The Cardinal has passed his judgement on the Pope and his Motu Proprio, see Fr Z.: it only applies in a restricted form in Westminster, as in Leeds.
I really can't see what Cardinal Murphy O'Connor is so afraid of, that he feels he should take to himself power which does not belong to him.
He is obviously afraid that young priests in his diocese will start saying the Traditional Mass. In Westminster of course most of them already do and will defy his attempted clamp down.
There is such a striking similarity to the Bishop of Leeds' "reponse", one might think that Cormac was preparing the way for his chosen successor.
How sad.
30 comments:
This document defies Papal authority. Is this Cardinal a wolf? Is his action not schismatic? Is he a sede vacante when he seeks to make Papal authority a dead letter?
What do you think he's afraid of? The game is up. The latitude the English bishops had under JPII and Basil Hume is over and they are beginning to squirm. God bless BXVI
It is really terribly sad that some bishops seem to be orchestrating an attempt to thwart the will of the Holy Father. They are not popes in their own dioceses.
They have denied future priests the opportunity to study latin, in direct opposition to canon law; they now, perversely, attempt to use that lack of knowledge as a reason to disobey the pope.
They leave themselves open to the charge of rebellion against the authority of the Holy Father; such rebellion is only one step away from schism. Is that what they are aiming for?
They need our prayers.
Can you imagine any Archbishop of Westminster prior to 1978 making such a risible attempt to subvert the authority of the Holy See? I expect the Cathedral is shaking from all the dead Cardinals spinning in their graves.
Given his attitude to Missa Normativa in Latin when he took over at Arundel and Brighton this does not surprise me. We got rubbish responses, the sort of thing you got from the Area Manager at British Rail when you complained about pointless changes to train services which made them worse. Which seems to have been about the level of the man. How he came to be appointed to Westminster should be included amongst the Mysteries of Faith.
Given the skeletons that have fallen out of the cupboard he was supposed to be in charge of I would have thought that was more for him to be afraid of.
I don't think it makes him sede vacante. It just means he'd lose if it came to a judicial review. Is there any such thing in canon law?
Is there a silver lining in these particular clouds? Is it wishful thinking to hope that the outcome of this will be to show ROME more clearly how lacking our hierarchy is in both wisdom and obediance? Maybe those who have occupied the 'high pillars' where they imply ownership of greater insight into the nuances of the modern church are about to topple off those pillars. Is it just me or do others also find that such liberals have a patronising pseudo-intellectualism which is becoming only too apparant in this debate. The accompanying trait is often a 'cultivated humility' - they affect a certain stoop and apparanent air of self deprecation but when the chips are down do almost anything to protect their own position. I suspect we are right on the brink of a defining moment in the future of The Church.
There seems to be a supernatural hatred of the Old Mass amongst some Bishops, I think that is what Archbishop meant when you linked to what he had said last week.
That is worrying, so as a member of the Cardinal's diocese I shall purposely seek out the EF, just to thwart the devil!
Yes, I have read Father Z's vigorous fisk of the Cardinal's letter.
Very unfortunately, this lettter seems to be another attempt to impose a restrictive interpretation on Summorum Pontificum.
It seems to me entirely to misread what Summorum Pontificum says, and appears to have been written in the spirit of "I'm the bishop here. It's my diocese. I'll make the decisions."
What's wrong with that ?
Nothing, I would say, except where a bishop unfairly invokes his authority in a way which, if successful, could only impede the application of the Motu Proprio.
That could be read as an act of disloyalty, to say the least.
You'd think a bishop of this mindset would wait until Rome issues a clarification on various parts of "Summorum Pontificum".
But, then, he could (presumably) speak or act within his own diocese so as to impose his own restrictions on the clarification.
And so it goes on ..
It's plain and simple : War !
The option for peace and reconciliation has gone - they've been given every opportunity to conform to His Holiness' wishes - especially considering the great publicity that Fr Z has given regarding other bishops ' responses and still the Cardinal says this - His holiness will not tolerate the oppression, neglect and virtual enslavement of the faithful to situationism/pragmatism and modernism any more...
This is tantamount to treason - what is our cardinal so scared of that he should act so foolishly and cowardly ?
There is no need for the Cardinal or any of the fellow bishops to be writing to priests or people about the Motu Proprio, apart from a) to ask the priests to read it, b) to welcome it, c) to insist on its full implementation, and d) to offer any assistance that can be given should it be needed.
Is it really so difficult to write such a letter?
OTSOA,
War - no, but it does increasingly show the division between the Pope and some bishops. It perhaps shows a division between authentic Roman Catholicism in communion with Peter and the type of liberal Catholicism which we have manufactured here in England.
btw, he is not OUR Cardinal, outside of Westminster, he only has moral authority.
