The Dispatch: More from CWR...

Cardinal Burke questions Pope Francis’ authority to eliminate the Traditional Latin Mass

Alejandro Bermudez   By Alejandro Bermudez for CNA

Cardinal Raymond Burke giving Holy Communion at Fairfield in November 2018. (Photo: www.fairfieldcarmelites.org)

Denver Newsroom, Jul 22, 2021 / 19:15 pm (CNA).

In a 19-point statement regarding Pope Francis’ motu proprio Traditionis Custodes, Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke called the restrictions on the Traditional Latin Mass “severe and revolutionary,” and questioned the pope’s authority to revoke use of the rite.

Cardinal Burke, in his July 22nd statement on the feast of St. Mary Magdalene, asked if the pope could “juridically abrogate” the Traditional Latin Mass. The July 16 motu proprio Traditionis custodes, he said, “places restrictions” on the Traditional Mass “which signal its ultimate elimination.”

He argued that “the fullness of power (plenitudo potestatis) of the Roman Pontiff is the power necessary to defend and promote the doctrine and discipline of the Church,” but “is not ‘absolute power’ which would include the power to change doctrine or to eradicate a liturgical discipline which has been alive in the Church since the time of Pope Gregory the Great and even earlier.”

Cardinal Burke’s lengthy statement, published on his personal website, strongly defends the validity of what Pope Benedict XVI called the “extraordinary form” of the Roman Rite, and which he calls the “Usus Antiquior” [UA], or “more ancient usage.”

Cardinal Burke points out that there are “significant texts in the English version” of the motu proprio “which are not coherent with the Italian version” – which he assumed was the “original text” of the document.

For instance, he said in Article 1 of the document, the important Italian adjective “unica” is translated into English as “unique”, instead of “only.” In Article 4, the important Italian verb “devono” is translated into English as “should”, instead of ‘must.'”

“It is apparent from the severity of the document,” the cardinal wrote, “that Pope Francis issued the Motu Proprio to address what he perceives to be a grave evil threatening the unity of the Church, namely the UA. According to the Holy Father, those who worship according to this usage make a choice which rejects ‘the Church and her institutions in the name of what is called the ‘true Church’,” a choice which ‘contradicts communion and nurtures the divisive tendency.”

Later in his statement, the cardinal asked, “from whence comes the severe and revolutionary action of the Holy Father?”

“The Motu Proprio and the Letter indicate two sources,” he said, “first, ‘the wishes expressed by the episcopate’ through ‘a detailed consultation of the bishops’ conducted by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 2020, and, second, ‘the opinion of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.'”

In 2020, the Vatican sent the bishops of the world a questionnaire on how Summorum Pontificum was being applied in their dioceses. That landmark 2007 document had acknowledged the rights of all priests to offer Latin Mass according to the 1962 Missal.

Pope Francis cited the results of the questionnaire as part of his decision to issue the restrictions on the Traditional Latin Mass.

“Given the importance attributed to the ‘detailed consultation’ or ‘questionnaire’ and the gravity of the matter it was treating,” Cardinal Burke argued, “it would seem essential that the results of the consultation be made public, along with the indication of its scientific character.”

Cardinal Burke, elaborating on his long experience with Catholics celebrating in the Extraordinary Form, said he never found any attitude among the faithful professing to be “the true Church” as opposed to Catholics attending Novus Ordo Masses.

“On the contrary, they love the Roman Pontiff, their Bishops and priests, and, when others have made the choice of schism, they have wanted always to remain in full communion with the Church, faithful to the Roman Pontiff, often at the cost of great suffering,” he wrote.

“They, in no way, ascribe to a schismatic or sedevacantist ideology.” he added.

In his statement the Cardinal admitted that “yes, there are individuals and even certain groups which espouse radical positions, even as is the case in other sectors of Church life, but they are, in no way, characteristic of the greater and ever increasing number of faithful who desire to worship God according to the UA.”

“The Sacred Liturgy,” he explained, “is not a matter of so-called ‘Church politics’ but the fullest and most perfect encounter with Christ for us in this world.”

“The faithful, in question, among whom are numerous young adults and young married couples with children, encounter Christ, through the UA, Who draws them ever closer to Himself through the reform of their lives and cooperation with the divine grace which flows from His glorious pierced Heart into their hearts,” he said.

