en.news
192.2K

Traditionis Custodes: “Grey Area” Remains - FSSP

After TC, Father Paul-Joseph, the French FSSP district superior, and Father Ribeton, the rector of Wigratzbad seminary wrote to Francis on December 28 “confidently” appealing to his “solicitude.”

Only a day later, Francis answered with a scanned handwritten letter, Paul-Joseph told Present.fr (February 21). The two received a February 4 appointment in Santa Marta which lasted for almost an hour, “The Pope was very gracious throughout the conversation, showing genuine solicitude.”

He said that TC did not regard Old Rite Communities. Paul-Joseph believes that Francis was “truly touched” by the history of the FSSP.

The two asked Francis “respectfully” if this could be “formalised,” and Francis sent a decree on February 19. Now, Paul-Joseph explains, a bishop who accepted the FSSP in his diocese cannot impose the Novus Ordo on FSSP priests.

A remaining “small grey area” is for Paul-Joseph that the bishops who celebrate ordinations for the FSSP “don’t have the right" to use the Pontificale Romanum,

“However, the Pope has heard us speak joyfully about our future ordinations, and the position is clear on this side,” Paul-Joseph says enigmatically.

Picture: Benoît Paul-Joseph, #newsRmflggfejp

Ultraviolet
How appropriate you're using BS Brown @Ave Crux You're fabricating an interpretation not supported by the Responsa ad Dubia What RaD states: "The diocesan Bishop is authorised to grant permission to use only the Rituale Romanum (last editio typica 1952)..." and "The diocesan Bishop, as the moderator, promoter and guardian of all liturgical life,..."
This Vatican "clarification" addresses what a …More
How appropriate you're using BS Brown @Ave Crux You're fabricating an interpretation not supported by the Responsa ad Dubia What RaD states: "The diocesan Bishop is authorised to grant permission to use only the Rituale Romanum (last editio typica 1952)..." and "The diocesan Bishop, as the moderator, promoter and guardian of all liturgical life,..."

This Vatican "clarification" addresses what a diocesan Bishop is authorized to grant. Not all bishops are the diocesan Bishop.

In most cases the consecrating bishop for the FSSP is NOT the diocesan Bishop and that's the bishop the Responsa ad Dubia discusses.

From "diocesan bishop" you then expand class of bishop to mean all bishops claiming, "Rome has forbidden the use of the Pontificale Romanum indicating it is not to be used in any diocese...ever."

...and the Responsa ad Dubia neither states nor implies any such thing. Ave Crux being Ave Crux... every single time.
Ave Crux
Tragically hilarious...! The Brown is from the Vatican's website! I simply copied and pasted the html code from their website header to continue the theme with their "Responsa ad Dubia" heading. By George! That's a smashingly interesting analogy.... God bless!
Ultraviolet
That explains why you just changed your entire comment back to black except for "TRADITIONIS CUSTODES...etc" Nice to see you back-editing your comments again, AFTER I reply to them. Classic Ave Crux SSPX scam. Then you cry so hard because I keep screen-cappping your dishonesty.
"All Bishops govern and authorize Ordinations and the liturgical norms to be used for Ordinations which take place in …More
That explains why you just changed your entire comment back to black except for "TRADITIONIS CUSTODES...etc" Nice to see you back-editing your comments again, AFTER I reply to them. Classic Ave Crux SSPX scam. Then you cry so hard because I keep screen-cappping your dishonesty.

"All Bishops govern and authorize Ordinations and the liturgical norms to be used for Ordinations which take place in their Dioceses, even when retired or guest Bishops in the Diocese perform such Ordinations."

Cite Canon Law stating this. Good luck with that. There's a reason why the FSSP has bishops outside the seminary's diocese travelling hundreds of miles to perform ordinations. It's because you're wrong. ;-)

"Rome has forbidden the use of the Pontificale Romanum indicating it is not to be used in any diocese...ever."

Responsa ad Dubia doesn't say that. Ave Crux says that with Loads O' Bold and repeating it doesn't make it right.

"Nonetheless, those Bishops who ordain FSSP Priests have faithfully continued to use the Pontificale Romanum for FSSP Ordinations."

