September 4, 2007
vol 18, no. 247

III. Return of the 'Time Bombs'

As usual there is so much ambiguity in conciliar documents that another document needs to be issued to explain the first. This seldom ever happened with true Popes. But then we're dealing with an Imperial Empire which has penetrated every corner of the galaxy with its double-speak deceit. No matter what the leader of the evil Empire portends in his Motu, there are hidden meanings, hidden indultcendiary issues that will explode when the duped least expect it. Expect it! This then is the third episode of a series simply called: "Motu Wars."

    When one has a set plan, one lays it out succinctly and the better prepared, the better it is conveyed. Not so with the counterfeit church of conciliarism which is opposed by an extremely small band of dedicated freedom fighters, who, knowing the history of the Catholic Empire, do not recognize the illegal, unauthorized satanic authority of the leader of the Roman Galactic Empire headquartered on Vatican Base, the Resistance's former stronghold in better days. More stipulations are being laid out by the one who has gone over to the sinister side. There is codespeak in his explanetory communiqué to his Imperial Troops in scarlet and purple to alert them that he has no intention of changing his course or conceding anything to the Resistance. He's telling them to just watch and see for, just as everything else he touches evolves in Hegelian fashion, he has a plan evolving that is, as usual, planted with novelties and time bombs. For he is the master of such.

      "Some bad news here: Not only are vernacular readings to be encouraged (as mentioned in the other documents), but other parts are now going to be pronounced aloud where before they were not, giving the Catholic Missal more of the flavor of the Novus Ordo with all of its 'audience participation.' The 'Dialogue Mass' goes from some rare and obscure liturgical experiment to some sort of nearly established standard here. Another serious dose of bad news here is that the hand missals used by the people (with the Latin on one page and the vernacular on the other) are to be 're-edited.' What change is to be made to their content, one must wonder? Perhaps they might mate the bad Novus Ordo 'translations' to the Latin text, or mutilate the Good Friday prayers even more than the original 1962 Roman Missal did, who knows?"

    Summorum Pontificum and the "Letter to the Bishops that accompanies the Apostolic Letter Motu Proprio data Summorum Pontificum" are only the first two of the three documents. In this third installment, I address the "Explanatory Note on Motu Proprio 'Summorum Pontificum'," and this contains some additional points that the first two do not mention. Again, I would like to dive straight into the text.

    1. The Motu Proprio 'Summorum Pontificum' lays down new rules for the use of the Roman liturgy that preceded the reform of 1970. The reasons for such provisions are clearly explained in the Holy Father's letter to bishops which accompanies the Motu Proprio (the two documents have been sent to all the presidents of episcopal conferences and to all nuncios, who have arranged to distribute them to all bishops).

    This paragraph briefly introduces the other two documents, summarizing them as saying in the first that its policies replace previous policies, and the second in which some of the rational and other such considerations are expressed. It only adds the extent of to whom the other documents have been officially sent. Clearly, the intention is that all Novus Ordo "bishops" will receive a copy, although it is evidently left to "presidents of episcopal conferences" and "nuncios" to perform the actual distribution.

    2. The fundamental provision is as follows: the Roman liturgy will have two forms ('usus'):

    Two "usages." But the true and authentic Roman Liturgy has only one usage - always has and always will - and that is the Tridentine one. The other is not only a different "usage," but an altogether different rite, belonging to an altogether different church (or group). It is neither Roman nor Liturgical. But except to introduce the word "usage" there is nothing new here. So no matter what these documents say they are two different rites and I shall so treat them.

    a) The ordinary form is the one that follows the liturgical reform undertaken by Pope Paul VI in the year 1970, as it appears in the liturgical books promulgated at that time. There is an official edition in Latin which may be used always and everywhere, and translations in divers languages published by the various episcopal conferences.

    b) The extraordinary form: which is that celebrated in accordance with the liturgical books published by Blessed Pope John XXIII in 1962.