According to Cardinal Burke, “if there are situations of an attitude or practice contrary to the sound doctrine and discipline of the Church, justice demands that they be addressed individually by the pastors of the Church, the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops in communion with him. Justice is the minimum and irreplaceable condition of charity.”

“A schismatic spirit or actual schism are always gravely evil, but there is nothing about the UA which fosters schism,” he said.

Article 1 of Traditionis custodes states that the “liturgical books promulgated by Saint Paul VI and Saint John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II, are the unique expression of the lex orandi [“the law of prayer”] of the Roman Rite.”

“The correct interpretation of Article 1 cannot be the denial that the UA is an ever-vital expression of ‘the lex orandi of the Roman Rite,’” Cardinal Burke wrote in response. “Our Lord Who gave the wonderful gift of the UA will not permit it to be eradicated from the life of the Church,” he added.

“The severity of these documents naturally generates a profound distress and even sense of confusion and abandonment. I pray that the faithful will not give way to discouragement but will, with the help of divine grace, persevere in their love of the Church and of her pastors, and in their love of the Sacred Liturgy,” he wrote.

Cardinal Burke concluded by asking Catholics to pray for Pope Francis.

“I urge the faithful to pray fervently for Pope Francis, the Bishops and priests,” he said. “At the same time, in accord with can. 212, §3, ‘[a]ccording to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.’”


If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!

Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.


About Catholic News Agency 2244 Articles
Catholic News Agency (www.catholicnewsagency.com)

29 Comments

  1. Long before Novus Ordo, Jacques Maritain (to whom several of the present Pontiff’s predecessors wisely turned) wrote the following, which in his customary way, hits the nail right on the head.

    “Consider the liturgy … the Spirit of God in Person fashioned it, so as to be able to delight in it. Nothing is more beautiful than a High Mass — a dance before the Ark in slow motion, more majestic than the advance of the heavenly hosts. But the liturgy is not entirely immutable, it suffers the passage of time; eternity rejuvenates itself in it. And the Maronite or Pravoslav liturgy is not the Roman liturgy: there are many mansions in Heaven.”

    This year former Anglicans celebrated the tenth anniversary of one of those “mansions”, but I wonder if Divine Worship: The Missal would have come to pass in the present dispensation.

  2. Well, he’s the pope, so the answer is yes, he does have the authority. Also, a close reading of the motu proprio makes it crystal clear that the pope does not have a problem with the EF itself, he has serious questions about the culture and intentions of some of the groups adhering to it, especially in the US, where (sigh) it has fast become the ecclesiastical equivalent of Democrats V Republican, and the rest of the Catholic world can only look on in bemusement and concern. There, in all fairness, the pope has a point. It might help matters if the CWR instead of towing the usual partisan line.

    • “Well, he’s the pope, so the answer is yes, he does have the authority.”

      Really? In the standoff between an earlier and a later motu proprio (Benedict and Francis), it is important to note that they are not symmetrical. Benedict acknowledged the facticity and legitimacy of the suppressed Latin Mass, while Francis wants to not only restrict its use, but some say to eventually revoke/ abrogate/deny its existence altogether.

      The difference between secular imperialism and ecclesial clericalism—is this possibly only in the spelling? Even the agnostic Robert Bolt figured this thing out when he put the following words into the mouth of Thomas More, a mere layman who also dealt with the clericalism of his day:

      “Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King’s command make it round? And if it is round, will the King’s command flatten it? No, I will not sign” (“A Man for All Seasons,” 1962).

      • Another declaration Bolt put in More’s mouth is both wise and on point here (in the play; I don’t think it made it into the Paul Scofield movie but I have a haunting recollection of seeing it there when I first saw it in the 60s). Anyway, some bishops come to see More in hopes he will lead a revolt against the Reformation. The bishops are greeted by Margaret in Latin. One bishop says, “How much longer will we hear that holy language in our land,” to which More replies, “it isn’t holy, it’s just old.” True enough and the true nature of prayer is one’s own thoughts – most naturally in one’s native tongue – to God. Still, for some (viz., me) there is an archetypal chord that resonates strongly and inspirationally with Latin liturgy.

        Bach keyboard music recorded nowadays is just painful to listen to because almost all recordings use modern pianos instead of harpsichords and other period instruments. That is not the sound Back had in mind when he wrote those pieces and it matters. Some of the most magnificent music ever created is almost ruined by the clinking sound of the piano. The Mass in not ruined or painful, nor could it ever be, in any of the NO forms, but I do have a preference for the traditional Mass, I must admit. And I admit to being old even if not holy.

