Well, this is weird. Good, but weird.
As reported over at Rorate Caeli here, and here, Bergoglio met with the superiors of the FSSP and confirmed the use of the “1962” books for Mass, the sacraments and the Breviary for the FSSP. The communique of the Fraternity even states that Bergoglio stated that Traditiones Custodes does not apply to the FSSP, as the use of the traditional books is part of their foundational documents.
Of course, the usual advisals apply to this story: only a Pope can issue a motu proprio binding the universal Church. No pope can abrogate the traditional Mass and no permission from Pope or Bishop is needed to celebrate that Mass.
My question is why? Why did Bergoglio do this? My initial take is he must be feeling the heat from lots of different quarters, and has decided to go incrementally, contenting himself for the time being by merely cancelling 99% of all Diocesan Latin Masses and by bringing heat to the Ecclesia Dei communities in the more strident Francisdioceses. Kill the revival of the Mass as much as he can without buying a fight with those who have indicated they will resist him. Wait until they are completely isolated.
Too cynical? Too facile? I am open to other interpretations. But good news is good news, I must admit, even if it goes to further give credence to the false base premise that this man has the authority to do any of what has transpired.
Saint Louis Catholic 
It would appear sadly that your interpretation is the correct one.
One restriction placed on them jumps right out at me: “They may use this faculty in their own churches or oratories; *otherwise it may only be used with the consent of the Ordonary of the place, except for the celebration of private Masses*”.
And a second thing is also glaring: “Without prejudice to what has been said above, the Holy Father suggests that, as far as possible, the provisions of Traditionis Custodes be taken into account as well”.
And so, to me, it is the premise that must be dealt with that has yet to be dealt with.
As with whether Jorge Bergoglio is Pope or not – everyone insists it doesn’t matter, accept him or another, disagreement is fine … it will be resolved someday. Yet, to accept that premise means to accept two visible Popes; an Emeritus Pope position that has never been seen and has no basis in Sacred Tradition or binding Doctrine; to accept that Office is not essential to the Papacy; to accept all the heresies that flow therefrom due to said anti-papal lack of Office.
As to THIS premise that *permission* is granted under very strict limitations – and so, thank you for giving us *permission* – the correct premise should be this: There can be NO restrictions placed on the Tridentine Holy Sacrifice by anyone. The Pope has NO authority to restrict the Holy Sacrifice because it belongs to God Himself, as defined forever and all time by Papal Bull of Pope St. Pius V, as a product of the infallible declarations produced by the 19th Ecumenical Council of Trent. It is sourced in antiquity and it is valid until the Eschaton. Period. The Pope is in submission to it.
The problem is that they remain at the whim of permission granted. That permission may be withdrawn, because they have submitted to the incorrect premise that the Pope is over the Sacred Magisterium which can be changed, altered, revolutionized, turned inside out by a Pope who is of such a will. Their meeting with the Pope and the letter of Feb 11 merely reaffirms their intention to submit to permissions granted or withdrawn.
As I mentioned in one of your other recent positing – the letter from Fr. Pagliarani asserts the importance of unity of all the Faitnful within the common and unchanging framework of Sacred Tradition, in which the Pope is the servant of the servants of God.
Yeah, thinking it over he looks stronger by “granting permission “ for them to do what they were going to do anyway and have every right to do.
Would you have preferred that he refuse them permission to continue? (He could have).
I will take this great news. Thanks be to God and His Blessed Mother.
Like I said in the post, good news is good news.
Jawkins1: Any time the Holy Sacrifice is celebrated – that is good news, indeed.
My point is that this agreement covers up the faulty premise that puts off to a future date conflict that is surely coming. The sooner we recognize the truth behind the premise, the more likely it will be that we respond like Catholics, like martyrs (white or red).
The letter from Fr. Pagliarani points this out. He recalls us to the fundamental, existential (because his soul, via direct excommunication from the Pope himself, was at stake) choice made by Arbp LeFebvre – the choice that as much as we’d like to avoid it is being inexorably thrust, not only on Ecclesia Dei communities, but on us all.
The premise: The Pope is over the Sacred Magisterium, and is its ruler – to do with as he will, even if that means revolutionary, inversion army change (surprises).
The premise: The Pope is obedient to the Sacred Magisterium and is its guardian, its servant – which can never change because it is already perfect, and holy without spot or blemish.
The FSSP/Ecclesia Dei situation reminds me that nothing has fundamentally changed. They still accept the premise that permissions are needed to say Holy Mass in communion with every age of the Church – in the essential forms and liturgical formulas said by every generation of Saints going back to Christ who gave them to us.
