Tuesday, April 30, 2019

A sustained attack in Malta on those in favour of the Tridentine Mass - 5

Fr Joe Inguanez: “We are faced with a crisis of faith. Attendance at Sunday Mass, important though this is, is not the main issue”
 
The latest article of a series... extracts below:
Clericalism is one of our comfort zones. Clericalism was described by Pope Francis as one of the strongest challenges facing the Church. Even liturgical celebrations, holy though they may be, can become one of our clerical and lay comfort zones.
One falls into the trap of clericalism when one considers the priesthood as a privilege rather than a service, when priests become the ‘officers’ of the institution rather than the servants of the people, when they choose the front rows rather than at the back seat in the temple.
There is another trap: when the laity are considered or consider themselves as the ‘lunga manus’ of the clergy.
You write in your introduction to the census that in the same way that a clerical garb does not make one a priest, liturgical vestments do not make the liturgy religious. What does make it religious?
The Italian proverb that the religious garment doesn’t make the monk can hardly be contested.
Liturgical vestments can create an ambience which Rudolf Otto, in his analysis of religious, refers to as “numinous”, which he described as a fearful and fascinating mystery. Very often this is the way God has been presented.
However, as far as Christian religious experience is concerned, this is only partially true. The Church itself is a mystery. It is a mystery because it is the Body of the Incarnate Christ. Christ is the Immanuel – God-is-with-us. Jesus was never the object of fear but of love. How could children and sinners rush after a man who was fearsome?
The aspect of Immanuel should be the heart of the liturgical action. In its millennial history the Church made many mistakes on this point. And we have some in Malta who want to present this type of liturgical drama which literally created a distance between the actors and the audience, the priest and the congregation.
Let us take just one example. The Church has dropped the use of black liturgical vestments; yet there are still a few who doggedly ignore this and also cover the walls of their church with black drape. 
Religiosity entails several dimensions, and the liturgy is one of them. But essentially Christian religiosity entails the acceptance of the supernatural in all aspects of our life. The rest is consequential.
In terms of the liturgy then, what will make, in your words, “leavers or absentees return to Sunday Mass”?
Of it nature, the liturgy is divine and human. Its main characteristic lies in the fact that it is communitarian, and participatory, and Christological. In fact, the priest was prohibited from celebrating Mass without a community; then through the biggest stretch of imagination, we reduced that community to the presence of an altar server or one person in the pews!
The liturgy should never be the simple repetition of liturgical texts, as if it were a mantra, but an expression of the joy and sorrow of God’s people in union with Christ as their Head.
When immobilism taints the liturgy it will become ritualistic or worse rubricistic. It must celebrate the adoration of God ‘here and now’ in memory of Christ. Ritual in the liturgy should have a meaning to the congregation, otherwise it will be little more than the theatre of the absurd, thus rendering the liturgy irrelevant to human needs.
Is the local Church burying its head in the sand about the situation?
The way your question is worded already indicates the restrictive mentality inherited from liturgical texts. Why should we refer to the local Church and not to the Maltese Church? Did Paul ever say the local Church of Corinth? Does not Paul speak of the early Christian communities as Churches? Don’t you think that such expressions as ‘the local Church’ reflects a frame of mind that is still living in the fear of the Protestant Reformation?
I must be honest. There are several parishes, groups and communities in the Maltese Church who are open to new and in no way unorthodox liturgical innovations.
However, I am sorry to say that unfortunately, the Liturgical Commission, instead of becoming the motor for liturgical revival and keeping alive a post-Conciliar liturgical movement, has turned itself into an office. It would be more honest if we were to rename it as the Commission for the Official Translation of Liturgical Texts! And, from under the grapevine the translation I have at hand is not something to write home about!
This immobility might explain why in 2005, 35 per cent of the attendees went to Mass outside their territorial parish, and this percentage remained constant in 2017 when 35.2 per cent acted similarly. Are we aware that this will lead to the erosion of the territorial parish as community, if this exists, at all, thus undermining its main raison d’être?
These is still another category who want to turn the clock back. For them this has become an ideology in the Marxist sense of the concept.

Friday, February 22, 2019

Quotes to reflect upon (19)



"I should like also that Rome should in fact give a good example of Liturgy celebrated devoutly and without ill-placed 'creativity'. Certain abuses in liturgical matters have succeeded, through reaction, in favouring attitudes that have led to a taking up of positions that in themselves cannot be upheld and are in contrast with the Gospel. In appealing with affection and with hope to the sense of responsibility of everyone, before God and the Church, I should like to be able to give an assurance that every liturgical irregularity will be diligently avoided."
 