    These paragraphs summarize the two different rites to be used in the Vatican institution once the Motu Proprio takes effect, and reiterates that the Catholic rite is relegated to the status of an "extraordinary" rite while the Novus Ordo is the "ordinary" rite. Also brought up here is the Latin Novus Ordo, which remains as a recognized variant of the Novus Ordo. (Now there would be a proper occurrence of the word "usage" for then it would be correct to speak of the Latin Novus Ordo and the vernacular Novus Ordo as truly different "usages." Perhaps that is meant to remind some that there could be more Latin Novus Ordos (hint hint?).

    3. The Motu Proprio allows the use of the prior liturgy for those who desire it; it does not intend, on the other hand, to impose the extraordinary form, that is, the prior liturgy, on those who are happy with the ordinary form.

    Only God and His Holy Church have the authority to impose the authentic Catholic Rite; the Novus Ordo has no such authority. Unfortunately, their intention here is to again load the deck against the Catholic Mass. The other has long been thus heavy-handedly imposed on billions of unsuspecting souls, and still seems to bear much of this weight even now, though at last this one small optional "out" is being made more available.

    4. The liturgy according to the 1962 books is celebrated in the Latin language but the readings contained in the Missal can be read to the people in the vernacular. To favor an active participation, the Faithful who attend such celebrations are invited to recite together with the celebrant the diverse parts of the 'Ordinarium Missae' (Ordinary of the Mass - Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Agnus Dei) which, in sung Masses, may be sung and if possible even by the people. When there are faithful present, it is not suitable for the entire Mass to be celebrated in a low voice. It is recommended that the faithful follow the prayers of the Mass with a bi-lingual missal, such as those that already exist and which will certainly be re-edited.

    Some bad news here: Not only are vernacular readings to be encouraged (as mentioned in the other documents), but other parts are now going to be pronounced aloud where before they were not, giving the Catholic Missal more of the flavor of the Novus Ordo with all of its "audience participation." The "Dialogue Mass" goes from some rare and obscure liturgical experiment to some sort of nearly established standard here. Another serious dose of bad news here is that the hand missals used by the people (with the Latin on one page and the vernacular on the other) are to be "re-edited." What change is to be made to their content, one must wonder? Perhaps they might mate the bad Novus Ordo "translations" to the Latin text, or mutilate the Good Friday prayers even more than the original 1962 Roman Missal did, who knows?

    5. In parishes, in practice, the liturgy being used will not change: instead, it will be possible for the pastor to add to the Masses celebrated in the ordinary form, a second Mass according to the extraordinary form.

    This is definitely another piece of bad news. What this is saying is that the Novus Ordo parishioner who normally attends the 9:30 Novus Ordo service will most definitely not be coming to church one fine Sunday morning and finding instead a Catholic Mass. The Novus Ordo will continue at all the normal established times, and it is only that some new Mass time will be added for the Catholic Mass. So unless he has the initiative to go at the different time, he is not even going to know that anything has happened. This will definitely add years to the time it takes for its universal appeal to be discovered. There will be those who know about it, and those who don't, just like those who have read some popular new book (or seen some popular new movie or television show) and those who have not. Those who have will find themselves incomprehensible to those who have not. Those who have not will probably wonder what all the hubbub is all about but probably takes years (if ever) before bothering to see for themselves.

    6. The two forms of the liturgy follow two diverse calendars, different on the dates of several secondary feasts, and they have two diverse lectionaries. Such differences should not create great difficulties: for example, the Ambrosian rite, celebrated in the diocese of Milan, has its own calendar and lectionary.

    At last, something good here. Yes, there have long coexisted differing calendars among the various Rites of the Church since forever, and this has never been a problem, and as such this would seem to be a defining principle expressed here that after the three years have passed and assembled reports assimilated, it genuinely ought not be one of the "solutions" to any of the supposed "problems" which may arise to make the new 1962 Missal calendar conform to the Novus Ordo calendar. The idea of supposedly one single "Rite" using two such significantly different calendars depending upon something so subtle and nuanced as a "usage" is however something quite unprecedented. While this unfortunately stops short of being any sort of mandate, it does seem to indicate that the two calendars ought not be mixed, and that at least is a good thing.

