16 comments on “What Does Rome Want?

  1. Posted by Marie Auxiliadora

    Summorum Pontificum (SP) http://www.zenit.org/article-20071?l=english was the answer from Rome to the SSPX when they asked for the freeing of the 1962 Missal. Most people have read about this “wonderful” Motu Proprio but never bothered to read it. This document is in fact more restrictive than the previous indults because it declared the Novus Ordo and the 1962 Missal two expressions of the same rite and we have to accept the N.O to benefit from it.

    Then, also on 07/07/07, BXVI sent an Explanatory Letter to all the bishops http://www.zenit.org/article-20070?l=english in which he said:

    For that matter, the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching: new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal. The “Ecclesia Dei” Commission, in contact with various bodies devoted to the “usus antiquior,” will study the practical possibilities in this regard. The celebration of the Mass according to the Missal of Paul VI will be able to demonstrate, more powerfully than has been the case hitherto, the sacrality which attracts many people to the former usage.

    Next came the Vatican Instruction “Universae Ecclesiae” on 05/13/11 http://www.zenit.org/article-32564?l=english which says:

    11. After having received the approval from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei will have the task of looking after future editions of liturgical texts pertaining to the forma extraordinaria of the Roman Rite.
    On the same day, May 13, 2011, Cardinal koch makes a public statement (at a Summorum Pontificum conference in Rome) that Summorum Pontificum was the begining of the “reform of the reform”.

    On Rorate Caeli September 19, 2011 article http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2011/09/updated-1962-missal-coming-soon.html just a few days after Bishop Fellay is given the “Doctrinal Preamble”,we read:

    – that a joint commission was set up, with experts of the commission “Ecclesia Dei” and of the congregation for divine worship, for the “updating” of the commemorations of the saints and the “possible insertion of new prefaces” into the preconciliar Roman missal of 1962, to which Benedict XVI gave full citizenship in 2007.

    After reading this article we called Baronius Press and confirmed that the “new 1962 Missal” was in the process of being printed and that it would be released sometime in 2012. Later articles which I still have to find if you will, talked about this missal coming this Advent (2012) to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the opening of Vatican II.

    In conclusion: this “new 1962 missal” will be the “reform of the reform” that Bishop Fellay has denied knowing anything about, but we know through Fr. Pffeifer that Fr. Celier (SSPX) wrote a book on the hybrid missal in 2007 and tried to sell the idea to the French who rejected it and + Fellay “put him on the back burner”. Now that bishop Fellay was ready to sign an agreement with Rome,has brought him back to the USA.

    If the deal with + Fellay is really over the pope may just forget his “reform of the reform” because without + Fellay heading it, will not get too far. In my opinion, the new appointments to the CDF indicate that the pope is just going to do his plain liberal stuff without any pretence.

    I said that if the SSPX continues using the 1962 missal will look very foolish because when the new comes into effect, the actual 1962 will be obsolete.

    Why not call it the 2012 Missal? Because the 1962 Missal is and has always been just that: “An Indult” and Indults are subject to its legislator, Benedict XVI. Traditionalist don’t need permission for the pre-1962 (Pre- Bugnini) but for anyone else who signs the “1989 Profession of Faith” have to dance to the pope’s tune. It would be impossible for +Fellay to be “reintegrated” and not use this new missal.

    Anyone who wants to learn more about the “reform of the reform”, go to http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/ , search for that term, and be ready to get sick. I can also provide many quotes.

  2. Archbishop J. Augustine Di Noia talks a little about the synthesis of the new rite and Tridentine Rite that the vatican is working hard on. In his words, “There are two things: In the calendar, there are a lot of saints they would like to add, but the Roman Missal is fixed. There’s got to be a dialogue between them and the Congregation for Divine Worship on how to incorporate elements of the Roman calendar and how it has developed over the last 50 years. And then the prefaces: The old Roman Missal of 1962 has a very limited number of prefaces, and they are also interested in incorporating some of the prefaces. But because it’s the 1962 edition, who can revise the 1962 edition of the Missal?