It isn't "Nonetheless" at all. The bishops who ordain priests for the FSSP have every right to do so because the Responsa ad Dubia addresses only diocesan bishops. Bishops outside the diocese are not bound by this. They aren't being disobedient like the SSPX which is the false parallel you're trying to make.
Ave Crux
No, dear UV, I added a preamble in black and the word "NOTE:" to clarify and differentiate my own comments from what was about to follow.
Then I noticed the black text I had inserted changed everything that followed to Black...! Imagine!! So I then went back into my comment and turned all the text back to Brown again just so you would be happy!! Do you feel better now? Rest easy, dear one....More
No, dear UV, I added a preamble in black and the word "NOTE:" to clarify and differentiate my own comments from what was about to follow.

Then I noticed the black text I had inserted changed everything that followed to Black...! Imagine!! So I then went back into my comment and turned all the text back to Brown again just so you would be happy!! Do you feel better now? Rest easy, dear one....
Ultraviolet
"I added a preamble in black and the word "NOTE:"
AFTER I replied to it. That's back-editng your comment. You also changed your text color BACK to brown right now after I caught you and after I pointed it out. You didn't "notice" anything. I did. I actually watched the change happen the moment I refreshed the page. Go ahead, change it again! Keep changing it! :D
First, your full text was …More
"I added a preamble in black and the word "NOTE:"
AFTER I replied to it. That's back-editng your comment. You also changed your text color BACK to brown right now after I caught you and after I pointed it out. You didn't "notice" anything. I did. I actually watched the change happen the moment I refreshed the page. Go ahead, change it again! Keep changing it! :D

First, your full text was brown NOT just the material "from the Vatican's website", When I noticed, you did a quick switcheroo and back-edited it to black, and now you changed it it to brown again, trying to cover your mistake. But that proves my original claim true. Your entire comment was (and now is again) in BS Brown. You're panicking like you always do when you're cornered. Just one problem, sweetie. I've been down this path with you before. Gotcha. :D pics related.
Ave Crux
Well, unfortunately you are mistaken, and again accusing another of the sin of lying which they did not commit. I would like to advise you that each time you begin using a thread for this type of disruption, I have begun reporting you to the Moderator regularly. I hope others will do the same until you find a way to be more civil and courteous. God bless.
Ultraviolet
Catching you in yet another lie isn't disruption, @Ave Crux. You fabricated a quote for Father Paul-Joseph. If nobody catches your added false quotations, then you were only too happy to give Father a "quote" you know is false. When you got caught, whoops! Okay, "Dear Readers" Let's drop Father and re-focus the discussion on Responsa ad Dubia!
I correct you, whoops! Ave Crux back-edits the comment …More
Catching you in yet another lie isn't disruption, @Ave Crux. You fabricated a quote for Father Paul-Joseph. If nobody catches your added false quotations, then you were only too happy to give Father a "quote" you know is false. When you got caught, whoops! Okay, "Dear Readers" Let's drop Father and re-focus the discussion on Responsa ad Dubia!

I correct you, whoops! Ave Crux back-edits the comment and starts making changes. Ave Crux gets caught back-editing the comment? Whoops! Ave Crux panics and changes it back! It's just insane how little the truth means to people like you.

If this was one of "your" posts you would have deleted it by now, like you did to poor old Father Murray. Remember this whopper? "the staff of the Canon Law Department at the University assessed his arguments and found absolutely nothing false or erroneous or lacking in his proofs"

...until I went checking and found "the staff of the Canon Law Department" did no such thing. Father Murray had retracted an important piece of his own thesis because it was wrong. Whoops! Ave Crux deletes the entire post. Ultraviolet is "disrupting" SSPX propaganda with the truth! Can't have "Dear Readers" seeing you caught in a lie. ;-)
Ultraviolet
"UV and the mods/mod are apparently either the same person or very close."
@Jared E Malone So why are you still here, Jimmy? For that matter, why is @Steve D ?
Then Ave Crux whines about "disruption". :D This is typical of your involvement on GTV any time the subject isn't Jew-bashing. Irony much?More
"UV and the mods/mod are apparently either the same person or very close."
@Jared E Malone So why are you still here, Jimmy? For that matter, why is @Steve D ?

Then Ave Crux whines about "disruption". :D This is typical of your involvement on GTV any time the subject isn't Jew-bashing. Irony much?
Ave Crux
Dear Readers....Let's go to the source in this matter.....!
NOTE: All Bishops govern and authorize Ordinations and the liturgical norms to be used for Ordinations which take place in their Dioceses, even when retired or guest Bishops in the Diocese perform such Ordinations.
As the Responsa ad Dubia makes clear, Rome has forbidden the use of the Pontificale Romanum indicating it is not to be used …
More
Dear Readers....Let's go to the source in this matter.....!