Extract from the homily of Pope John Paul I at the Patriarchal Archbasilica of St John Lateran - Saturday, 23 September 1978 on the occasion of taking possession of the Chair of the Bishop of Rome.

 

Monday, February 11, 2019

Vatican II and the hermeneutic law of Pope John XXIII

Jack P Oostveen
Jack Oostveen, author of this letter, with Pope Benedict XVI

Open letter to the diocesan Bishops and Auxiliary Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church


This letter has been sent by e-mail to about 3100 Bishops (Diocesan and Auxiliary ).
 
January 13th, 2019 – Sunday after Epiphany, the baptism of the lord.

Your Excellency,For the good of the Church I respectfully request some of your valuable time in bringing the following matter to your attention and with a request to present this to the Holy Father.
 
It is a fact that the most of you were ordained after the Second Vatican Council. At the opening of the Council, only the eldest among you were about 19 years old and maybe young seminarians, while others were still in their childhood or even among the growing population of “not-yet-born”. Therefore, the Council is becoming more and more a historical event of which one has only second hand knowledge, which confronts us with contradictory ways of understanding the underlying hermeneutics: ‘continuity’ and ‘discontinuity’ being the main problems.
 
Herewith, it appears that lethal fruits are more and more manifestly apparent in the Church, namely “confusion, bitterness in human relations and fratricidal wars”. I maintain that these are direct consequences of the fact that a majority of Council Fathers and their theologians had acted in free will, contrary to a “gracious collaboration concerning the inspiration of the Holy Spirit” even on the first working day of the Council [Ref. 1]. And I also provide evidence that false portrayals of Pope John XXIII and the Council’s objectives have been deliberately created [Ref. 2]. This has led in subsequent years to a deliberate and deceitful referencing of the so-called ‘Spirit of the Council’ for interpreting the Council’s documents, in a manner contradictory to the hermeneutic law as set by Pope John XXIII in his Opening Address.
 
Pope John XXIII stated this as being: a renewal, not in a vague kind of continuity or a discontinuity, but explicitly in unity and in accordance with the Doctrine taught by the Fathers, never depart from the sacred patrimony of truth received from the Fathers” [Ref. 3].
 
Consequently, referring to the ‘Spirit of the Council’ has led to a departure “from the sacred patrimony of truth received from the Fathers”, by which more and more faithful have lost their Faith. Others wandering as sheep found themselves focussing on Sacred Tradition (i.e. “the sacred patrimony of truth received from the Fathers”) as their anchorage of Faith. While some others who consider that the false portrayals were true, have reached the ultimate conclusion and accused Pope John XXIII for what was laid down in these false portrayals. Therefore, those who have created and cherished these false portrayals or who have continually proclaimed them, bear a great responsibility for the consequences.
 
Evidently, with the words of Pope John XXIII in his Opening Address we find here a clear and prophetical explanation why these lethal fruits exist since the years of Vatican II:

Men are either with Him and His Church, and then they enjoy light, goodness, order, and peace. Or else they are without Him, or against Him, and deliberately opposed to His Church, and then they give rise to confusion, to bitterness in human relations, and to the constant danger of fratricidal wars
 
Nevertheless, one must acknowledge that by allowing these irregular acts and their lethal fruits, the Holy Spirit always respect the free will of man, even that of each individual Council Father and their theological advisors individually. Just like Jesus respected the free will of Peter, when he three times denied knowing Jesus. Whereas, at the same time and above all in a wonderful way, the Holy Spirit also protected the Pastoral Council against creating full heresies. This by leaving open the possibility of interpreting the Council’s documents by free will in accordance with the rule set by the lawmaker of the Council, Pope John XXIII when he stated: “a renewal in unity and in accordance with the Doctrine taught by the Fathers”. Thereby, given that the Council was set up as “Pastoral”, the full Doctrine of the Church is the leading guide and has to be maintained “pure and integral” and undoubtedly “without attenuations or distortion [Ref. 4].

Please, I humbly beg you for your heartfelt and sincere prayers for the Holy Father. While Pope Francis has been drowned in, and as such betrayed for more than 55 years, by the dissident liberal spirit of the Jesuits, he certainly needs and deserves our spiritual support. So that, as St. Peter initially denied to know Jesus thrice, similarly, he may have a change of heart, following which he can also confirm his brethren.