    In effect the Novus Ordo, the current Roman Missal, is a revision of the 1962 Roman Missal. So the issue is: How can they do this? I don’t know, but the job has to be done. We already had two meetings, between representatives of the congregation and representatives of Ecclesia Dei, to discuss how that could be done.”

  3. Posted by CollegeCatholic

    regarding the messing with the TLM, see this.



    In the CDF statement that accompanied your appointment, it said your experience “will facilitate the development of certain desired liturgical provisions” in the celebration of the 1962 Roman Missal, commonly known as the Tridentine rite. Could you explain this in more detail?

    There are two things: In the calendar, there are a lot of saints they would like to add, but the Roman Missal is fixed. There’s got to be a dialogue between them and the Congregation for Divine Worship on how to incorporate elements of the Roman calendar and how it has developed over the last 50 years. And then the prefaces: The old Roman Missal of 1962 has a very limited number of prefaces, and they are also interested in incorporating some of the prefaces. But because it’s the 1962 edition, who can revise the 1962 edition of the Missal?

    Who are those he refers to as “they”? Here, Archbishop DiNoia revealed his cards and gameplan.

    And, recall… the PCED was placed under the umbrella of the CDF. PCED has competency in all matters with the TLM. If the Vatican wants to toy with the 1962 Missal, this is how they will do it (with PCED).

    And here we have +DiNoia saying he knows little about traditionalism, but that “they” want to change things, and then we also have the rabidly anti-SSPX and Council-loving +Mueller.

    Watch the TLM undergo some changes over the next few years.

    Hell, even Una Voce knows something is a-foot. They’ve been issuing these discussion papers as a defense of traditionalism points in the liturgy.
    Here is a listing of the paper topics:


    The Service of Men and Boys at the Altar
    Liturgical Piety and Participation
    The Method of Receiving Communion
    The Vulgate and Gallican Psalter
    Liturgical Orientation
    Holy Week

    Also, turns out “they” seems to be Pope Benedict. From Summorum Pontificum:


    For that matter, the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching: new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal. The “Ecclesia Dei” Commission, in contact with various bodies devoted to the usus antiquior, will study the practical possibilities in this regard.

    Can’t they just leave us be?

    • This is what I fear, but it can only possibly happen if they get the SSPX to submit. If they can’t then it is just history repeating itself, and the SSPX(being the biggest entity) will continue the TLM and Rome will come calling for their copy right again sometime in the future. We must resist these changes they have planned, which won’t be hard for the SSPX as is, but the Ecclesia Dei community are going to get persecuted hard. They shall be in my prayers, but they can have hope that it can never be destroyed.

  4. I think the only thing that has changed in Rome is the tactics. They still are full force with the false theology that formed the current crisis. They still won’t admit that the problems stem from modernism. They still won’t admit that vatican ii was filled with liberal theology. The only difference I see is a change in tactics because the Tridentine Mass and Traditional Catholic communities would not die in the great suppression.

    The new tactic in my opinion is assimilation. The vatican plans on a synthesis between the new rite and the Tridentine rite, effectively killing it. Once it is dead then progression can begin again, full steam. The Pope said himself in his book, ” WE MUST BE ON GUARD AGAINST MINUMIZING THESE MOVEMENTS WITH OUT A DOUBT THEY REPRESENT A SECTARIAN ZEALOTRY THAT IS THE ANTITHESIS OF CATHOLICITY.” So we are the antithesis, yeah we heard this before, but a truth+lie=lie.

  5. Posted by Marie Auxiliadora

    This only applies to indult communities that have taken the “1989 Profession of Faith”
    http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/teach/cdfoath.htm read it for yourself. See who has to take this oath, you’ll find it at the bottom at the link given.:

    NOTE: Canon 833, Nos. 5-8 obliges the following to make the profession of faith: vicars general, episcopal vicars and judicial vicars; “at the beginning of their term of office, pastors, the rector of a seminary and the professors of theology and philosophy in seminaries; those to be promoted to the diaconate”; “the rectors of an ecclesiastical or Catholic university at the beginning of the rector’s term of office”; and, “at the beginning of their term of office, teachers in any universities whatsoever who teach disciplines which deal with faith or morals”; and “superiors in clerical religious institutes and societies of apostolic life in accord with the norm of the constitutions.”

