Dear TIA,

I wish to congratulate Mr Guimarães on his masterful analysis of Benedict XVI's motu proprio Summorum Pontificum. It is amazing to see how the eager anticipation of some for the unencumbered Sacrifice of the Mass can cause them to see this document as something new. Something new would be no more use of the word "indult" in relation to the right of any priest to say the Tridentine Mass (or should I just say the Mass). Something new would be the acknowledgement that the Mass of the Council of Trent is the only proper usage in the Latin Rite; the Mass that was offered by and to innumerable saints for so many centuries.

Mr Guimarães clearly shows the restrictions on use of the Tridentine Mass. Most notably, the need for any priest saying the Mass to hold a high opinion of the Novus Ordo Missae and Vatican II. This is akin to stating that one loves the Catholic monarchy of St. Louis IX, but equally admires the principles of the French Revolution. I pray that Catholics are not so shallow in their love of tradition as to only be sentimentally attached to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. I also pray that they desire this Mass to be for Catholics everywhere, not simply made available in limited usage for specific orders or organizations.

     In Jesus and Mary,

     J.B.S.

TIA,

I would like to direct this comment and question to Mr. Guimaraes, since he mentioned that he will be addressing the topic of the 1962 Missal at a later date.

The 1962 rite, or what I think of as the depart from Roman rite, is not traditional. I don't know why American Catholics call it traditional when it breaks with real tradition, over a thousand years of tradition, by placing the name of St. Joseph in the Canon. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia (available at new advent site), the rather common practice of adding saints names to the Canon was ended by the codification of the Canon under Pope St. Pius V. (See Canon of the Mass entry).

So why does John XXIII get a pass on not upholding tradition not to mention divine law and the most important virtue of all - obedience to faith? The 1962 Missal introduces lawlessness into the Sacred. How can any Catholic seriously think he is honoring God by assisting at such a flagrantly illegal rite? It is impossible.

     E.B.

Dear TIA,

I shall comment on the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum as it is being received in the Diocese of Orange. According to some of my friends from the mainstream parish (who, by the way, are very recently attending the indult Mass at our parish), we should dust off our old pre-Vatican II missals, order a chapel veil and "sort of" pick up where we left off. Well, as another friend put it, "I don't think so", and here is why.

First of all, the local Ordinary holds the trump card (that of collegiallity), and believe me, in this Diocese it has already been played. Last Sunday, it was preached from the pulpit at the 11 a.m. Mass in the main church in my parish - that NO serious changes will need to be implemented. Fr. Holquin goes on, "As pastor, in light of the broad concessions that have been given here at the Mission parish to the genuine aspirations of those desirous of the older rites, I do not foresee any substantial changes to what we presently have in place here at the Mission parish."

So much for the Motu Proprio holding any weight around here. Except, of course in the minds of the naive faithful. After all we have the Latin Mass in our parish every Sunday, and according to His Excellency, Bishop Tod Brown, two or three Masses a week is more than generous to serve a Diocese of more than 1.2 million Catholics. Who could ask for more? (the other Mass being recently added in Yorba Linda at the Polish Center at 7 a.m.) Forgive my boldness, but this is how the Conciliar Church works to further their agenda. They tell you whatever they think you want to hear, while proceeding to undermine the very thing they are honor bound to uphold.

The chancery here at Marywood has put forth the progressivist ideals for decades, showing a disdain for tradition and the authentic Roman Catholic devotional life, spending a good deal of their time in damage control resulting from the moral decadence displayed by many of our priests and Bishops here in Orange County. Furthermore, you can bet they have no intention of back-pedaling now in order to appease what they see as a few fringe Catholics. Case in point:

On July 15, 2007, when our pastor, the Rev. Arthur Holquin made those disingenuous remarks in his homily regarding the Motu Proprio, he knew very well that most of the congregation is unaware that the Mission St. John Capistrano has had the Traditional Latin Mass at Serra Chapel for nearly 19 years. The reason is that the 8 a.m. Mass is not even posted in the bulletin.

Since Fr. Holquin became pastor, he has never once visited the faithful to greet them or even make an announcement. When Msgr. Martin was pastor he would visit from time to time. He not only allowed for two Masses on the first Sunday of every month, which typically drew nearly 500 people (in a chapel that holds 120), but he also allowed the Traditional Latin Mass on Holy Days of Obligation, even when the Bishop had deferred the holy day to the Sunday. The faithful are disenfranchised even further, as the consensus at the main church is that "Latins" are too rigid, behind the times or hopelessly nostalgic. It is insufferable at best to be maligned and misunderstood by fellow Catholics, not to mention it is un-Christian as well. One of Fr. Holquin's first acts as the new pastor was to discontinue the 6:30 a.m. Mass on the first Sunday of the month, and he followed that by not allowing Mass to be celebrated on Holy Days of Obligation. Exceptions were made for Christmas and Easter.

Other observations made Sunday by Fr. Holquin indicated that he believes there will be difficulties in restoring the "old Mass" to pride of place in the other parishes throughout the Diocese. Those challenges will arise principally from the priests' own lack of the knowledge of Latin. So who would even be able to say it? he muses.

