Does Francis Plan to Abolish Summorum Pontificum?

Does Francis Plan to Abolish Summorum Pontificum?

The modernist lay liturgist Andrea Grillo who is close to Pope Francis, told La Croix [see Google English translation in comment below] that Francis considers abolishing Benedict XVI’s Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum that allows all priests to celebrate the Roman Rite. According to Grillo, once the Vatican erects the Society of Saint Pius X as a Personal Prelature, the Roman Rite will be preserved only within this structure. “But [Francis] will not do this as long as Benedict XVI is alive”.

Grillo also knows, that Francis plans to start a cycle on the liturgy during his Wednesday Audiences, in order to promote his liturgical views.

Get AQ Email Updates

7 comments on “Does Francis Plan to Abolish Summorum Pontificum?

  1. Pope Francis reflects on the future of the motu proprio

    Nicolas Senèze on 07/07/2017

    The pope, aware of the tensions that may have led to the possibility for the priests to choose their rite, could benefit from the agreement with the Lefebvrists to reserve the ancient rite for their own personal prelature.

    In the corridors of the Vatican, Summorum Pontificum is no longer really a topical text. More important today seems to be discussions with the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (SSPX), for whom Benedict XVI’s text was not necessarily good news: by debating the liturgical question, the Pope Indeed allowed to go to the bottom of the theological disagreements.

    According to the Commission “Ecclesia Dei”, in charge of dialogue with the SSPX in Rome, these disagreements would now be smoothed out. Only the signature of Bishop Bernard Fellay is missing at the bottom of the document submitted several years ago. “If they do not sign, they are really stupid, because they are given a golden bridge , ” comments an observer who read the text. The Superior General of the SSPX should sign after convincing the most recalcitrant within the Fraternity. And probably before the summer of 2018, the date of the next general chapter during which his mandate will be put back into play. Being appointed for life at the head of a prelature would avoid a complicated re-election.

    The priest must not choose his rite

    For Francis, it is first and foremost a gesture of unity: a supporter of a “reconciled diversity” and not of a uniform Church, he is persuaded that as long as the SSPX calls itself Catholic, in its place. It remains to be seen whether the Lefebvrists will find their place in the plural Church of Francis. “What will the bishops do in the dioceses with the Lefebvrist prelature in front of them? ” Asks an observer.

    As a specialist in liturgy, theologian Andrea Grillo remembers how, in his day, Summorum Pontificum had put the bishops in difficulty, suddenly caught between priests choosing the old rite and a Commission “Ecclesia Dei” having a very wide reading of text. “By introducing a subjective choice of the rite by the priest, the motu proprio has fra gi Lise unit liturgy of the Church and sometimes created parallel churches into parishes. It is a break in tradition, ” he said.

    This Pope’s close friend recalls that Cardinal Bergoglio, archbishop of Buenos Aires, had asked a priest rather an adversary of the extraordinary form to celebrate for the faithful traditionalists. Just to emphasize that the priest must not choose his rite.

    “The ordinary of the Church is not there”

    For, at the same time, the Argentine pope shares with his predecessor a very pragmatic vision of the ancient rite. As Benedict XVI spoke of the “small circle of those who use the old missal,” Francis believes that his predecessor “made a just and magnanimous gesture to meet a certain mentality of a few nostalgic groups and people who, Were distant ” (1). But he believes that this is indeed an “exception” and that “the ordinary Church is not there.” “Vatican II and Sacrosanctum Concilium must be promoted as they are,” says the Pope, who refuses any idea of “reform reform”.

    According to Andrea Grillo, François would eventually consider abolishing Summorum Pontificum , from the moment when the old rite would be preserved within the personal prelature offered to the SSPX. “But he will not do this as long as Benedict XVI is alive,” he warned at once.

    Meanwhile, the pope, for whom the demands of some, “too young to have known the pre-conciliar liturgy”, hide a “defensive rigidity” , is preparing to begin a new cycle of catecheses on Wednesday, precisely on the liturgy. “This shows his willingness to take this theme seriously ,” says Andrea Grillo. But this will be the occasion for him to speak more of the content of the liturgy than of its form and headings. “

  2. [From the liberal liturgist Collegeville Benedictine Fr. Anthony Ruff at PrayTell]

    Is Summorum Pontificum Divisive?

    JUL 5, 2017

    Here is in interesting insight into the likely thinking of Pope Francis about Summorum Pontificum, the Motu Proprio of Benedict XVI allowing any priest to celebrate Mass as before the reforms of the Second Vatican Council in the so-called “extraoardinary” form. The report comes from Matias Augé, former consulter to the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship, longtime professor of liturgy at Sant’ Anselmo in Rome, and highly regarded liturgical theologian.