With my heartfelt gratitude for your kind and generous consideration, I offer you the assurance of my filial support and prayers, I hope for a speedy reply, and I humbly ask for the grace of your blessing.
Faithfully in Christo

-o-o-o-o-
 
Additionally to this letter:

To whom, who has some difficulties regarding the conservative understanding of Pope John XXIII, please, consider the Opening Address of the Council by Pope John XXIII as well as the following contributions of Peter Kwasnewski published at the New Liturgical Movenent:

-o-o-o-o-

Reference 1


This concerns a chain of irregular acts on October 13th, 1962, the first working day of the Council, that were deliberately initiated by Father Yves Congar O.P. and had been discussed by the French Bishops on the previous evening, October 12th. These irregular acts are enumerated as follows:
  1. Cardinal Liénart, a member of the Presidium, reading a paper prepared by Mgr. Garonne. This was doubly irregular, firstly the intervention itself, and secondly by addressing the request for changing the Council’s rule for that specific day to the Council Fathers instead of towards the Holy Father.
  2. An intervention by Cardinal Frings, also a member of the Presidium, confirming the intervention by Cardinal Liénart. He also did this in the name of Cardinal König, who did not belong to the Presidium. Evidently, this meant that these German Cardinals were informed by the French, prior to this first session.
  3. The applause that was started by a few Council Fathers, but which grew to include the majority. This occurred despite the fact that it was officially forbidden to applaud.
  4. The change of the Council’s rule by the Presidium.
  5. The lie by Cardinal Liénart to convince the Pope that his intervention, which was deliberate, premediated and prepared at the evening before was a spontaneous, charismatically inspired act.

All these successive irregularities broke the council’s legal framework, putting Pope John XXIII in a situation of ‘a fait accompli’ and demonstrating a lack of ‘a humble and gracious collaboration with the intention of the Holy Spirit’. Surely, it is obvious that these acts have had direct consequences regarding the inspiration of the Holy Spirit for each individual Council Father involved.
 
-o-o-o-o-


Reference 2

 
Among others, these false portrayals become clear by referring to the quote from the Opening Address of Pope John XXIII about the “prophets of doom”. Even during the Council, by using the pseudonym ‘Xavier Rynne’, a Redemptorist priest and theology professor had anonymously made such a false portrayals in his book “Letters from Vatican City”, which was internationally published in several languages. He wrote that regarding this quotation, Pope John XXIII especially mentioned here the conservative Curial Cardinals, and that he would agree with the objectives of the dissident liberal Council Fathers. With this he made a statement that still is hugely cherished by the liberal wing, as it was recently referred to in that way by Pope Francis in his Opening Address to the Synod of Youth.
 
For a good understanding to whom Pope John XXIII had referred as the “prophets of doom”, please first consider the full context of this quotation. He stated:

In the daily exercise of our pastoral office, we sometimes have to listen, much to our regret, to voices of persons who, though burning with zeal, are not endowed with too much sense of discretion or measure. In these modern times they can see nothing but prevarication and ruin. They say that our era, in comparison with past eras, is getting worse, and they behave as though they had learned nothing from history, which is, none the less, the teacher of life. They behave as though at the time of former Councils everything was a full triumph for the Christian idea and life and for proper religious liberty. We feel we must disagree with those prophets of doom, who are always forecasting disaster, as though the end of the world were at hand
 
So, to which of the following groups among the Council Fathers did Pope John XXIII refer to?
 
1. Was it the conservative wing, who accepted to discuss the preparatory documents, which were called by Pope John XXIII in his Opening Address as the “initial gift of celestial grace”? At the time of the Opening Address, they had nothing to fear from this Council, and in what way would they have been motivated to predict “doom” scenarios for the Church and the world, by seeking to prevent the Council? Moreover, they had encouraged Pope John XXIII to call this Council.
 
2. Or was it the liberal wing, who disagreed with this “initial gift of celestial grace” and worked on its replacement? They had at the time of the opening address, to fear for a full condemnation of their liberal thoughts by the Council, as this was clearly present in the preparatory documents and even mentioned in the Opening Address itself. Herein Pope John XXIII condemned the ‘uncertain opinions of men’ and the ‘new-born errors’, as well as he acknowledged that there certainly were ‘fallacious teachings, opinions, and concepts to be guarded against’.
 
