats slit.
Here’s the deal: When young seminarian Joseph Ratzinger was in moral theology class in Germany, a fellow seminarian stood up and asserted that Hitler would surely go to heaven if only he had an erroneous conscience, you know, because he might have had feelings that he was, like, sincere. Later, Ratzinger recounted it was at that exact moment that he realized that erroneous conscience doesn’t save. Jesus saves.
In all the hell of chaos we’re experiencing the One whom we don’t hear about is Jesus. How is it that the bishops don’t know that Christ our God, Divine Son of the Immaculate Conception, will come to judge the living and the dead and the world by fire? It’s all hush hush about the Living Truth, hush hush about proper doctrine and morality. How is it that NOT telling the Living Truth with honesty and integrity and enthusiasm and joy and charity is best way forward?
“Silence that Jesus!” Is that the way it is? I thought we were to help each other get to heaven, even to correct and admonish out of love for one another, putting no one on a pedestal, making no one beyond reach of being helped, you know, out of human respect, so that we all just go to hell together. I want to help others get to heaven so as to get there myself. That includes Pope Francis and the bishops. To leave anyone out, so that we can continue under the radar and just do our own thing, is to condemn others and oneself. If the only way to continue is to compromise one’s priesthood so as to remain a priest, one will never be a priest for anyone.
Here’s something to ponder, because if it’s in the Scriptures, it’s because it is absolutely relevant in every culture of every time and every place, for all from every tribe, tongue, people and nation:
“The apostles were brought in and made to appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. “We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name,” he said. “Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man’s blood.” Peter and the other apostles replied: “We must obey God rather than human beings! The God of our ancestors raised Jesus from the dead—whom you killed by hanging him on a cross. God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might bring Israel to repentance and forgive their sins. We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.” When they heard this, they were furious and wanted to put them to death.”
Yep. That’s the way it is. Surely all in the Sanhedrin were exclaiming to themselves that they had nice feelings about their erroneous consciences. Surely they were all on their way to heaven while exclaiming the damnation of the Apostles and of Jesus. Some things just don’t change.
Bishops today are furious, limiting the ministry of priests who speak about Jesus, who speak about good doctrine, good morality. “You’re telling everyone about Jesus!” is actually an accusation these days, as always: “People might notice, and to “have that kind of thing going on is unacceptable!”
And that means that we have the opportunity to count it a privilege to be mistreated for the sake of the Name, the Holy Name of Jesus, for upholding the Most Holy Trinity, God, before whom there is no other god, no damned Pachamama, no demons, no narcissistic human beings holding themselves to be gods.
Count it a joy. And this is true joy.
Yikes! I only right now remember Saint Francis asking Brother Leo about true joy. Remember what happened. Yikes!
ARISE! LET US BE GOING! 