Michael,
Come off of it, Sede Vacante? That is rediculous.
Who or what is this ex-patriot Yank, Zuhlsdorf? He seems to be a hick who spends his time blogging, blogging, blogging or, when not blogging, eating and getting fat. He reduces documents to nonsense by his inane comments in red and is so bone-headed that sympathy is automatically raised for those whose work he criticizes.
When the Archbishop of Westminster's letter is read dispassionately it is clear that he is facing the objective reality of the difficulties of implementing Summorum Pontificum in a liturgically functional way that will not do violence to its form.
For some years I have been going regularly to the celebrations of the Tridentine Rite each Sunday at St James's, Spanish Place, and the congregations are fairly sparse in comparison with other Masses there.The only time significant numbers turn up is for special occasions organized by the LMS. The numbers at this weekly Mass are an established test of the likely response to be found generally. Should the rite be more freely available, not only will the regular congregation be diminished in size (people come for miles to attend)but other parishes attempting a weekly Sunday Mass will have to face congregations that are likely to be discouragingly small.
I don't believe the Cardinal is trying to pour cold water on the use of the Extraordinary Form, he is simply making the best of the possibilities as a beginning and trying to protect the form's integrity. His responsibilities extend to his diocese as a whole, not merely to a paranoid minority, among whom I include myself.
+ Cormac has used, apparently, the same basic text as Bishop Roche - complete with the same misstatements of fact and intention and identical phraseology in key passages.
It's clear their Lordships have asked somebody to draft a common document for them to top and tail (let's hope he isn't a canonist - who ought to be "struck-off" or disbarred or whatever they do to unethical or incompetent canon lawyers).
But how out-of-touch ARE some of us? It's extraordinary. The Cardinal's own motto is the title of the Vatican II document on the Church in the Modern World, all about reading the signs of the times. Yet not only has His Eminence put his signature to a misrepresentation (charitable expression) of Papal legislation, but he's apparently oblivious, poor chap, of the storm of protest over Bishop Roche's own cut'n'paste of the same text, painfully exposed last month as wantonly repressive and misleading.
Worse - in the interim we've also had Archbishop Ranjith's astonishingly frank on-the-record intervention of last week:
You know there have been, on the part of some dioceses, even interpretative documents which inexplicably aim at putting limits on the Pope’s Motu Proprio. Behind these actions there are hidden, on one hand, prejudices of an ideological kind and, on the other hand, pride, one of the gravest sins. I repeat: I call on everyone to obey the Pope. If the Holy father decided he had to issue the Motu Proprio, he had his reasons which I share entirely.
True, His Eminence's letter alludes to forthcoming guidelines from Rome; that being the case, why immediately follow with "guidelines" of one's own - "guidelines" which have already been, moreover, the subject of international obloquy and a devastating Curial intervention?
Can they not use the Internet? do they think none of us can? It beggars belief.
anonymous said, 'do others also find that such liberals have a patronising pseudo-intellectualism which is becoming only too apparant in this debate'.
Change apparent to TRANSPARENT!
Eventually all the people saw through the emperors new clothes.
anonymous ~ the ad hominem attacks on Fr "Z" are aggressive and uncalled for.
I also don't know this priest but there is no need to be so abusive towards a cleric with strongly held convictions - it does your cause no good whatsoever.
I wonder was the Cardinal's response written by Fr. Andrew Summersgill. He might be the shared resource between Leeds and Wesminster.
The suspicion is that Bishop Roche acted as point man for the planned strategy. Surely this was a mistake by His Lordship.
For some years I have been going regularly to the celebrations of the Tridentine Rite each Sunday at St James's, Spanish Place, and the congregations are fairly sparse in comparison with other Masses there.
Well this is rather dishonest, as I too go to the old rite at Spanish Place. The mass has always been quite full for 9.30am in the morning and I have it on authority from the parish priest that it is one of the most attended masses on the Sunday rota. The Oratory's low mass on Sundays has also grown steadily since the Pope's motu proprio as well.
And even then, this isn't the crux of the argument. Mass attendance has generally decreased since 1970. We have not experienced droves of people coming to Catholic churches after the "renewed liturgy" being put in place but the exact opposite.
Anonymous,
'This Zuhlsdorf' is, like him or not, part of a major force for change in, if not yet the English Catholic church, certainly the American (the largest first world Catholic church, compared to which we in England are statistically fairly unimportant.) Go to Rome, and virtually every US seminarian you meet is interested in the 1962 rite and logs on to 'Fr Z'. If print was the friend of 16th century Lutheranism, so the internet is the greatest ally of the papacy of Benedict XVI. If you want to know what the Catholic church will be like in 30 years' time, look not at what is happening amongst your age-group in your local parish now. Look instead at the opinions of today's seminarians in the parts of the church that are relatively most powerful, self-confident and growing. The US church is one such place (compared to us certainly).