    • Spiro S:

      The Pontiff Francis orchestrated idolatry in Rome in October 2019.

      His spokesman “Rev.” Rosica has declared that the Pontiff Francis is free of what he calls the “disordered attachments” of “scripture and tradition.”

      The Catholic faith that I was educated in taught me that it revered three sources of authority, in this order of priority: Scripture, Tradition and Office.

      So the spokesmen for the Pontiff communicate that the Church, as understood by the proponents of the Pontiff Francis, is now “ruled openly by a person,” who asserts reverence for only one source of authority: office.

      Indeed, since he has just made the unforced error of asserting he can cancel the authority of his predecessor, the Pontiff Francis has shown himself to revere only one particular authority: his personal authority.

      Unfortunately for men who are bishops, and Bishops of Rome, the authority of their own “office” derives from the reverence they have for the immensely superior authorities of Scripture and Tradition.

      Hence, their dilemma is that they diminish their own tenure in office with every act and omission, and the very office they occupy dwindles down, and down, and down…

  3. Is this papal diktat a stratagem to turn «tradition oriented» Catholics, the Latin rite old believers into schismatics and sedevacantists?
    Not exactly a subtle manoeuvre and a petty and demeaning slap in the face for Joseph Ratzinger.
    The times are truly out of joint.

  4. Cardinal Burke makes a good point. There is nothing in the TLM that is causing the break in the church, so why ban or restrict the TLM? The TLM itself is healthy, it is the way Catholics have worshipped for millenia, so why ban or restrict the TLM?
    The problem is not the TLM, it is the wackos that have attempted to USE the TLM to spread their various schismatic and Anti Catholic church, anti Vatican II conspiracies. THEY are the people that the Pope should have gone after.

    But of course we know the liberals in the church have always hated the TLM, because it means a return to tradition, a return to serious and faithful Catholicism, and a definitive rejection of the liberalizing trend in the church. The liberals want a loosey goosey, homosexually based Catholicism, where felt banners and sing a longs are substituted for holiness.

    So they got the Pope to ban the TLM.

  5. I’m confused. A parish priest can introduce hand-holding or standing for communion or communion in the hand or girl altar-servers or a Greek chorus of lay ‘ministers of communion’ into the liturgy, then claim that it’s a local custom and get eventually get Vatican approval because the people are used to it – and with approval, it then spreads and becomes the norm everywhere. But a liturgy that goes back centuries has got to be restricted with the aim of extinction because some schismatics hold to it? Faithful Catholics need to be punished for the actions of schismatics? Why can’t all the people who attend the Latin Mass just demand it because it’s a local custom – like liturgical dancing in African-American Catholic parishes or the Anglican rite among those who have converted from the Church of England? Help me with the reasoning here.

    • Indeed, in the motu proprio Pope Francis admitted to a preoccupation with the TLM, seeing in it only an exploited vehicle. This narrowed vision and the “burn them all” severity of his decision indicates possible spiritual oppression from which he needs deliverance. Inasmuch as personnel is policy, the cast of corrupt Wormtongues he has surrounded himself with definitely needs expulsion from the Sacred Palace. Given his frequent demonstrations of imprudence it is clear that he needs prayers for wisdom as well. Merciful God, save our pontiff! Thank you, Lord, for sending in Cardinal Buke another Paul to bring Peter back into obedience to Your will!

  6. As a seventy-one-year-old adult, I am one of an ever-decreasing number of Catholics who grew up with the Latin Mass. I have no overriding qualms with the post-Vatican II Extraordinary Form of the Mass (EFM). While my personal preference is the Ordinary Form of the Mass (OFM), my preferences are not the subject of this post.

    For some time, I have become increasingly alarmed about the growth of divisive beliefs and attitudes among a large number of Catholics who are particularly devoted to the EFM. I have experienced a large number of those types of exchanges, both on social media and in personal settings. The Holy Spirit is NOT IN this division among the members of the Body of Christ. Essentially, the belief among many EFM adherents is that the OFM is inferior in the Economy of Grace relative to the EFM. The more radical factions actually believe the OFM is invalid. This belief is the direct result of an insufficient or false understanding of Sacramental Theology, the Economy of Grace, Liturgical development, the roots of the Great Apostasy in which we are currently living, etc. Making matters worse, logical fallacies (e.g., The False Cause Fallacy) are often employed to justify acceptance of claims built upon shifting sand.