    7. The Motu Proprio foresees the possibility of using the earlier rite for the Sacraments of Baptism and Matrimony. If such a reasonably-motivated demand exists, the pastor can decide to use the earlier missal; it is clear, however, that all prescriptions on the preparations for these sacraments, which have been set forth by the episcopal conferences, remain in force. The same possibility exists for funerals, both for the funeral Mass in church and for the funeral rite at the cemetery.

    This paragraph seems to reduce what the Motu Proprio itself seems to promise, namely all sacraments needed in their traditional forms, to merely weddings and baptisms (and funerals which are not another sacrament but merely a particular Mass). Where is there any mention of Penance (Confession) or Extreme Unction (or even, in the case of the latter, its loose Novus Ordo equivalent, "Anointing of the sick")? But this list might just be of examples of what is allowable, and of what they might expect to be most typically asked for, and not meant to be an exhaustive list. Even more unsettling is the use here of the phrase "reasonably-motivated demand." What exactly constitutes a "reasonable motivation"? Most likely you have to persuade them (deceive them into thinking) that you really don't have a problem with the Novus Ordo "sacraments" at all, but as a favor and a kindness to you, since you happen to "prefer" it, would you be so kind as to give me a traditional absolution or wedding or funeral, etc.?

    8. The bishop of a particular place may erect a personal parish, wherever there is to be found a very substantial number of faithful who wish to follow the earlier liturgy. It would be appropriate for the numbers of faithful to be substantial, even if not comparable to those of other parishes.

    The ability to set up "personal parishes" already exists before and is one thing substantially unchanged in going to this new policy. The issue of the number of "faithful" needed to justify the setting up of such a "personal parish" is again highlighted (hint hint?), but again without drawing lines at any particular number that constitutes a "substantial number" sufficient to warrant it (and it is specifically indicated to be a different standard than would apply for some different sort of "personal parish").

    This has already been misunderstood to mean that some number of lay faithful are needed to justify a Catholic Mass at all, but clearly this is speaking only about the creation of "personal parishes" and not the establishment of a Catholic Mass (or reasonable facsimile thereof) in every Novus Ordo parish, which is not dependant upon any "number" of those requesting it.

    9. The liturgical books needed for the extraordinary form of the Roman liturgy are:

    - The Missale Romanum (Roman Missal) in the 1962 edition; previous editions differ in the rubrics on the status (level) of feasts. In the 1962 edition there is also the 'Ordo Hebdomadæ Sanctæ,' (order of Holy Week), previously renewed in 1955 by Pope Pius XII. Pope John XXIII reformulated the prayer 'Pro Judæis' (for the Jews) in the Good Friday liturgy, and inserted it in this edition of the Roman Missal. Thus, it is not licit to use the Holy Week liturgy prior to the 1962 edition.

    The Roman Missal itself is the main and first listed of these liturgical books to be reprinted. Unfortunately here comes another terrible ruling against the use of previous Missals (HERE at last comes the one real concession to the pressures of other religions such as Judaism and Islam). Up until this point even some few Indultarian clerics had been known to use the previous Missal, but now, no more. What will the current reprint of the 1962 Missal do here? Or even if it fully preserves the prayers for Jews and Moslems as is found therein, what about the new "fusion rite" when it comes? And it is quite incorrect to describe the order of Holy Week as being "renewed" in 1955 since it does not actually restore any authentic ancient practice.

    - The Rituale Romanum (Roman Ritual), for the Sacraments of Baptism, Matrimony, Penance, Anointing of the Sick and other Blessings and Prayers contained in the Ritual.