NOTE: All Bishops govern and authorize Ordinations and the liturgical norms to be used for Ordinations which take place in their Dioceses, even when retired or guest Bishops in the Diocese perform such Ordinations.

As the Responsa ad Dubia makes clear, Rome has forbidden the use of the Pontificale Romanum indicating it is not to be used in any diocese...ever.

Nonetheless, those Bishops who ordain FSSP Priests have faithfully continued to use the Pontificale Romanum for FSSP Ordinations. These Sacred Texts preserve the ancient Rites of Ordination unadulterated by Modernism, which is why it is so urgently necessary to preserve the use of the Pontificale Romanum.

Let us all pray, dear readers, that all the Ecclesia Dei Institutes established to preserve these sacred Rites and Traditions continue faithful in their obedience to God and to their Constitutions to do precisely that.

RESPONSA AD DUBIA
on certain provisions of the
Apostolic Letter

TRADITIONIS CUSTODES
issued “Motu Proprio” by the Supreme Pontiff
FRANCIS


To the proposed question:

Is it possible, according to the provisions of the Motu Proprio Traditionis custodes, to celebrate the sacraments with the Rituale Romanum and the Pontificale Romanum which predate the liturgical reform of the Second Vatican Council?

The answer is:

Negative.

The diocesan Bishop is authorised to grant permission to use only the Rituale Romanum (last editio typica 1952) and not the Pontificale Romanum which predate the liturgical reform of the Second Vatican Council. He may grant this permission only to those canonically erected personal parishes which, according to the provisions of the Motu Proprio Traditionis custodes, celebrate using the Missale Romanum of 1962.

Explanatory note.
The Motu Proprio Traditionis custodes intends to re-establish in the whole Church of the Roman Rite a single and identical prayer expressing its unity, according to the liturgical books promulgated by the Popes Saint Paul VI and Saint John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of the Second Vatican Council and in line with the tradition of the Church.

The diocesan Bishop, as the moderator, promoter and guardian of all liturgical life, must work to ensure that his diocese returns to a unitary form of celebration (cf. Pope Francis, Letter to the Bishops of the whole world that accompanies the Apostolic Letter Motu Proprio data Traditionis custodes).

This Congregation, exercising the authority of the Holy See in matters within its competence (cf. Traditionis custodes, n. 7), affirms that, in order to make progress in the direction indicated by the Motu Proprio, it should not grant permission to use the Rituale Romanum and the Pontificale Romanum which predate the liturgical reform, these are liturgical books which, like all previous norms, instructions, concessions and customs, have been abrogated (cf. Traditionis custodes, n. 8).

After discernment the diocesan Bishop is authorised to grant permission to use only the Rituale Romanum (last editio typica 1952) and not the Pontificale Romanum which predate the liturgical reform of the Second Vatican Council. This permission is to be granted only to canonically erected personal parishes which, according to the provisions of the Motu Proprio Traditionis custodes, celebrate with the Missale Romanum of 1962. It should be remembered that the formula for the Sacrament of Confirmation was changed for the entire Latin Church by Saint Paul VI with the Apostolic Constitution Divinæ consortium naturæ (15 August 1971).

This provision is intended to underline the need to clearly affirm the direction indicated by the Motu Proprio which sees in the liturgical books promulgated by the Saints Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of the Second Vatican Council, the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite (cf. Traditionis custodes, n. 1).

In implementing these provisions, care should be taken to accompany all those rooted in the previous form of celebration towards a full understanding of the value of the celebration in the ritual form given to us by the reform of the Second Vatican Council.