    Fr. John Hardon tells us every Sacrament communicates both Sanctifying and Actual Graces. Flowing from this, we can surmise that no fallen human person possesses the knowledge necessary to accurately judge the quantity and/or quality of graces communicated to each recipient, and in each Sacrament. Jesus could [***] never [***] offer up anything less than a [!!!] perfect offering – a clean oblation [!!!] to our Father. Yet, this perfect offering is exactly what happens at every Mass, whether it be offered in Latin or in the vernacular; by the lowliest sinner on earth or the greatest saint in the world, who is offering the Mass in Persona Christi. To those who believe there is a qualitative difference between the EFM and the OFM, let me offer this caution: you are treading on very dangerous theological and liturgical ground. Planting your feet on this ground will likely lead to elitism on par with the Pharisee’s, Sadducee’s, etc.

    I have participated in many conversations during which I, and others who prefer the OF Mass, are classified as second-class Catholics, treated in an uncharitable fashion? As previously touched upon, nobody has the ability to make such judgments, except God. That did not stop the Pharisee, Sadducees, and Scribes from making such false judgements. Rightly or wrongly, many have criticized the OFM because of perceived Liturgical abuse. In Traditionis Custodes and his accompanying letter, Pope Francis responds to this criticism by telling all Bishops that Liturgical abuses of any type must be corrected. Relative to the aforementioned problem, one can ask: where are the organizations and society’s pushing for the wider acceptance EFM? Why are they not making any effort to correct misunderstandings and false interpretations of Theology, Doctrine, Liturgy, etc.? When it comes to criticism leveled at the OFM by some factions of EFM, some variation of Hamlet’s words might be appropriate. “Me thinks some Traditionalist doth protest too much.” If they truly believe in the unity of the One Church, why are they blaming the entirety of the abuse at the OFM and turning a blind eye to the issues discussed above? Until such time as this occurs, the Pope rightly took matters into his own hands. I thank him for doing so.

    • Except that the way Pope Francis is doing it is hypocritical and unenlightened. I have met both EF Mass goers who accept the validity of Vatican II and the OF and those who don’t. Collective punishment is barbaric. See the Franciscan University interview of Prof. Scott Hahn (a biblical scholar and theologian who has served the Church with distinction), for example. He is more comfortable with the OF, says both are magnificent fonts of grace, _and_ that the EF objectively superior. Should he be branded a rebel and shut out in the cold? As to those who are so furious with the destructive aftermath of Vatican II that they mistake the ailing patient for the disease, I have discovered that I can dialog and make headway on the positive contributions of the Council with them. That Pope Francis is too inept or too impatient or too ideologically rigid to DIALOG and ACCOMPANY them in good faith to lead them to a better place rather than condemning them as obstinate retrogrades on the basis of accusations (some of them by self-serving ideologues) means he needs to demonstrate some real humility if unity is his true aim. Sure there are some arrogant, triumphalistic traditionalists, but we expect more from those charged with being shepherds in the Church of Jesus Christ. Meeting arrogance with arrogance is the devil’s game and Pope Francis has fallen into the devil’s trap.

    • As one of the same age cohort who strongly prefers the EF and was quite happy at its restoration, I can also acknowledge the type of perpetually complaining cranky people also drawn to it. I’d suggest, however, that their cantankerous inclinations means that they are heavily overrepresented in combox discussions and are more obsessively outspoken than the great majority of others who simply attend the EF and are richly nourished by. It interests me that the great majority of attendees are much younger than we are, and have found in the EF some spiritual uplift that was sorely lacking in their upbringing in the OF. I should note that I myself am able to assist at the EF only 3-4 times annually, since it is not easily available where I live and, notwithstanding the generosity of Benedict XVI’s now-revoked motu proprio, has faced fierce bitter hostility from many of the senior clergy, similar unfortunately to Pope Francis. I’m also an assistant organist and schola director at my regular OF parish and those activities keep me close to base.

      Here’s a question to consider, though: Why has Mass attendance in the OF so steadily declined as it has? And why does a significant majority of those who still attend Mass in OF no longer believe in the Sacrifice of the Mass or in the Real Presence? Those are very troubling statistics, and one has to wonder what accounts for them, eh?