    Using the pre-Bugnini Missal will avoid any confrontations with Rome because we have the claim of Inmemorial Tradition and is reinforced by Quo Primum http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius05/p5quopri.htm

  6. Posted by Marie Auxiliadora

    The article below may help you understand Summorum Pontificum better. The author of the book “The Old Mass and The New”, Fr. Marc Marie Max Aillet was appointed bishop of the diocese of Bayonne in France by Pope Benedict XVI in 2008 after publishing this book. He also heads the Communaute Saint-Martin in France whose particular focus is on the project of the reform of the reform. http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2010/03/reform-of-reform-communities-communaute.html There are others.

    Monday, June 07, 2010Book Notice: “The Old Mass and the New” by Bishop Marc Aillet
    by Shawn Tribe

    Ignatius Press has an interesting looking offering in the liturgical sphere which is due to be published in September of this year.

    The book is by Bishop Marc Aillet — whom many might recall for his recent address on the topic of the wounded liturgy — and is titled, The Old Mass and the New: Explaining the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum of Pope Benedict XVI

    The book also includes a foreword by Bishop Dominique Rey, the Ordinary of Frejus-Toulon.

    From Ignatius Press:
    In July 7, 2007, Pope Benedict XVI released his motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, allowing for unprecedented freedom for priests to celebrate the so-called Tridentine Mass, now referred to as the “Extraordinary Form” of the Mass, as opposed to the Mass of Paul VI, or the “Ordinary Form”. In this new book by French bishop Marc Aillet, the historical and cultural impetus for the motu proprio as well as the rich tradition of liturgical reform are explored.

    As a priest of the Community of Saint Martin, which celebrates the Mass of Paul VI in Latin, Bishop Aillet has been committed to the promotion of liturgical reform that is rooted in tradition for many years. As bishop of the diocese of Bayonne in France, he has been instrumental in reintroducing the Extraordinary Form in his diocese.

    A work that is both easy to understand and deeply rich, The Old Mass and the New gives an overview of the history and theology of the liturgy. At the same time, Bishop Aillet beckons us to look ahead to move beyond the crisis in the liturgy to a reconciliation of these two forms of the Latin rite. An excellent introduction for those interested in the theological foundations of the liturgy.


    “This motu proprio is by no means a step backward. The gesture of reconciliation it expresses calls with prophetic voice for a liturgical renewal based on an increased theological and spiritual appreciation of the principles of the liturgical reform of Vatican II.”

    —From the foreword by Bishop Dominique Rey

  7. The poster Maria gave some more info. Here is what the poster added that I thought relevant.
    First how to contact Baronius Press and some more press from rorate-caeli

    The tel. for Baronius Press are: USA 814-414-0245
    and for UK 44 (0)870 112 3865 maybe someone in the UK can call them for you and post their reply.

    From the above link:

    … One can discern a good intention behind this positive answer. It is to fend off the possibility of an attempt at creating a hybrid between the TLM and the NO, which would be presented as the real fruit of the liturgical ‘reform’ called for by the Second Vatican Council, and then used to replace the 1962 missal currently in use by traditionalists. (The word ‘reform’ is in scare quotes here because the Latin word actually used by the Council is not ‘reformare’, but ‘instaurare’, which means to restore rather than to reform; the English word ‘reform’ is an interpolation of the English translators of the conciliar text.) The plan of imposing such a hybrid as the sole liturgy of the Latin church is unrealistic, but the plan of replacing the 1962 missal with a hybrid (perhaps closely modelled on the 1965 missal), while leaving the Novus Ordo in place, is a real one that is promoted in some liturgical circles.



    … “It seems to me that is what he has in mind is that this mutual enrichment would seem to naturally produce a new form of the Roman rite – the ‘reform of the reform,’ if we may – all of which I would welcome and look forward to its advent.” Quote from Cardinal Burke on the above link.



    The Revision of the Missal of 1962.