Isn’t it obvious that it must be the liberal wing? Because of their knowledge of the progress of the preparatory work, they had to fear most the outcome of the Council and therefore had every motive to come up with “doom” scenarios for the Church and the world to prevent the Council proceeding as originally planned. At the start of the Council, it was the liberal wing that confronted Pope John XXIII with “a fait accompli” by deliberately breaking the Council’s rule on the first working day of the Council, creating a conditional situation to reject and replace the preparatory documents. Wasn’t it the liberal wing which after the Council made efforts to replace the hermeneutic rule as set by Pope John XXIII’s objectives for the Council? Even despite Pope Paul VI repeated the original hermeneutic rule in his closure address to the Council: “never depart from the sacred patrimony of truth received from the Fathers”, they changed this rule for a vague and ambiguous terminology “spirit of the council”. In this way they were able to eliminate all undesired conservative influences, including the interventions by Pope Paul VI and the original hermeneutic rule of Pope John XXIII. (Return to letter)

-o-o-o-o-

Reference 3


To further explain and clearly illustrate these false portrayals, I beg you to consider the following quotes taken from the Opening Address of Pope John XXIII on October 11th, 1962. These were the stated goals and objectives of the Second Vatican Council, were they not?
  1. The sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be guarded and taught more efficaciously;
  2. The Church should never depart from the sacred patrimony of truth received from the Fathers;
  3. Men, without the assistance of the whole of revealed doctrine, cannot reach a complete and firm unity of minds with which are associated true peace and eternal salvation.
  4. The truth of the Lord will remain forever;
  5. Not, certainly, that there is a lack of fallacious teaching, opinions, and dangerous concepts to be guarded against and dissipated. But these are so obviously in contrast with the right norm of honesty, and have produced such lethal fruits that by now it would seem that men of themselves are inclined to condemn them, particularly those ways of life which despise God and His law or place excessive confidence in technical progress and a wellbeing based exclusively on the comforts of life;
  6. Our duty is not only to guard this precious treasure, as if we were concerned only with antiquity, but to dedicate ourselves with an earnest will and without fear to that work which our era demands of us, pursuing thus the path which the Church has followed for twenty centuries;
  7. The salient point of this Council is not, therefore, a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church which has repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and by ancient and modern theologians, and which is presumed to be well known and familiar to all;
  8. The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another. And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions of a Magisterium which is predominantly pastoral in character;
  9. To transmit the doctrine, pure and integral, without any attenuation or distortion, which throughout twenty centuries, notwithstanding difficulties and contrasts, has become the common patrimony of men. It is a patrimony not well received by all, but always a rich treasure available to men of good will.

Clearly, these quotations from Pope John XXIII are fully in accordance with his Encyclical Ad Petri Cathedram, 1959, in which he condemned in harsh terms anyone who denies the revealed Truth or interferes by the spread of lies or indifferences. It is very obvious from these citations that Pope John XXIII showed absolutely no desire to change one iota of Doctrine. From this Opening Address one can only conclude that he sought the traditional teaching of the Fathers, his ‘recent and not-so-recent predecessors’, so that the primary rule of the Council should be understood as: a renewal in unity and in accordance with the Doctrine taught by the Fathers: “never depart from the sacred patrimony of truth received from the Fathers”?. And evidently a “renewal” clearly meant how ‘to transmit the doctrine, pure and integral, without any attenuation or distortion’. Thereby it appears that, as a ‘conditio sine qua none’, the use of the term ‘medicine of mercy’ may never be decoupled from the need to explain 'the validity of its doctrine more fully’ as he said: ‘pure and integral, without any attenuation or distortion'. He did not abrogate any condemnations made by his predecessors, rather he spoke about ‘uncertain opinions of men’, ‘newborn errors’, and ‘fallacious teaching, opinions, and concepts to be guarded against’ in a way he confirmed the condemnation by Pius XII in his Encyclical Humani Generis, of the main principles of the New Theology.