This was the choice faced by Arbp LeFebvre. Did the Pope then have power over ecumenical understandings of the unity of all “faiths”? Does the Pope now have the power of *permission* over Holy Mass according to the new ecumenical understandings of shared experience?
The answer must be NO! Not even an Angel from Heaven has such power as that, much less Pope.
I am thankful for FSSP serving the Faithful and bringing the Holy Sacrifice into the world. I regret that the moment of *truth* has yet to be fully faced.
See, I think you misunderstand the ecclesia dei position. They do not accept that permission is needed. No priest with whom I have spoken had ever said that. It’s not true. That was the genius of Summorum Pontificum. Not any labeling of forms, but the ACKNOWLEDGMENT (not ruling) that the TLM has never been abrogated and that any priest can celebrate it. That ACKNOWLEDGMENT is unaffected by. Bergogio’s machinations, whether pope or no.
If the Institute celebrates the timeless Mass as of right, for example, and then a bishop or pope “gives permission”, that is not relevant. They choose not to make a fuss over the bishop or pope pretending like he can prohibit it. You may disagree with the strategy, but it doesn’t mean they accept they need permission.
Inversion army = inversionary (sorry for my lack of proofing)
And one last small point, but it’s an important one: I think it is past time to hold up the Cross of Christ and demand the Holy Sacrifice be given pride of place everywhere in the world. It is unfortunate, but a fact, that accepting the current premises and arrangements puts the Tridentine Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in tiny little misbegotten corners of the world. I have seen the tiny little impoverished spaces which our heroic Priests make holy and fitting for God; I have seen the lengths our heroic Priests go to to live in accord with Diocesan restrictions placed upon them.
The Bishop of Rome insists in his Guardians Against Tradition document that the two Masses are fundamentally different and because of that *premise* the one should prevail and thrive, the other should be constrained and eventually die. I accept his premise, but I turn it on its head.
Like most of what this man says – he has the contents of the conflict correct, but has arranged them exactly backwards (like his rediculously dishonest TC title – they are explicitly Guardians *against* Tradition, not *of* Tradition). The Tridentine Mass of Ages is NOT the same as, nor is it compatible with New™️Mass. We should stop, given this opportunity, pretending as if they are. One should thrive and prevail. The other should wither and die.
As far as I’m concerned … THIS is the precise time to stand up and be counted for that which we profess so the most important and beautiful thing this side of heaven. It is time to put Christ back on the center of the Altar throughout the world – if not by our deeds since we are so few, then at least by our professed beliefs and intentions. Like Gideon … it can be done with incredibly small numbers, assuming true faith and fidelity.
Timman: “They do not accept that permission is needed. No priest with whom I have spoken had ever said that.”
I agree. This has been my sense of every FSSP or ICRSS priest I’ve ever spoken to on the subject. (I do not know any IBP priests, but my broad sense is that, if anything, they tend to be even more ferocious on this point.)
Perhaps if you look hard enough you could find one that thinks this way. But I’d have to think they’re very much exceptions to the rule.
TinMan: Thanks be to God, if that is true. FSSP Priests are heroes in my estimation. And I don’t doubt that when it comes down to it, they will act as soldiers for Christ and do their duty. I love all Priests who fight for and defend Sacred Tradition.
That being said, there is unresolved conflict from 35 years ago. FSSP split off from SSPX over disputatations surrounding Papal authority to rule. Ecumenical abominations at Assisi drove the “state of necessity” of the SSPX position. Not all agreed and split for very fundamental, primal reasons.
According to Arbp LeFebvree, in explanation to Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect for CDF, just prior to the Bishop consecrations, at the heart of thr SSPX-FSSP split (disuniting of the clans).
quote
“The permanent will to annihilate Tradition is a suicidal will, which justifies, by its very existence, true and faithful Catholics when they make the decisions necessary for the survival of the Church and the salvation of souls.”
“Thus,” he explained, “we find ourselves in a case of necessity…. This is why we are convinced that, by the act of these consecrations today, we are obeying… the call of God.” (Jul 8, 1987)
end quote
And now … what will FSSP do when permission, granted today, is withdrawn tomorrow? That is the crux of it. It seems to me they have avoided conflict over first principles until now. Status quo remains. The Holy Sacrifice endures in its obscure little corners of the world. But … conflict, it seems to me, has finally found them and thr choice of 1987 is upon them – but even more fundamental now, than then.
And I can’t imagine, as Fr. Pagliarani alludes to in his letter, that they will be able to avoid making the Archbishop’s choice themselves, one day soon.