    The Concerns of the International Federation Una Voce,

    It is known that work has commenced in Rome on the revision of the Missal of 1962. As has been the norm in recent years, these matters are being conducted discreetly and only made public when the relevant document is promulgated, viz: Summorum Pontificum and Universae Ecclesiae. The very narrow remit given by the Holy Father to the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei in his Letter to Accompany Summorum Pontificum [7 July, 2007] was that: “..new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal.” No other changes were sanctioned. Pope Benedict also stated that “The Ecclesia Dei Commission, in contact with various bodies devoted to the usus antiquior, will study the possibilities in this regard.”

    Those who are “devoted to the usus antiquior” must continually and carefully ensure that this specific and narrow remit is not exceeded by those in Rome and elsewhere who desire to undermine the integrity of the Missal of 1962 by demanding the inclusion of some of the novelties which were introduced into the liturgy post-1962. The International Federation Una Voce was founded in early 1965, even before the Second Vatican Council had ended, and is by far the oldest organisation, lay or clerical, which is devoted to the usus antiquior. While other organisations and societies, clerical and lay, may also be devoted to the ‘usus antiquior’, none can match the 46 year history of the Una Voce Federation in its unswerving devotion to this cause. The Federation has played a unique role in being the first, and the continuous voice of the lay faithful in seeking adherence to the expressed wishes of the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council as declared in Sacrosanctum Concilium n.4:
    “Finally, in faithful obedience to tradition, the Sacred Council declares that Holy Mother Church holds all lawfully recognised rites to be of equal right and dignity; that she wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way.”

    The members of the Foederatio Internationalis Una Voce, being ever mindful of this decree of the Council Fathers, have been faithfully obedient to tradition, have consistently upheld the equal right and dignity of the Mass of Antiquity, and have striven since 1965 to preserve and foster this lawfully recognised rite. In his motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI, confirmed what the International Federation has always claimed, that the Missal of 1962 ‘was never juridically abrogated’. The Holy Father also confirmed in his letter that his decision was to bring about “an interior reconciliation in the heart of the church.”

    Liturgical innovation and creativity is unwanted by the faithful and has consistently disturbed, angered and alienated them in the years following the Second Vatican Council. This must not happen again with the adulteration of the Missal of 1962. The International Federation accepts organic development but emphatically rejects liturgical innovation which is alien to the character, spirit, and integrity of the usus antiquior. The inestimable treasure of the ancient liturgy must not be undermined by novelty, reductionism, and destructive modernisation. Nothing describes the attraction of the usus antiquior more powerfully than the growing number of young Catholics world-wide, including many seminarians and young priests, who are discovering this ancient and deeply spiritual liturgy and are being captivated by it.

    We are now entering a critical period in the life of the liturgy of Holy Mother Church. Decisions that are being taken in Rome today will have a lasting impact on the spiritual welfare of the faithful for generations. The need to implement the will of the Holy Father for a limited and organic change in harmony with the character of the Missal of 1962 must not be the excuse for the introduction into the traditional Roman liturgy of alien concepts that created so much disunity and disharmony in the years immediately following the Second Vatican Council.

    Following the publication of the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, the President of the Foederatio Internationalis Una Voce presented a document to the Ecclesia Dei Commission in June 2008. Now that work on amending the Missal of 1962 has commenced, it may be timely to republish this document, in an updated form, to make clear, once again, the desires and aspirations of the members of the Una Voce Federation.


    Second, was the opinion that this was an intial edition “the start to the reform of the reform”.

    If the posters opinion is right then this would lead me to believe this is a test to see if traditionalist will even except changes to the 62 missal, or maybe their just determined to do it anyway.

  8. Posted by Bernadette

    There shouldn’t be anything startling about this…everyone knows or should know by now…the pope has said himself that there would be a blending of the ordinary and the extraordinary…it was inevitable….they’ll start with the new ’62 and move from there. Rome has no intention of restoring the old mass…forget about it. I never could understand why there wasn’t a major uproar within the sspx and among traditional Catholics at the time this was announced….


    and this:


  9. And this was just posted, Maria got a response from baronius press.

    4:32 PM (15 hours ago)

    to Baronius

    I thank you for your reply but I’m confused. Are you talking about the new 1962 Missal as approved last year by the pope, according to SP and UE or the new Novus Ordo missal (3rd edition) that came out last Advent. Thanks again.