    The reprinting of the Roman Ritual is certainly good since it contains the other sacraments, so at last it is not merely the Mass but all sacraments that are again being provided. But through a minor technical error this is somewhat incorrect. The Roman Ritual does not include any "Anointing of the sick," but it does contain the far more valuable and precious sacrament of Extreme Unction.

    - The Roman Pontifical for the case in which the bishop decides to confer Confirmation on a group of faithful who wish it in the earlier rite. The use of the 1962 Roman Pontifical was permitted in 1988 for those communities who followed the entire earlier rite of conferring the Sacrament of Orders.

    Here comes the only mention of the possibility of using the Catholic Roman Pontifical for the ordination of clergy. Unfortunately even here, the wording is very bad. When it states (documenting here for the very first time) a policy that existed under the previous Indult that it could be used (and it was actually used on at least some occasions for some Fraternity of Peter and Institute of Christ the King priests), it uses the ambiguous phrase "was permitted in 1988," with no comment on whether that continues today. Are they saying "We've already permitted it since 1988 and it continues to be permitted today," or "We used to permit it under the 1988 Indult but now no more"? It doesn't say. Of course, if it is not intended to be permitted under the new policy, there most certainly would be no use in including it in the new edition of the Roman Pontifical, now would there? And if the book is indeed printed in full, thus including it, would that not constitute at least a tacit approval to continue to use it? One may hope.

    The Reprinting of the Roman Pontifical is again a good thing, since (unless it gets bowdlerized to exclude Holy Orders) its inclusion of how to perform the Catholic Sacraments of Holy Orders would carry with it at least an implicit or tacit acceptance of the use of the valid and traditional rites for the sacrament of Holy Orders. Unfortunately, how many valid bishops remain in the present Vatican institution? Well, there's Bishop Rifan for one, but who else? A dozen? A hundred? Who knows! And probably most or all of them are in retirement. But they could come out of retirement to co-consecrate, and that would be enough. And the Eastern Rites were (or are being) corrupted much more recently, so many in service there would also be valid, and not in retirement. Might any of them cross-rite co-consecrate?

    - The Breviarum Romanum (Roman Breviary), for priests who wish to recite the Divine Office in consonance with the 1962 Missal.

    It is good that the Roman Breviary is being reprinted and not that horrific Novus Ordo "Liturgy of the Hours" that replaced it. John XXIII, for all his faults, was thankfully rather protective of the Breviary, and the edition which saw print during his day (that which is being reprinted here) is only somewhat edited down from the full Catholic Breviary, and did not contain any Modernistic contamination. John XXIII had even permitted the old Psalter after Pius XII, in a gravely ill-advised step, had replaced it with a lame and worthless translation. So this at least is good.

    All four of these liturgical books must be reprinted for practical use. Those publishing houses that specialize in such books must be charged with this, with the recognitio (recognition) of the competent Pontifical Commission.

    So this is at least some much needed good news. The 1962 editions are to be reprinted (at least for a while, until the new fusion rite come along), and that includes not only the Mass but all the other sacraments and blessings.

    10. The priests necessary for the celebration of the liturgy in the extraordinary form must be prepared for this task.

    This again reiterates that the priest must be qualified to do it. It does however add the suggestion that some steps are to be taken to prepare them, perhaps by offering classes in Latin, and in how to perform the ceremonial, etc. At least the intent here could be good, and the skills so imparted (if not tainted in some way) could be useful, but the other issue of having them genuinely ordained is not addressed, and indeed one can only expect that invalidly "ordained" Novus Ordo presiders will end up knowing how to do a convincing-looking "Mass," but still fail to do it validly for lack of any real ordination.

    11. The Motu Proprio foresees that the jurisdiction for the application of the new dispositions belongs to the "Ecclesia Dei" Pontifical Commission which will take care of problems that could arise.