Aqua,
Thanks for your comments. I used to be very much into the SsPX/FSSP split/eccesia Dei arguments for both sides. I guess Because I am with the Institute I have a slightly different perspective. They were canonically recognized two years after Eccesia Dei, and don’t have the issue that the others do of surviving essentially a civil war within one group, the SSPX. Surely doctrinal issues are common among all ed groups, but the Institutehas its own charism, apart from adherence to the timeless Mass and Sacramental forms. Salesian, Benedictine, and Thomist, they function more as an “order”, which they are not, more than the FSSP. That is not a knock against the FSSP btw. So, not being born out of the turmoil, they have not (yet) been disturbed in the living of their charism. Of course, one may expect that soon enough. Then we shall see how all react. But early signs are promising.
Tinman: There is no “civil war”, as far as I can tell.
The point is what happens when the Pope demands ICKSP (among all others) say only New™️Mass (or give absolution to unrepentant sinners, or accept Pachamama or Allah Baals into the pantheon of gods).
The split (not a civil war) came when one group of Priests disagreed with another group of Priests over the validity of Papal authority to objectively demand violation of Sacred Tradition and its Doctrines.
One group saw where this was going, and consecrated Bishops to survive the spiritual onslaught. The other group is only just now coming to that same awareness and understanding.
ICKSP is no different in this regard. The order(s) will come there no less than anywhere else. What then? The Pope demands obedience – are there limits? If there are limits … ultimately permissions and indults are superfluous, and that must be objectively known and made known.
That is the point of Fr P’s letter – not internecine warfare, but reconciliation grounded in Papal submission to Sacred Tradition and its Doctrines.
They will not submit to lies. Fullstop.
“No pope can abrogate the traditional Mass and no permission from Pope or Bishop is needed to celebrate that Mass.”
Agreed.
And we shouldn’t even need to rely on Quo Primum to assert that.
I *am* a bit puzzled as to why it was the French district superior and the rector of Wigratzbad that Francis met with to address this, rather than the superior general of the FSSP, Fr. Komorowski. I do not know what to make of that. Strange. But Francis does a lot of strange things.
But as far as it goes, this is a positive development, I suppose.
I wholeheartedly agree, ref to your Quo Primum observation.
As with all Papal Magisterial decrees, Quo Primum merely codifies doctrine pre-existing.
That is how we know it is true and can be relied upon. As I always say in ref to Magisterial teaching – “footnotes, please”. A reading of Quo Primum reveals ample reference to Christ, Sacred Tradition and indeed to antiquity.
“….has decided to go incrementally, contenting himself for the time being by merely cancelling 99% of all Diocesan Latin Masses.”
Here is a statistic for you: At the promulgation of Traditionis Custodes in July, 88% of all “canonical” public traditional Latin (EF) Masses in the United States were in diocesan parishes, celebrated by diocesan or religious priests. (Yes, I went through the hard way and added it up.) So, if you were to do something to make it impossible to celebrate the TLM in diocesan parishes, you’d be wiping out nearly 9 in 10 TLM’s in the United States. What would remain would be . . . well, ghettos. Again.
Just look at Detroit. The Detroit metro area has no less than 40 TLM’s, which is the greatest concentration of TLM’s in the entire western hemisphere, and arguably the entire world, with the possible sole exception of the Apostolic Administration in Campos (I think they have just under 40 parishes, but they may have added more recently.) If you wipe out diocesan TLM’s, all that would be left is the Institute’s Shrine of St Joseph downtown. Which is an amazing community. But it would be a huge blow to so many Detroit area Catholics who now have access to a TLM nearby without having to drive all the way into downtown Detroit, and (do not skip over this point) to the diocesan priests who have begun forming their priestly lives around the traditional liturgy, too.
Now, the U.S. is exceptional in this respect; Summorum’s liberty was embraced by diocesan priests in the U.S. in a way that was not true anywhere else, even in France or Poland. Still, wiping out diocesan TLM’s in the rest of the world would be a great constriction of tradition and its availability to the faithful. Which is, in the end, what these men want.
One interesting note, the decree was issued on the Feast of Our Lady of Lourdes. Our Lady is certainly solicitous for the interests of her Son.
Until all priests, be they diocesan, religious, etc. are “allowed” their birthright, we cannot rest. Even if our priests are allowed to do what they were ordained to do, this segregation must not be accepted.
Agreed!
chantgirl: end “segregation”, yes.
The Christian faith is defined by unity in Charity, in Christ, through our Queen. Unity. You can feel the agony in the words of Christ, during His Passion, as He petitions God the Father for unity among those He is dying for.
21 “.., that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me …” (John 17: 20-25)
The entire passage – well worth a read again as He struggles against the author of disunity in His conquest of the flesh for unity in Charity in the Holy Trinity.
Not segregation. No more clans. Unity before the Holy Sacrifice:
“3 Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. 4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.” (Eph 4: 3-6)