    Mrs. XXX

    Carlos Palad – Baronius Press carlos@baroniuspress.com
    12:58 AM (6 hours ago)

    to me

    Dear Mrs. XXX,
    We are talking about the 1962 Missal approved according to Summorum Pontificum and Universae Ecclesiae.

    Kind Regards
    Carlos Palad
    Baronius Press ltd

    Then another poster pointed out something odd.

    This newcomer to the site is particularly struck by the fact that the letter from Baronius Press was signed by Carlos Palad, till recently a moderator at Rorate Caeli. I wouldn’t go so far as to speak of a wolf in sheep’s clothing, but there is ample food for thought here, especially concerning what RC’s agenda truly is. Every habitué of this site certainly knows what the agenda of Baronius Press is: making a few bucks off the regularization of the ghettoization of Tradition within the conciliar church.


    Ofcourse alot of the early article was from RC, and the new orientation(alliance) they have for the SSPX.

  10. Posted By Gabriel

    An interesting comment from Carlos Palad from 6 January 2011 on http://liturgiae-causa.blogspot.co.uk/2011…1962-books.html

    “When those changes happen, and my prediction is they will be largely a repeat of 1964/5 and 1967 and a move towards a common calendar…”
    Yes, Rubricarius. Things are going in that direction. Bishop Rifan, for one, is lobbying for the use of the ’65 Missal and calendar reforms…

    • Wow, and following the link(that is marked this) on that link, they (by Peter Vere, JCL and Fr. Michael Brown, JCL) show their contempt for the Cardinal Stickler commission, and almost revel in the counter act of JPII. Then the blogger seems to totally agree with the writing and calls trads liars. Carlos post seems to mean, don’t worry the trads are working to get out of their error. The nerve of some people. Just goes to show any error we point out they will promulgate a counter so the error cannot be fixed.

  11. Posted by Marie Auxiliadora

    The article I’m going to post below is for the benefit of anyone who still gives Summorum Pontificum any benefit of the doubt. It has been from it’s very planning, a tool to bring the SSPX into the Reform of the Reform by cashing in on their position on the 1962 Missal. I have been looking for this article for weeks and just found it.
    Shawn Tribe is the fouder and editor of the web page New Liturgical Movement. I would like to encourage you all to read it entirely and pass it along to priests in the SSPX. Regardless of the “new 1962 missal” coming or not coming this Advent, this is the way the 1962 Missal is going: The Reform of the Reform. The red highlights are my own.


    Friday, October 13, 2006
    The Possible Future of the Tridentine Liturgy: An Analysis
    by Shawn Tribe

    There is a great deal of speculative journalism going on with regards to the Tridentine document forthcoming, which is perhaps mixing up what we presently know about this document as it may stand, and what are perhaps some of the lobbying and/or debates that are behind the scenes in regard to it.

    I should like to break down the matter by looking at the possible end results that might forthcome from all this, if we base it upon what some journalists are suggesting they are hearing, and then analyze these in the light of the liturgical considerations of Benedict.

    Let me note, this is not a prediction. It’s an attempt to dissect all the stories that are out there that we might think about the issue critically and responsibly.

    Possible Liturgical Ends of the Tridentine Document:

    1) The Ordinary/Normative Model: Total liberalization of the 1962 Missale Romanum within an ordinary model — no restrictions at all.

    2) The Extraordinary/Normative Model: Near total liberalization within an “extra-ordinary” model. Normative in that sense of full allowance and full membership in the Roman rite, but not the ordinary rite. No permission is required, but with possible guidelines in terms of how much it might be used in a typical diocesan parish setting in relation to the ordinary rite.

    3) The Inversed-Indult Model: Permission is a granted norm, excepting at the intervention of the local Ordinary who may choose, within certain defined criterions, to not allow.

