June 22,2013: The prostration of the ordinands during the Litany of the Saints at the Fraternity of St. Peter’s Roman parish, Santissima Trinità dei Pellegrini in Rome / CNA
Washington D.C., Jul 19, 2021 / 17:02 pm (CNA).
More U.S. bishops have issued guidance on the celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass in their dioceses, following a papal document that on Friday imposed restrictions on the use of traditional liturgy.
Archbishop Samuel Aquila of Denver, in a letter to priests of his archdiocese, has said that the celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass could continue as normal while he studied Pope Francis’ new motu proprio Traditionis Custodes (“Guardians of the tradition”).
The papal document, issued on Friday and effective immediately, allowed individual bishops the decision to authorize the use of the 1962 Roman Missal – which is in Latin – in their respective dioceses.
“At this time I need to study the document more, consult with the USCCB, and Canon Lawyers, before I make decisions on granting permission for the use of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass and the implementation of the norms given in the motu proprio,” Archbishop Aquila stated.
“I do not want to act precipitously on the document one way or another, since the limitations are great,” he added, informing priests that he would clarify the matter in an email in three weeks’ time.
“Until then things may proceed as they have,” he stated.
Other bishops from around the United States issued statements or responses in similar fashion over the weekend and into Monday, saying that they would study the motu proprio while allowing celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass to continue.
Pope Francis’ motu proprio made sweeping changes to Pope Benedict’s 2007 apostolic letter Summorum Pontificum, which had acknowledged the rights of all priests to offer Mass according to the Roman Missal of 1962, promulgated by Pope St. John XXIII. Traditionis Custodes states that it is a bishop’s “exclusive competence” to authorize the Traditional Mass in his diocese.
In addition, bishops with groups celebrating the Traditional Latin Mass in their dioceses are to ensure that the groups do not deny the validity of Vatican II, the document said. Bishops are to designate locations and times where Masses according to the 1962 Missal can be celebrated – but not at parochial churches. Readings at the Masses must be in the vernacular.
With questions arising as to the continuance of the Traditional Latin Mass in accord with the motu proprio, some bishops in the United States issued statements this weekend outlining the steps priests should take if they wish to continue offering the traditional liturgy in the short-term. The bishops said they needed to study the document to issue norms at a later date implementing its provisions.
Bishop Frank Caggiano of Bridgeport on Monday requested that all priests who offer the Traditional Latin Mass – including in private – write to him directly for temporary permission to continue doing so. He stated he would grant temporary faculties for private Masses, and hoped permanent norms to implement the document would be in place by the end of September.
Priests requesting permission to offer the Traditional Latin mass should include the date and time of the Mass, the celebrant, an approximate number of attendees, and an explanation of the pastoral need for the liturgy, he said. If the traditional liturgy has been offered on a regular basis at a particular location, priests should also say when regular celebration of the liturgy first began, he said.
As CNA already reported, the archdioceses of Oklahoma City and San Francisco, along with the dioceses of Arlington and Brownsville, allowed celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass to continue as normal.
The archdioceses of Baltimore, Boston, New Orleans, Philadelphia, and St. Paul-Minneapolis, as well as the dioceses of Charlotte, Lake Charles, Madison, and Pittsburgh are also allowing priests already celebrating Mass according to the 1962 Missal to continue doing so.
Bishop Donald Hying of Madison said that priests wishing to offer the Traditional Latin Mass could “presume” his authorization now, “but they should anticipate in the near future that I will ask them to contact me to request continued authorization,” he added.
Archbishop Bernard Hebda of St. Paul-Minneapolis said that priests wishing to offer the Traditional Mass should request authorization from him before the Solemnity of the Assumption.
“I am happy to grant the necessary faculties so that those priests who are already celebrating the rites of the Extraordinary Form may continue to do so,” he said. “I similarly direct that the Mass in the Extraordinary Form continue in those locations where it is currently being offered in the Archdiocese.”
Bishop Daniel Felton of Duluth stated on Friday that celebration of the Traditional Mass would continue at St. Benedict’s parish in Duluth; the situations at other parishes offering Mass with the 1962 Missal would “be examined on a case-by-case basis,” he said.
“As the Holy Father’s introduction notes, implementing these norms will take time. I encourage you to be mindful of the faithful who are devoted to the traditional liturgy and sensitive to their feelings at this time,” he said.
Bishop David O’Connell of Trenton said he authorized use of the 1962 Missal at five parishes, with a sixth permitted to offer the Traditional Latin Mass on First Fridays of every other month.
However, Bishop Anthony Taylor of Little Rock said that while two parishes administered by the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter would not be affected by the document, the celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass would cease at other “regular parish churches” in the diocese.
In their statements, some bishops said they needed to seek more clarity on the motu proprio as they prepared to issue norms implementing the document.
“The nuances and implications of the Holy Father’s motu proprio need some clarification, and I will seek to understand fully what the Holy See is decreeing before making any definitive decisions,” Bishop Hying stated.
Bishop Glen John Provost of Lake Charles stated that he learned of the document “through media sources without prior official communication” on the same day it was issued and went into effect. He added that the document “will be studied in due course with the input of my canonical and liturgical advisors.”
Bishop Andrew Cozzens, auxiliary bishop of the Archdiocese of St. Paul-Minneapolis, will chair a task force to study the motu proprio, Archbishop Hebda said.
Other bishops made statements specifically to Catholics who attend the Traditional Latin Mass.