    • Stop the persecution of Catholics who prefer the ancient liturgy, allow it to be celebrated anywhere as desired, and all controversy and division will vanish. This has been a very one-sided dispute from the very beginning. One side simply wants to exist. The other side wants to force feed, inoculate, torment, brow-beat, ridicule, convert, and if necessary, excommunicate the other.

  7. In the Letter to the Bishops, Francis clearly outlines a two-step goal: put the Latin Mass in a leper colony for now with a view to eventual total elimination. What does that mean for the several religious orders and societies of apostolic life dedicated the the old liturgy (Mass, Divine Office, Ritual, everything)? Cardinal Burke raises this point. These communities have all be erected with the approval of the Church, in many cases being made “societies of pontifical rite” even. In other words, the Church has already judged that their charism is legitimate. Pope Francis is now saying that something which is an essential part of their charism is not legitimate. This is an unlivable contradiction. Pope Francis should re-read the story of Gamaliel.

  8. The pre Conciliar and post Conciliar Catholicism inhabit two distinct theological universes. The New Order liturgy manifests that in desacralizing word and deed.
    Ratzinger realised the dangers of that dichotomy and attempted a «hermeneutic of continuity». The Bergoglio papacy is not concerned with such «healing». Getting rid of the Gregorian rite of Holy Mass and its adherents is under this a régime a revolutionary act. He and his followers do not desire continuity, no true revolutionary does, the more chaos, the more disorientation the better. .
    Fortunately, time is not on that ageing band of new orderists’ side.

  9. In his reflections on Traditionis Custodes, Cardinal Burke raises this question:
    “But can the Roman Pontiff juridically abrogate the UA (usus antiquior)? The fullness of power (plenitudo potestatis) of the Roman Pontiff is the power necessary to defend and promote the doctrine and discipline of the Church. It is not “absolute power” which would include the power to change doctrine or to eradicate a liturgical discipline which has been alive in the Church since the time of Pope Gregory the Great and even earlier (no. 15).”

    His Eminence raises an important question, but I think we need to consider what was taught by Pope Pius XII in his November 20, 1947 encyclical, Mediator Dei, no. 58:

    “It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.”

    I have no problem with the “usus antiquior” (or the extraordinary form of the Roman Missal). In fact, I have attended three Masses in the extraordinary form celebrated by Cardinal Burke himself. I also believe it would be imprudent to try to eliminate it completely. We should be careful, though, about setting limits to papal authority. Vatican I, in Pastor Aeternus, anathematized those who denied that the Roman Pontiff has “the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, not only in matters that pertain to faith and morals, but also in matters that pertain to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the whole world” (Denz.-H, 3064).

    The Roman Pontiff has the authority to restrict the use of a particular Missal. The question is how this should be done and whether it’s wise to do so.

    • “We should be careful, though, about setting limits to papal authority.” No, we should not. What we need is a serious reflection on how the wild exaggerations of Vatican I led us into this impasse in the first place. The Pope is the shepherd. What is the shepherd’s role? To protect the sheep or shear them? To deliver them safe and sound to their Owner, or sell them off himself, or even make a deal with the wolves, sacrificing some of the sheep to save others? The Pope must be, above all, a good servant to the Church, a fearless guardian of Her treasures. The idea exists in the mind of many Catholics today that the Pope OWNS the Church, that She is his possession, his plaything, to do with as he pleases. This is why Paul VI’s destruction of the liturgy was swallowed in the first place. Unless we get rid of this concept of the papacy, it will be tabula rasa with every new Bergolgio, every new revolutionary. Catholicism will become as empty as Unitarianism.

      • “We should be careful, though, about setting limits to papal authority.” “No, we should not.” Yes we should! Mr. Fastiggi provided ample magisterial documentation for his post. You have provided none. You seem to be pulling things out of the air and assigning Doctrinal standing to them. Doctrine is revealed Truth!! It can NEVER change. God’s TRUTH is unchangeable. This Truth would stand even before it was formally declared a doctrine or a dogma. Liturgy is a discipline, not a doctrine. The Liturgy of the Mass has changed several time in the New Covenant. If Doctrine or Dogma could change … it would not be TRUTH.

        You are assigning a belief to others that does not exist, except in your mind. Nobody believes that the Church is owned by any Pope. Scripture and Tradition are very clear as to the Pope’s authority. He is the visible head of the Mystical Body of Christ. Hmmm. You are building up quite a collection of what you don’t agree with in the Church; Vatican I, Vatican II, and now Papal Authority. Not to mention all the Canon Laws that explain and defend his Authority. Anything else?