    4) The Free-upon-local-Conditions Model: Permission is granted, but the local Ordinary may choose to lay down the local diocesan conditions whereby that permission can be exercised in public masses — e.g. perhaps a numerical matter of 30 or more faithful requesting, etc. — but where, theoretically at least, if those criterion are filled, the Ordinary is not to deny.

    Benedict’s Liturgical and Pastoral Thought:

    1) Leaven is needed for the reform of the reform, but it must occur in a way which is not an adminstrative tinkering with the Pauline books, as happened at the Council, and which Benedict is steadfast in resisting as an approach. He has long seen the 1962 Missale Romanum as having an answer to this. It’s wider celebration, and permeation into the greater parish life of the Roman rite might thereby help kickstart the reform of the reform.

    2) Benedict was dismayed at the abolishment of this rite which had grown up through the centuries, something he saw as very damaging and unprecedented.

    3) Benedict desires to reach out to groups like the SSPX, for whom the free celebration of this rite, and its non-indult status is an important point.

    4) Aware of the crisis in the Church, liturgically, theologically, etc. and the hermeneutic of rupture, there is a need to draw traditional liturgics, theology, formation and so on very clearly in the heart and centre, and no longer be written off as somehow “fringe” that the voice of the tradition may again be more clearly heard and that a hermeneutic of continuity may be more clearly seen.

    5) Pastorally, Benedict is aware that despite the problems with the Pauline reforms, this is also a liturgy that has been around for decades and which many are now used to, or have only known. A radical shift will be harmful in his view just as it was following the Council. He will want to pastorally protect those faithful from this.

    6) He will want to respond to the concerns of the bishops and will want to somehow give them some assurance so as not to provoke new schisms, and to help secure their tacit cooperation in the matter so that points 1 and 3 might also be accomplished still.

    7) He will want to make clear that this is not a rejection of the Council or the principle of the Conciliar liturgical reform, while balancing this with point 1 and the need for a reform of the reform.

    Analysis of these Possible Ends in the light of these Benedictine Considerations:

    Model #1: (the ordinary/normative model that sees absolutely no restrictions) seems unlikely as there would be too much opposition from members of the episcopate and parts of the Curia. While it might work out fine, many would critique this, rightly or wrongly, as a rejection of the Council. Benedict, I think, cannot afford the document to be too utterly controversial as it could then backfire and not have the effects desired for the reform of the reform, for groups like the SSPX, etc. As well, he will want to protect consideration #5 in regard to the faithful accustomed to the Pauline rite.

    Model #3: (the inversed indult; whereby permission is granted unless explicitly denied by the bishop) seems possible but a little less likely in regards to the SSPX issue on the one hand, and secondarily, perhaps, in Benedict’s awareness that there have been trials in applying the existing indult of 1988. The SSPX will likely see this as not being a real shift, since ultimately an arbitrary judgement on the part of the Ordinary could still occur. Moreover, it also has the greater potential to not allow the same leavening effect for the reform of the reform. After model #2, this model does seem to be a very strong contender as a possibiilty with the caveat that it depends upon the nature and conditions of the Bishop’s authority to disallow, which could thus also lessen the SSPX’s concern about arbitrary disallowance.

    Model #4: faces very similiar issues as #3, but seems even less likely than #3.

    Model #2: would seem to meet all the considerations of Benedict the best. The denotation of ordinary vs. extraordinary, and any numerical stipulation about what may or may not happen in non-personal parishes protects the status of the FSSP, etc. while also addressing the pastoral concerns of the typical diocesan parish, and potentially can assauge the concerns of those bishops who simply are concerned with the matter from a pastoral perspective, rather than an ideological opposition to the 1962 Missal. Such a denotation and “caveat” also protects the idea that this is not a rejection of the Council, while allowing for the greatest overall freedom (which the SSPX will want to see) for the 1962 Missal. This in turns bodes the best for it kickstarting a reform of the reform.

    Further considerations that could influence the model chosen:

    The wildcard in all these considerations comes down to the bishops and the level of their opposition. How will Benedict manage this? Will he be able to do so without compromising his own liturgical vision to date? This is a key question that we cannot answer.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s