As for our backwater, well, I attend the London Oratory 1962 mass at 9am. 200-400 people (it varies) in the main church, many young or youngish with large families - and I've seen real growth in these numbers in the last year. Unimaginable 15 years ago when it was a fixture in the Little Oratory. And many people I know who crowd out the 11am sung Latin Novus Ordo would be happy with a 1962 mass - they want the music and the 11am timing, not, as such, the Novus Ordo. As if the Oratory Novus Ordo 11am Sung Mass isn't designed to be fairly indistinguishable from a 62ish High Mass, anyway.
Early 9.00 or 9.30 Low masses aren't the best indicator of the potential for a rite that's native form is to be sung - given which the Oratory figures are impressive. Despite a (beautifully) sung near 1962-clone at 11am, numbers continue to increase for the 9am music-less original. (It must be the silent canon!) Not a vote for the Bugnini liturgy or Cormac-church I think. Moreover in the university where I teach most of the Catholic students intermittently (at least) attend 1962 masses. At which one also meets English seminarians (who are wisely keeping their heads low).
Finally, Cormac wants just to keep order and 'preserve the form'? What a joke!. He's terrified and trying to stop this. Why else fuss about bination? - bination, what a threat to the form! I happen to know that he, O'Brien and Conti made a special trip early this year to Rome to beg the Pope not to issue SP. They were told (not by Benedict personally, but by well-known co-worker and appointment of his), politely, but in effect, to piss off back to blighty. No more than these resentful, lost, passed-it managers of decline deserved.
I only began to understand politics as an adult Catholic, watching the Church. Ideology is, after fear, the thing most likely to make otherwise decent people lie their heads off.
This is very, very like watching the Berlin Wall coming down all those years ago.
Who is this Fr Z? Does he have a real job, or is it just blogging? I thought priests were ordained to do more than that. Maybe no one will employ him. Speaks volumes!
Fr. Ray,
Don’t you think it’s funny how the anti-SP bishops are being so contradictory – and are insulting our intelligence – by simultaneously advancing the following tendentious ideas:
(1) “There is already ample provision of Tridentine Masses and they are generally sparsely attended, showing that there is little demand for them.”
(2) “Pope Benedict’s liberalization of the Old Mass via the Motu Proprio is a seriously divisive move which threatens the unity of the entire Catholic Church.”
Surely, if (1) is true, then (2) must be false.
So what's the problem?
Francis, Yes I agree.
I just wonder why they make a fuss about it, obviously it is ideological rather than actually about the MP per se, which is why I think it is of great importance. It is a battle between, ...well, I am not quite sure what, and the Roman Pontiff.
Bravo Petavius - great comment!
...'resentful, lost, passed-it managers of decline'....
I couldn't agree with you more!
Fr. Ray,
Moretben is reminded of the fall of the Berlin Wall.
No, that was too easy. I think this will be more like the fall of Ceausescu - courageous booing from the crowds, followed the shutdown of TV transmissions, then a lot of shooting and killing by terrified Securitate men, then capture, execution and, finally, victory and democracy.
With regard to SP, we are currently at the "booing" stage and the securitate men are priming their weapons.
To gutless anonymous, in answer to your tiresome questions:
Ordained 26 May 1991 by John Paul II in Rome for the Suburbicarian Diocese of Velletri-Segni (ITALY). Moderator: Catholic Online Forum; ASK FATHER Question Box. Columnist: The Wanderer. Licentiate in Patristic Theology from the Augustinianum in Rome.
There you have it: an Catholic priest born in America working in Catholic apologetics and administering the sacraments. Happy now?
Petavius - what university do you teach at?
I haven't noticed an increase in uni students at the old rite per se, but I have definitely noticed for a long time that there is a growing tendency for large young families to go.
Fr. Ray,
"Who is this Fr Z?"
Any thinking Catholic who has an internet connection but still hasn't heard of Fr. Z, or doubts he has a day-job (how can I put this charitably?)...needs to get himself into the 21st Century pronto!
I find these personal attacks on Father Z rather encouraging in a way.
They prove (if proof were needed) that his blog is read not only by traditional Catholics.
When someone is reduced to making ad hominem attacks, it usually means he or she has lost the argument.
Any ecclesiastic who opposes the Motu Proprio must have an astonshingly poor grasp of the politics of the thing.
If they are correct in their assessment that there is not demand for the Extraordinary form, then they will be proved right when attendances are poor. Then they can say "told you so, we were right all along!" And if people turn up to the Extraordinary Rite liturgies in large number, they take the credit.
They are in a position of being able to back both runners in a two-horse race. What is their problem?
Post a Comment