  10. I wonder what Dr. Fastiggi would consider beyond the legitimate authority of the Pope: Denying the Resurrection? Repealing the Ten Commandments? Declaring the Communist Manifesto to be divinely inspired? Surely, he takes the quotations he cites out of context. I don’t teach at a seminary, but I think I know that the powers the Pope possesses exist to safeguard the deposit of faith and the liturgical practices handed down through the centuries, not to overturn them. If a pope can end up in hell, and he certainly can, then he is capable of making disastrous mistakes and overstepping his bounds when it comes to writing encyclicals and enforcing liturgical discipline. This pope’s abuse of authority in service of his ideological agenda is staggering.

    • Dear Tony,
      I don’t believe I took anything out of context. Popes are human and they can sin, but the Holy Spirit protects them from overturning divinely revealed truths. Vatican I teaches that the “charism of truth and never-failing faith was conferred upon Peter and his successors” (Pastor Aeternus, chap. 4; Denz.-H, 3070). I trust in what Vatican I teaches about papal authority and its special protection under the promise of Christ (cf. Lk 22:32). I also affirm what was taught by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in this 1998 document on papal primacy: https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19981031_primato-successore-pietro_en.html . This document merits careful reading. I don’t share your very negative opinion about Pope Francis, but this would take a long time to explain. We need to trust in the Holy Spirit and the promises of Christ.

      • “The document merits careful reading.” How about this:

        “The Roman Pontiff – like all the faithful – is subject to the Word of God, to the Catholic faith, and is the guarantor of the Church’s obedience; in this sense he is servus servorum Dei. He does not make arbitrary decisions [!], but is spokesman for the will of the Lord, who speaks to man in the Scriptures lived and interpreted by Tradition [!]; in other words, the episkope of the primacy has limits [!] set by divine law and by the Church’s divine, inviolable constitution found in Revelation. The Successor of Peter is the rock which guarantees a rigorous fidelity to the Word of God against arbitrariness and conformism [!]: hence the martyrological nature of his primacy” [citation n. 33, ironically today: Cf. Joint Declaration of the German Bishops, Jan.-Feb. 1875: Denz-Hun, n. 3114].

        So, are we to conclude that all papal primacy is equal, but that some papal primacy is more equal than others? The recent motu proprio of Pope Francis versus the earlier motu proprio issued by Ratzinger/Benedict and who earlier, as prefect, wrote “the document”?

        • Thank you for citing the paragraph from the 1998 CDF document. I agree with everything in that paragraph. Pope Benedict XVI acted within the proper use of papal authority in issuing Summorum Pontificum, and Pope Francis acted within the proper use of papal authority in issuing Traditionis Custodes. All popes are subject to the Word of God, but the issue here is one of liturgical discipline, which is not per se irreformable. A prior pope cannot bind subsequent popes on matters that are not per se irreformable. A future pope might decide to return to the policy of Summorum Pontificum. That will be his choice to make.

          • The KEY POINT—alluded to by Cardinal Burke—is that (the lieutenants of?) Pope Francis ultimately are not about any regulatory policy which might or might not be simply reversed by a future pope. Instead, when asked if the pope could “judicially abrogate” (abrogate !, see below) the Latin Mass, Burke remarked that “[t]he July 16 motu proprio Traditionis custodes, he said, ‘places restrictions’ on the Traditional Mass ‘which SIGNAL its ultimate elimination.’”

            For his part, Benedict, in Summorum Pontificum, was NOT merely about regulation, one way of the other; instead of simply reauthorizing the Latin Mass (a regulation), the restoration (more than a regulation) under Benedict removed the abuse and radical pretense that the Latin Mass had been, or ever could be abrogated. Therefore, the “extraordinary form” rather than a separate and expendable rite.

            The PARALLEL situation in moral theology, also an ambiguity under the current leadership (think the dubia) is similarly clarified by Pope St. John Paul II, who teaches (!): “The is Church in no way the author or the arbiter of this norm [the “moral law”]” (Veritatis Splendor, n. 95).

            Or, again, a nearly EQUIVALENT pretense, now advanced by the weakly-opposed Synodal Way(ward) in Germania…is where Pope St. John Paul II already clarified the question over a policy (and the pretended validity!) of female ordinations, and taught, clearly: “… I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful” (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, n. 4).