Isn’t it obvious that the Council’s documents with their deliberate ambiguities, contradictory texts and one-sided use of the doctrine cannot be interpreted well, without the correct application of the hermeneutic that considered the full use of the Church’s doctrine: “never depart from the sacred patrimony of truth received from the Fathers”? This should be the hermeneutic rule for interpreting and referring to the Second Vatican Council.
(Retour to letter)

-o-o-o-o-

Reference 4


To provide you with more factual information on this statement, please, find here the additional document: Vatican II, a Council in threefold?. This document is the extended summary of two other reports. Report 1 is an observational analysis of the evaluation of male religious memberships since 1950 that can be found here , while Report 2 concerns a substantial analysis concerning the general process behind the observations in Report 1 (here ).
(Return to letter)

Thursday, February 7, 2019

Aftermath of the Suppression of Ecclesia Dei

Image result for LEFEBVRE RATZINGER

As had been stated in previous posts and by several traditional Catholic websites, Pope Francis decreed that the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei - founded by Pope St. John Paul II - is to be abolished. Its work will now continue in a “special section” of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The Vatican has said that this decision has been taken because ‘conditions and circumstances change,’ but insisted that dialogue towards regularization of the SSPX ‘continues.’

Monday, January 21, 2019

Lettera Apostolica in forma di Motu proprio circa la Pontificia Commissione “Ecclesia Dei”, 19.01.2019

Image result for francis

Da oltre trent’anni la Pontificia Commissione Ecclesia Dei, istituita con il Motu proprio Ecclesia Dei adflicta, del 2 luglio 1988, ha assolto con sincera sollecitudine e lodevole premura al compito di collaborare coi Vescovi e coi Dicasteri della Curia Romana, nel facilitare la piena comunione ecclesiale dei sacerdoti, seminaristi, comunità o singoli religiosi e religiose, legati alla Fraternità fondata da Mons. Marcel Lefebvre, che desideravano rimanere uniti al Successore di Pietro nella Chiesa Cattolica, conservando le proprie tradizioni spirituali e liturgiche.1
 
In tal modo, essa ha potuto esercitare la propria autorità e competenza a nome della Santa Sede su dette società e associazioni, fino a quando non si fosse diversamente provveduto.2
 
Successivamente, in forza del Motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, del 7 luglio 2007, la Pontificia Commissione ha esteso l’autorità della Santa Sede su quegli Istituti e Comunità religiose, che avevano aderito alla forma straordinaria del Rito romano e avevano assunto le precedenti tradizioni della vita religiosa, vigilando sull’osservanza e sull’applicazione delle disposizioni stabilite.3
 
Due anni dopo, il mio Venerato Predecessore Benedetto XVI, col Motu proprio Ecclesiae unitatem, del 2 luglio 2009, ha riorganizzato la struttura della Pontificia Commissione, al fine di renderla più adatta alla nuova situazione venutasi a creare con la remissione della scomunica dei quattro Vescovi consacrati senza mandato pontificio. E, inoltre, ritenendo, che, dopo tale atto di grazia, le questioni trattate dalla medesima Pontificia Commissione fossero di natura primariamente dottrinale, Egli l’ha più organicamente legata alla Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede, conservandone comunque le iniziali finalità, ma modificandone la struttura.4
 
Ora, poiché la Feria IV della Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede del 15 novembre 2017 ha formulato la richiesta che il dialogo tra la Santa Sede e la Fraternità Sacerdotale San Pio X venga condotto direttamente dalla menzionata Congregazione, essendo le questioni trattate di carattere dottrinale, alla quale richiesta ho dato la mia approvazione in Audientia al Prefetto il 24 successivo e tale proposta ha avuto l’accoglienza della Sessione Plenaria della medesima Congregazione celebratasi dal 23 al 26 gennaio 2018, sono giunto, dopo ampia riflessione, alla seguente Decisione.
 
Considerando mutate oggi le condizioni che avevano portato il santo Pontefice Giovanni Paolo II alla istituzione della Pontificia Commissione Ecclesia Dei;
 
constatando che gli Istituti e le Comunità religiose che celebrano abitualmente nella forma straordinaria, hanno trovato oggi una propria stabilità di numero e di vita;
 
prendendo atto che le finalità e le questioni trattate dalla Pontificia Commissione Ecclesia Dei, sono di ordine prevalentemente dottrinale;
 
desiderando che tali finalità si rendano sempre più evidenti alla coscienza delle comunità ecclesiali,
colla presente Lettera Apostolica ‘Motu proprio data’,
 
Delibero
1. E’soppressa la Pontificia Commissione Ecclesia Dei, istituita il 2 luglio 1988 col Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei adflicta.
 
2. I compiti della Commissione in parola sono assegnati integralmente alla Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede, in seno alla quale verrà istituita una apposita Sezione impegnata a continuare l’opera di vigilanza, di promozione e di tutela fin qui condotta dalla soppressa Pontificia Commissione Ecclesia Dei.
 