Well, I believe that if the Mass would be truly restored there would be no lack of priests longing to chant the High Mass, and no lack of faithful eager to assist at it. It seems Father's words are transparently duplicitous and meant to appease the main "audience" he plays to - the one that loves the status quo.

Disingenuous, too, is the Bishop who, during the St. Mary's By-The-Sea fiasco, called the TLM divisive. Also, His Excellency's policy of forming (or rather de-forming) the architecture of his churches to reflect modern "sacred spaces" show his mind to be unsympathetic to Tradition. Perhaps all the protestantized and new age Catholics should attend services at Saddleback Christian or Calvary Chapel, then we could recover the sacredness of our churches.

In the meantime, we must pray that the Reign of Mary will come soon and that her Son will be restored to His rightful Throne in His true Church. Until then, we are still being held hostage in the wreckage caused by Vatican II; and until it is recognized as the chosen vehicle of the progressivist revolutionary clergy and theologians, it will be business as usual. No matter how sincere the Holy Father's intent in writing the Motu Proprio, in my view, it will be used as a tool of appeasement to neutralize the remaining traditional Catholics who are still resisting the Revolution.

Open your eyes. See the wolf in sheep's clothing. Hear the smooth words, "We want to give you what you want." Don't be fooled. This letter implies and even states that the Council is to be held as definitive, and yet it is the duplicitous ambiguity of the language of the Vatican II Council documents which imposes secularism and ecumenism on the unwitting faithful. We know these errors are incompatible with the Faith. But since the modernist heresies maintain their stranglehold on the Church, and since those in high places are not likely to go quietly, the battle for the soul of Holy Mother Church rages on. So, we must be on our guard, we must arm ourselves for the battle and we must resist the concession that asks us to co-exist with heterodoxy.

I thank you for allowing me to speak my mind. I am grateful for all the sound teaching I read on the TIA website. I am reading the book, Will He Find Faith at present, and am very impressed. It is brilliant, yet it leaves me filled with sadness.

I hope I am wrong. I hope Summorum Pontificum has the effect of reawakening the faithful to what we have lost. And I pray, too, for the clergy, that they will have the courage to reclaim our heritage.

     Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam,

     Sincerely yours in Christ through Maria,

     L.C.

Dear Dr. Horvat,

In regards to the Letter of Benedict XVI to the Catholic Church in the People's Republic of China, I believe we may be failing to acknowledge the full reality of this letter. To Chinese Catholics, it is not simply a betrayal. It is what this betrayal offers that is significant, at the same time being both a chastisement and true blessing.

As you state, "We must pray they will remain steadfast in resisting any coexistence with the Communist regime...". This contains the truth that we cannot coexist with an evil regime. And if Catholics can not coexist with an intrinsically evil secular power in the temporal sphere, then it is even more true that we can't coexist with evil religious power in the spiritual sphere. As we are told, "Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. ... fear ye him who, after he hath killed, hath power to cast into Hell." (Luke 12:4-5) The underground Chinese Catholics have for some 50 years resisted those who can (and do) kill the body. Why, then, do they go underground, only to subsequently agree to coexist with the progressivist usurpers of authority in what might remain of the Church's Hierarchy? These Chinese Catholics should fear their "shepherds" more than their government, as the spiritual sphere is above the temporal.

In this light, the betrayal of Benedict XVI has thus become a gift. It has offered a clear picture to the true Chinese Catholics of the error of any compromise with Progressivism. ... This time they can carry their resistance through, from the temporal to the religious sphere. From their refusal to accept communist corruption of society, to the refusal to accept the heretical corruption of the Church. It is a blessing to be allowed another chance to benefit eternally from the persecution they will suffer for their faith, as there is no greater glory for Catholics.

Not they, nor we, can coexist or have communion with enemies of Christ. By his betrayal of Chinese Catholics delivering them to the Communists, Benedict XVI can be known. Isn't it better, if an enemy will not convert, that their true nature be known, that they show themselves in full stripes for who they truly are?

Abbot Dom Gueranger, for the Seventh Sunday after Pentecost, aptly reminds us of this with these instructions from Sacred Scripture: "...the apostles of falsehood ever betray their real nature. The artful language they use, and the flatteries they utter for gains sake, cannot hide the hollowness of their works. They separate themselves from the flock of Christ, and flee from the light; for as the Apostle says: 'All things that are reproved, or deserve to be so, are made manifest by the light; and as to the things that are done by them in secret, it is a shame to even speak of them. Therefore, be ye not partakers with them.'"

     Tolle Causam!

     Dr. P.D.

Follow us

  The Motu Proprio After the Emotions

  Benedict Delivers Chinese Underground Catholics to Communism

  Readers Comment on Benedict Letter to China

  Red Light in China

  The Disastrous Cost of the Vatican Ostpolitik with China

  Declaration of Resistance to the Vatican Ostpolitik

  What's Old and New in Communism?

  The China Threat - Where is the Response?