            Likewise, the contradiction between the nature of “marriage” versus the blessing of homosexual linkups in Germany, and surely awaiting if not approval, then continued silence—in the upcoming and (likely?) composite Synod on Synodality.

  11. For the sake of argument, even if a majority of Latin Mass attendees “reject” Vatican II, would that be grounds for banning it? B does not follow A. Large percentages of “Novus Ordo Catholics” dissent from or are at least ignorant of Church teaching on a whole variety of topics. This is just another exercise of raw power.

  12. Dal profondo Sud Italia confermo apertamente il mio legame spirituale con le dichiarazioni esposte dal Cardonale Burke, in special riguardo per la difesa della Messa Cattolica.
    Se tornasse ad essere officiata liberamente, tornerebbe l’ordine sociale, si demolirebbero le intraprendenze politiche dei movimenti eretici e tutti coloro che vagano alla ricerca del soddisfacimento del bisogno del Mistero placherebbero la sete di Dio ritrovando finalmente la Via la Verità e la Vita.
    Per questo da quando condivido sul mio social le messe suddette ricevo diverse richieste di contatto da account che si professano come terroristi e altri falsi ma sempre inquietanti. La Messa Cattolica senza irruzioni protestanti libera il mondo dall’apostasia, e chi vive di menzogne come fa ad andare avanti?
    Si la Messa separa, ma non siamo noi a volerlo, sono le modifiche imposte che risultano fuorvianti e non possiamo seguirle in coscienza.
    Pertanto vanno corrette da chi di dovere. A noi spetta dire no, non serviamo lucifero e i suoi ministri.

  13. At a glance through all the articles in the CWR the week of 23 Jul 2021, one could see that most articles are focusing on one subject: Latin mass. This is nothing new, it has been discussing for years (and luckily this is the problem only in the Western countries).
    First reason: The Latin Mass represents the old tradition of the Church, to hold back the Latin mass is to deny the Vatican II and which is to deny all the changes in today’s church.
    Second reason: People who have always criticized Pope Francis for whatever reason are always watching the Pope find every reason to attack him.
    Reading this article of Cardinal Burke questioning Pope Francis’s authority makes me remember the story years ago when Cardinal Burke got into an argument with cardinal O’Malley on the subject of Sen. Ted Kennedy’s funeral… At the time, some people also questioning if Cardinal Bucky has authority over cardinal O’Malley… and the improper language used by Cardinal Burke…
    The Church has been changing since Pope John Paul II who had initiated a new wave of directions into Church life such as:
    – He initiated the program of New-evangelization and re-evangelization (for this, he received some criticisms).
    – By setting up the Sunday feast of God Mercy, he started up a new look in Church teachings.
    – He is the first Pope who changed several cardinals to be Universal.
    – He is the first Pope who had asked the world for pardon because of mistakes by some Church’s members (for this, some members close to him have criticized him).
    From all of the above, we could see his direction of changing in today’s life, we are glad to hear more about God’s mercy and love instead of using all images of hell and condemnation as before.

    WE NEED CHANGES:
    Going backward, the idea of changing has started by Pope John XXIII with Vatican II and since then there were disagreements and divisions between some Fathers of the church. Then today, Pope Francis with much more changing and therefore more division.
    Could we hold on to the current church teachings forever? Are all church teachings infallible? Church’s teachings have been changed over time, but till today, many rules in the area of family life are unbearable, especially for the poor class of people.
    Also, we need a new update in our Bible’s explanation, from creation and on…

    We humbly ask you to open your point of view to this current world for the sake of unity and the new evangelization. Look outward to the world and downward to the poor and see so many things that need changes: Corruption, un-justice, killings, gun control, poverty… they are part of our responsibility.
    The truth is only one but we could not claim that we know the whole truth until the next life.

    Pity us.

    N. Quinn

2 Trackbacks / Pingbacks

  1. Thoughts on the Pope's Restriction of the Latin Mass – Defenders of the Catholic Faith
  2. Cardinal Burke questions Pope Francis’ authority to eliminate the Traditional Latin Mass – Catholic World Report | The Press

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

All comments posted at Catholic World Report are moderated. While vigorous debate is welcome and encouraged, please note that in the interest of maintaining a civilized and helpful level of discussion, comments containing obscene language or personal attacks—or those that are deemed by the editors to be needlessly combative or inflammatory—will not be published. Thank you.


*