“I want to assure all the priests and faithful of our diocese, especially those who may feel disheartened or discouraged by today’s developments, of my gratitude and support for your love for the Lord and the Church, your fidelity to the Gospel and the magisterium, your deep desire for holiness and your rich spirituality,” Bishop Hying stated.
“I love all of you as your shepherd and spiritual father.”
[…]
I’d say Bishop Mutsaerts understands perfectly.
The perfect comment on this story. Thank you, Cleo.
Bergoglio’s Dark Vatican must be opposed in all of its heresies and lies.
As everyone else has noted, this is the perfect comment on that article. Thank you.
Another Dutchman, Fr. Werenfried van Straaten, founder of Aid to the Church in Need, said it this way: “no peace without justice, and no justice without truth.”
Europe should declare a Jubilee Year. Why? Because a Catholic bishop has spoken out about the lies inherent in that document, “Fiducia supplicans.” Christ said that heaven would rejoice at the return of one sinner out of one hundred who’d returned. So should the Church in Europe rejoice over one bishop who teaches the Truth.
Bishop Mutsaerts understands perfectly, as does Cardinal Eijk and a number of other Dutch bishops who are a trend in what was previously considered a progressive nation. Zeitgeist is the spirit being invoked by the Vatican as well as typifying the mind of our Western world.
Dear Pontiff Francis:
Christ forbids the ideology of idolatry, pederasty, sodomo-filia, and I understand why Christ forbids them.
“But in most cases, when you don’t accept a decision, it’s because you don’t understand.”
-Wow! This pope definitely sets new standards in clericalism.
Hey, what’s to “understand”?
Coming soon to your very own neighborhood?: facsimile deacons (non-ordained deaconesses), within a facsimile (c)hurch-within-a-Church, assigned to spread facsimile blessings to a fluid range of facsimile unions (“irregular couples”)– logically to include polygamy and, even more inclusively, such James Martinesque self-validating “experiences” as binocular-goggled (a “couple” of lenses!) virtual-reality sex.
Muhammad received his revelation from the angel Gabriel, Joseph Smith his from the angel Moroni, and now the forwardist-tribe from the angel Tucho and a synodalized Holy Spirit!
“What’s in your wallet,” or in-basket, or whatever?
Touche!
“In most cases, it’s because they don’t understand.” What are the other cases Francis? Is it because we are sane enough to understand there are evil consequences of pretending evil doesn’t exist in culturally sanctioned categories of evil?
What kind of “understanding” fails to understand that there is more evil to be considered in evil behavior than the troubling feelings of guilt? Is ameliorating the troubled souls of sinners all that matters while the cost of such requires ignoring victims? All the victims, including the damage the sinners do to themselves? Is your pretend care more important to you than the victims you fail to understand and refuse to think about?
An additional thought: Pope Francis, do you not understand that guilt, which you have at times described as a frivolous burden, carried forth from an unenlightened Church, to be discarded, is a gift from God?
We read: “‘Asked if he “felt alone’ after Fiducia Supplicans was met with some resistance, the 87-year-old pontiff said: ‘Sometimes decisions are not accepted’.”
“Decisions”?
Here’s another un-accepted piece–about “decisions” that pretend to replace morality:
“A separation, or even an opposition, is thus established in some cases between the teaching [!] of the precept, which is valid and general, and the norm of the individual conscience, which would in fact make the final decision [only a ‘decision’ and no longer a ‘moral judgment’!] about what is good and what is evil. On this basis, an attempt is made to legitimize so-called ‘pastoral’ solutions [!] contrary to the teaching of the Magisterium, and to justify a ‘creative’ hermeneutic according to which the moral conscience is in no way obliged, in every case, by a particular negative precept [‘Thou shalt not…”]” (St. John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor, 1993, n. 56).
Did Christ “decide” pastorally to bless the prostitute only after she first decided to stand beside probably one of her accusers? And then suddenly give the irregular couple–as a “couple”–a pastoral, “informal, non-ecclesial, and spontaneous” facsimile-blessing?
Or, likewise, decide to bless not one but, indifferently, both the criminals on Calvary, again as a “couple”? Or, the woman at the well only when she returned with all of her interchangeable five “husbands”–to be pastorally blessed as an expanding sequence of irregular “couples”…
Or ultra-irregular “throples,” soon to be expanded to group marriages of four or more. Not multiple wives, but multiples of all varieties. Are there termination points of “blessings?” Can Satan, were he to take human form, receive a “blessing?” After all, we might give him credit for something. He probably does work hard.
Wait a minute. He is not from Africa, and we have been told by the Vatican that not being a team Feducia Supplicans player is purely an African thing. Is he allowed to say that or is this cultural appropriation?
In this insane world (stop the world, I want to get off), he likely will be accused of exactly that, and worse, and maybe even from high atop the thing.
Pope Francis has no problem telling us we don’t understand, or that we will go extinct as he also said about Catholics who disagree with his radical pastoral opinions. He also demotes those who point out his lack of orthodoxy and promotes open dissenters in our own Church. What were Catholics thinking when we had antipopes in our own history? Was any Catholic back then allowed to question what was going on or were they forced to live in denial by the peer Catholic groups around them?
Praying that Cardinal Eijk and other Dutch Bishops will continue to defend Auxiliary Bishop Mutsaerts from being “accompanied” by this pontificate. Same for Auxiliary Bishop Athanasius Schneider. The lonely Ordinaries in Puerto Rico and Texas were offered up to this pontificate for a lack of collegiality, as if the Church was a corporation and not the Body of Christ.
Glad the Faith still burns in that microcosm of the modern world, The Netherlands!!!