    Though no guidance has been provided in any of these three documents as to what "counsel and assistance" the Commission is meant to provide, here they are evidently given pretty much a free hand to do as they see fit. It really is going to be up to them to decide what all the ambiguous and unclear declarations herein are actually going to mean, in terms of official policy.

    12. The Motu Proprio is scheduled to enter into force on September 14. The Pope's Letter explicitly asks Bishops to give an accounting after three years, in such a way as to be able to find solutions if "serious difficulties" arise.

    And this last paragraph merely reiterates the date it becomes effective and that one more report would be due in three years, adding only a certain emphasis that this report is meant to address whatever sorts of "problems" come up. After this comes some several paragraphs of commentary, as a kind of footnote to the Note:

    The explanatory note also highlights some of the characteristics of the 1962 Missal:

    "It is a 'complete' or 'integral' Missal in the Latin language, that is, it also contains the readings for the celebrations (it is not distinct from the 'Lectionary' as the later 1970 Missal is).

    This appears to be yet another statement to the effect that the Catholic Rite cannot have the Novus Ordo readings affixed to it, so this would mesh nicely with the statement that the two different calendars can peacefully coexist side by side as differing calendars already do exist between the different Rites of the Church.

    "It contains just one Eucharistic prayer, the 'Roman Canon' (corresponding to the first Eucharist Prayer of the later Missal, which includes a choice of various Eucharistic Prayers).

    "Corresponding," rather loosely, I should say.

    "Various prayers (including a large part of the Canon) are recited by the priest in a low voice inaudible to the people.

    "Other differences include the reading of the beginning of the Gospel of John at the end of Mass.

    This seems to go somewhat against the above stated intent to make the use of the 1962 Missal in the form of a "Dialogue Mass." Perhaps the Dialogue Mass is only being encouraged, not mandated. One may hope. We will see.

    "The 1962 Missal does not provide for concelebration. It says nothing concerning the direction of the altar or of the celebrant (whether facing the people or not).

    No concelebration in the Tridentine Catholic Rite, as always, so that is not new. The bit about the direction of the altar and the celebrant (whether facing the people or not) does here open the door to the abuse so universal to the Novus Ordo of facing the people and turning one's back to the altar (and perhaps even the tabernacle if not removed to some other location). And to think that once upon a time Fr. Ratzinger was so keen on facing the altar (and away from the people), even in Novus Ordo services, and now he seems altogether indifferent to this. Once again his attainment of the supreme Vatican office has only here too made him all the more fallible. Perhaps this is a concession so that a priest can use the 1962 Missal words, but still face the audience and so no need is there to redesign the Church architecture to fit the Catholic Mass, thus allowing both Catholic and Novus Ordo rites to exist side by side. Never mind the obvious fact that this is a distortion of the Catholic Rite (and as he himself used to point out, even the Novus Ordo could permit the presider to face away from the audience, since in fact it pretty much allows him to do whatever the hell he pleases).

    Between having him face the people, and also performing a Dialogue Mass, this is going to open the door for a great many abuses of the liturgy, even while he supposedly wants to cut down on abuses of the Novus Ordo service. Perhaps this is his "reform of the reform," making the two look more and more alike, until some eventual compromise somewhere in between makes the distinction between Catholic and Novus Ordo totally indiscernible.

    "The Pope's Letter envisages the possibility of future enrichment of the 1962 Missal (inclusion of new saints, new prefaces, etc.)."

    And here at last is made explicit the talk of making changes to the Catholic Missal. Well, the inclusion of new saints over time is inevitable and of itself need not be anything bad, providing only that actual saints who have possessed all the true criteria are the ones who are added, and not any of these from all the Mickey-Mouse "canonizations" made under the Novus Ordo by bypassing the standards (no "devil's advocate," no miracles, no long waiting period, for example). New prefaces is a bit more alarming, since new prefaces made up by the same crew who had previously come up with the Arian "preface" (to go with their "Eucharistic prayer #4) certainly does not bode well, unless they merely refer to some few ancient prefaces, long in disuse, being restored (not likely, but hey, one can hope?). Most scary of all is that open ended "etc." That could include anything, including some new fusion rite incorporating details of both the Catholic and Novus Ordo rites. This here is obviously a major time bomb and playing with fire. And on that one last word the Explanatory Note ends quite abruptly.