    In a post yesterday at his blog Munus: Liturgia e dintorni, Augé tells of a liturgical conference he attended in Buenos Aires, Argentina, when Bergoglio was archbishop there. Augé writes:

    I was told by one of the liturgist participants at the conference that the archbishop, Cardinal Bergoglio, had called upon him to celebrate Sunday Mass in a small church for a group, then about 20 people, who wanted to celebrate in the extraordinary form. This liturgist, a bit puzzled, said to the archbishop that he was not in agreement with such groups. The response of the cardinal [Bergoglio] was clear: “I say this to you because if I give the assignment to a priest who is in agreement with such groups, I divide the diocese.”

    This comment is especially interesting against the backdrop of the sentiment expressed by Pope Benedict XVI when he issued Summorum Pontificum. In his letter accompanying that document, Benedict wrote:

    [T]he fear was expressed in discussions about the awaited Motu Proprio, that the possibility of a wider use of the 1962 Missal would lead to disarray or even divisions within parish communities. This fear … strikes me as quite unfounded.

    On the danger of divisions in the Church because of wider use of the unreformed pre-Vatican II liturgy, Bergoglio was of a different mind than Pope Benedict.

    * * *

    [T]he division [caused by Summorum Pontificum (SP)] is systemic: SP is not compatible with Vatican II, in my view, and it will thus tend to divide the Church between those who accept the Council and those who do not. The Council fathers clearly intended that the liturgy be reformed, and Paul VI clearly believed that he did what the Council intended (it says so on the first page of every missal). The Council fathers clearly intended that the pre-Vatican II unreformed liturgy would not remain in use in its unreformed state. This should be an uncontroversial claim – the text couldn’t be clearer. I do not see how SP is somehow a further development of what V2 intended – it has within it a certain amount of rejection of V2

    I do not deny that SP is legal and canonical. It is. The pope clearly has the right to readmit the unreformed liturgy. I don’t dispute this. I dispute whether this move is compatible with Vatican II. I’m speaking theologically, not canonically.
    And note, the rejection of which I speak is not only of Sacrosanctum Concilium. The whole Council stands or falls as a whole. Everything in SC is thoroughly imbedded in the other 15 documents of Vatican II. To accept SC and the reformed liturgy is to accept all 16 documents. And vice versa.

    I know I’m stating it baldly, but this is the issue, it seems to me.

    • Holy heretics, Tom! That Anthony Ruff, OSB, is an open and straight-speaking heretic. He demolishes the NeoCat’s argument that Vatican II doesn’t represent a rupture in the Faith. He goes on to say that the Apostles didn’t know about the Immaculate Conception, nor that there were 7 sacraments. Then he scolds the arrogant Church of Trent for forcing Vatican II to overnight change the liturgy that could have developed organically! Just wow!

      The central problem with the whole continuity/rupture question – and the reason why Cardinal Ratzinger has rather confused the issue by introducing the distinction – is that Vatican II is a very special and unprecedented reform in all of Church history. Developments that might have taken centuries (if, for example, Trent had engaged the Protestant reformers and set in motion a general reform of the liturgy), got compacted into the space of just a few years. If we had taken four or five hundred years to get from the Missal of 1962 to the Missal of 1970, it would have been organic. But – and this is the fault of the entire Catholic Church including the hierarchy! – ongoing natural development was stalled out at Trent out of pure stubbornness and arrogance.

  3. A radical modernist from South America does not have the authority to ban the true Mass or indults of previous popes. Just like the modernist efforts from Vatican II to suppress the Latin Mass, this would be another heretical abomination. No Catholic, no priest, and no bishop is bound to follow the modernist minimalism and extremism coming from this pontificate or the Vatican bureaucrats enabling it. Bergoglio is a nutjob and useful idiot for the Illuminati, hell-bent on taking the Church, and civilization along with it, over the cliff.

  4. Technically, priests did not need permission from Summorum Pontificum which merely restates a right and duty they already had. Hence, even if a radical modernist like Bergoglio were to try to suppress it in a heretical outburst of neo-Gnosticism, the right and duty of Catholic priests to say the true Mass would still be in place by divine mandate. It’s not necessary to review Aquinas and Bellarmine here, but there is only a burden to follow and obey just orders. You never have to obey an unjust, unlawful, or immoral order even if the person giving it has attained legalistic authority through fraud, chicanery, or anti-Catholic secret society intervention in the affairs of the Church.

Leave a Reply