3. Il bilancio della Pontificia Commissione rientra nella contabilità ordinaria della menzionata Congregazione.
 
Stabilisco, inoltre, che il presente Motu proprio, da osservarsi nonostante qualsiasi cosa contraria, anche se degna di particolare menzione, venga promulgato mediante pubblicazione sul quotidiano L’Osservatore Romano uscente il 19 gennaio 2019, entrando in immediato vigore, e che successivamente sia inserito nel Commentario ufficiale della Santa Sede, Acta Apostolicae Sedis.
 
Dato a Roma, presso San Pietro, il 17 Gennaio 2019, VI del Nostro Pontificato.
 
Francesco
 
____________________
1Cf. Joannes Paulus PP. II, Litterae Apostolicae ‘Motu proprio datae’, Ecclesia Dei adflicta’, 2 Iulii 1988, AAS, LXXX (1988), 12 (15 Nov. 1988), 1495-1498, 6a.
 
2 Cf. Rescriptum ex Audientia Sanctissimi, 18 Oct. 1988, AAS, LXXXII (1990), 5 (3 Maii 1990), 533-534, 6.
 
3 Cf. Benedictus PP. XVI, Litterae Apostolicae ‘Motu proprio datae’, Summorum Pontificum, 7 Iulii 2007, AAS, XCIX (2007), 9 (7 Sept. 2007), 777-781, 12.
 
4 Cf. Benedictus PP. XVI, Litterae Apostolicae ‘Motu proprio datae’, Ecclesiae unitatem, 2 Iulii 2009, AAS, CI (2009),
 
8 (7 Aug. 2009), 710-711, 5.
 

Monday, January 14, 2019

Quotes to reflect upon (18)

See the source image



"They (the Modernists) exercise all their ingenuity in an effort to weaken the force and falsify the character of Tradition, so as to rob it of all its weight and authority.  But for Catholics nothing will remove the authority of the second Council of Nicea, where it condemns those “who dare, after the impious fashion of heretics, to deride the ecclesiastical traditions, to invent novelties of some kind.... or endeavor by malice or craft to overthrow any one of the legitimate traditions of the Catholic Church”; nor that of the declaration of the fourth Council of Constantinople: “We therefore profess to preserve and guard the rules bequeathed to the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, by the Holy and most illustrious Apostles, by the orthodox Councils, both general and local, and by every one of those divine interpreters, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church.” Wherefore the Roman Pontiffs, Pius IV and Pius IX, ordered the insertion in the profession of faith of the following declaration: “I most firmly admit and embrace the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and other observances and constitutions of the Church” -
St. Pius X, Encyclical Pascendi Dominci Gregis, 8 September 1907
 

Friday, January 11, 2019

Concerning the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei

Image result for pontifical commission ecclesia dei

Much has been written in the past weeks that the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei (PCED), the Vatican body in charge of matters related to the Tridentine Mass and of negotiations with traditional Catholic groups (especially the SSPX), is set to be abolished shortly. Its functions would be completely amalgamated and absorbed by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Notwithstanding its limitations, the PCED had proven extremely beneficial to the integrity of the Tridentine Mass, especially since 2007.

Last November, this Blog had hinted that the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum was not going to be abrogated for the time being, but changes were going to occur in that direction. This looks likely to be one of the steps being taken.
 
We also warned about the risks of an agreement between the SSPX and the Vatican. A personal prelature will be in due course subjected to Canon 297, under which the SPX would need the local Bishop's permission to add new apostolates.
 
In the meantime the Congregation for Divine Worship is planning to introduce the Novus Ordo Propers of 1970 in the Roman Missal of 1962.
 
Traditional Catholics should look carefully and fight back as these steps remind us of previous bad experiences, such as:
 
  • the partial suppression of the FSSP by Protocol 1411-99;
  • the total suppression of the Franciscans of the Immaculate, the Trappist Monks of Aachen, the Little Sisters of the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Transalpine Redemptorists.

Thursday, January 10, 2019

Nasty ads on this Blog

Screenshot sent by one of our readers with the ad appearing on the right.
 
A reader of this Blog has alerted us to nasty ads appearing on our Blog Pro Tridentina (Malta).
 
We would appreciate if anyone can tell us how to block and remove such ads which only serve to harm our work.
 
Comments can be posted beneath this post or sent by e-mail.