    So again summing up, in this Note we find again several things, some good and others not. Again, let's start with the good:

  • The Catholic Missal is described as "integral" in that it cannot be separated from its different readings from that of the Novus Ordo.
  • The point is specifically made that two differing calendars can coexist, thus hopefully taking off some of the pressure to "reform" the Catholic liturgy to incorporate the Novus Ordo readings.
  • All the 1962 Liturgical Books are to be reprinted, containing the correct and Catholic sacraments in their truly Catholic forms (only slightly deformed by Bugnini's acid rain, but still well within the pale).
  • This republication includes the Roman Pontifical, and with that an implicit intent that the Catholic Rite of Holy Orders can be administered (if only they can find a real bishop!), along with Confirmation (and it certainly is enough for a "mere" priest to do confirmation as its "extraordinary minister.")
  • This republication includes the Roman Breviary and not the Novus Ordo "Liturgy of the Hours" that replaced it.
  • It appears that at least some steps will be taken to prepare them to perform the Mass.
  • Again, no traditional Catholic heroes (e. g. Archbishop Lefebvre) are calumniated herein.

    Now, to the bad things about this Note:

  • The two fundamentally different rites representing two fundamentally different religions are again misspoken of as mere differing "usages" of the same "rite"?!?
  • It brings up the issue of "substantial numbers" of (Novus Ordo) "faithful" as needed for a "personal parish" and does not set a specific number nor a means of calculating it. This could be misunderstood as yet another reason not to provide a Catholic Mass at all.
  • It encourages (almost seems to mandate, but there's definitely some wiggle room here to interpret more favorably) that the 1962 Masses would be Dialogue Masses.
  • It allows for the 1962 Missal to be performed "facing the people," a clear abuse being explicitly permitted (and after all of Ratzinger's attempts to curtail abuses of the Novus Ordo!)
  • Items 3 and 5 both make it clear that the Catholic Mass (or any reasonable facsimile thereof) will not be taking the place of any of the standard Novus Ordo services but instead coming at some other time. People will not find it by accident.
  • Some unfortunate turns of phrase would seem to imply that only weddings, funerals, and baptisms might be in the Catholic Rite.
  • The priest (or presider) has room to insist upon someone having a "reasonably-motivated demand" before administering a Catholic Sacrament or Rite.
  • Novus Ordo presiders who receive this preparatory training needed to know Latin and be familiar with the traditional Catholic ceremonial, still not being validly ordained, are going to add considerably to the confusion by performing good looking Mass-like services which are nevertheless sacramentally invalid.
  • The suggested "enrichment" by new saints, prefaces, and that horrible "etc." time bomb just waiting to go off!
  • The use of Missals previous to that of 1962 is finally expressly prohibited here for the very first time.

    And that wraps up all the three documents. I think it is abundantly clear that there has been a genuine policy change, and it is obvious that it will have far reaching impacts on all of us. But what are those impacts, and how many of them have been anticipated or intended? That is what I wish to explore in the fourth and final installment of this series.

Griff L. Ruby

    NEXT: IV. The Phantom Menace of the Motu

For the first episode, see I. Hope Against Hope
For the second episode, see II. The Conciliar Empire Strikes Back

      Griff's book is available from iUniverse.com Books for $26.95 or can be read on-line at www.the-pope.com We at The Daily Catholic strongly urge you to share it with all you can for that could be the gentle shove that moves your friends back to where the True Faith resides forever, rooted in the Truths and Traditions of Holy Mother Church as Christ intended and promised.

    Griff Ruby's STRAIGHT STUFF
    September 4, 2007
    Volume 18, no. 247