This should take place through an appropriate formation that makes it possible to discover how the reformed liturgy is the witness to an unchanged faith, the expression of a renewed ecclesiology, and the primary source of spirituality for Christian life.
Ultraviolet
Fact Check: @Ave Crux is fabricating a quote for Father Paul-Joseph by mixing it with GTV News. GTV News wrote: "the bishops who celebrate ordinations for the FSSP" not Father Paul-Joseph. GTV News wrote: "to use the Pontificale Romanum," not Father Paul Joseph, at least according to this article. Ave Crux lumps it all together with quotation marks creating a false quote Father Paul Joseph did …More
Fact Check: @Ave Crux is fabricating a quote for Father Paul-Joseph by mixing it with GTV News. GTV News wrote: "the bishops who celebrate ordinations for the FSSP" not Father Paul-Joseph. GTV News wrote: "to use the Pontificale Romanum," not Father Paul Joseph, at least according to this article. Ave Crux lumps it all together with quotation marks creating a false quote Father Paul Joseph did not give. Pic Related.
Ave Crux
Dear Gloria.TV Readers: As Father Paul-Joseph of FSSP himself made clear: "[T]he bishops who celebrate ordinations for the FSSP 'don’t have the right' to use the Pontificale Romanum..."
And yet, it is deeply consoling to see that the FSSP and the Bishops who assist them persevere faithful to Tradition and their Constitutions nonetheless, by using these sacred ancient texts for their Priestly …More
Dear Gloria.TV Readers: As Father Paul-Joseph of FSSP himself made clear: "[T]he bishops who celebrate ordinations for the FSSP 'don’t have the right' to use the Pontificale Romanum..."

And yet, it is deeply consoling to see that the FSSP and the Bishops who assist them persevere faithful to Tradition and their Constitutions nonetheless, by using these sacred ancient texts for their Priestly Ordinations despite the illicit, non-binding attempts of Rome to suppress this right from being exercised, a concern noted by Father Paul-Joseph himself.

I think we can trust Father Paul-Joseph's knowledge in this matter as trustworthy and true, and share his concerns.

Let's continue to pray for their beautiful fidelity and that they never succumb to an illicit order to discontinue their use of these texts. These sacred texts have never been vitiated and altered by the Modernism of the Vatican II "reforms".
Ultraviolet
As noted on posts elsewhere "the Pontificale Romanum" has been forbidden for diocesan bishops which is not the same as "definitively forbidden" for ALL bishops. Once again, @Ave Crux is re-writing the original source into soemthing it doesn't say. Shades of the outright falshoods attributed to the Pontifical Gregorian University and the "express permission" Pope Francis never gave to Bishop …More
As noted on posts elsewhere "the Pontificale Romanum" has been forbidden for diocesan bishops which is not the same as "definitively forbidden" for ALL bishops. Once again, @Ave Crux is re-writing the original source into soemthing it doesn't say. Shades of the outright falshoods attributed to the Pontifical Gregorian University and the "express permission" Pope Francis never gave to Bishop Huonder.

"Filial resistance"... this is what schismatics call disobedience and defiance. :P
Rand Miller
It's good news for now, but remember Rome is patient to achieve their goals. Their goal seems to be the complete elimination of the true Mass.
Ave Crux
"A remaining 'small grey area' is for Paul-Joseph that the bishops who celebrate ordinations for the FSSP 'don’t have the right' to use the Pontificale Romanum..."
Precisely, as noted on posts elsewhere: the Pontificale Romanum has been definitively forbidden by Rome. However, this is where filial resistance has already shown -- here and here -- its fidelity in obeying God in preserving the …More
"A remaining 'small grey area' is for Paul-Joseph that the bishops who celebrate ordinations for the FSSP 'don’t have the right' to use the Pontificale Romanum..."

Precisely, as noted on posts elsewhere: the Pontificale Romanum has been definitively forbidden by Rome. However, this is where filial resistance has already shown -- here and here -- its fidelity in obeying God in preserving the great Treasures and Patrimony we have received; not those who wish to destroy what is not theirs to destroy and bury....

Long live Tradition! Viva Cristo Rey!
Jan Joseph
Paus Franciscus is de boel weer aan het oplichten, de FSSP is veel te lief voor paus Franciscus. Paus Franciscus is en blijft onbetrouwbaar, gelukkig krijgen we dit jaar een nieuwe Paus.
Lisi Sterndorfer
"Famille Chrétienne also reports that a decree is being prepared for the month of March to specify the exemptions from which other traditionalist but not schismatic communities could benefit." (Source: oesterreich.gv.at/themen/bauen_wohnen_und_umwelt/umzug.html)
V.R.S.
The bishops do not need to impose the NO on FSSP because FSSP accepts NO. As J. Madiran put it well in 1984 any post-conciliar indult "gives to those who wanted to suppress the traditional Mass the faculty to authorise its celebration by those who give evidence that they have no reason for desiring it".
De Profundis
Did they ask Superior General?
Are they happy that they confirmed that responsa ad dubia apply to all non-ED priests?