BENEDICT XVI: NEWS, PAPAL TEXTS, PHOTOS AND COMMENTARY

With all due respect to the RORATE CAELI blogsite, the above post simply does not make sense. A rumor is a rumor. Until it is confirmed or not, no one can say whether the content of the rumor is true or untrue. That the rumor has been going round about SP is true, as the Rorate post itself reports. Just as rumors had been going round about the pope having named a commission to study some possible Bergoglian action on Humanae Vitae (HV).

The existence of the commission was denied to high heavens by the pope's closest associates until a few days ago, when the person he named to head the commission (whose members had been named - correctly, it turns out - in earlier reports on the 'rumor' by persons as well-informed and well-connected as Prof. Roberto De Mattei) disclosed in an interview with Vatican Radio that his group had indeed been asked to study the Vatican Archives for everything that had to do with the genesis, writing and final content of the anti-artificial contraception encyclical by Paul VI.

Of course, that is not the same as studying possible changes to the encyclical that could be 'legislated' by one of his successors (I have yet to check out whether a papal encyclical can be changed or abrogated by another pope - it seems to me that 'unwanted' encyclicals are simply ignored, as Bergoglio has ignored Veritatis splendor altogether, or DOMINUS IESUS, which although not an encyclical was a document issued with the full approval of John Paul II specifically for the Jubilee Year that marked 2,000 years of Christianity.)

But why would the current research on HV be undertaken other, than to find out any possible chinks that could be unearthed to show that somehow, its promulgation was defective, and that therefore, it behooves this pope to make the necessary correcti0n(s)? Charitably, of course, one could suppose Bergoglio's intention is so that he can then issue a papal proclamation that "HV remains the Church's final word on artificial contraception, so please, Catholics of the world - including those closest and dearest to me - stop impugning a pope I recently beatified!"

Stete Skojec at 1Peter5 also immediately rebutted John-Henry Westen's article for LIFESITE NEWS about the supposed rumors on SP. Not to say outright as RC would later that 'These rumors are not true', only to try to prove how Westen's report could not possibly be true. None of which matters, because in this pontificate, what matters in practice is only what Bergoglio wants, says and does.

All I know is that with this pope, one can never be certain what he won't do or will do, so the prudent thing is to wait and see. I say this, even knowing that he has never yet failed to live up to what I would call a default assumption by those like me who continue to be appalled by his hubristic derring-do - namely, you can always count on him to do the anti-Catholic thing. (In fact, a good label for the Bergoglio papacy would be 'The anti-Catholic thing', a take-off on the name of the excellent blogsite by Robert Royal and company.)

Realistically, what can he do about Summorum Pontificum? At the very least, he could go back to the status ante SP, before Sept 14, 2007, when SP went into effect – namely,that priests and groups wishing to use the traditional Mass have to get their local bishop's approval to do so.
- Does that mean that those priests and groups now using the EF must start from scratch and get their bishop's approval before they can continue to pray the Mass form they prefer as they are now entitled to do? – And what about the other traditional groups like the FSSP (Fraternal Society of St Peter) besides the better known FSSPX (named after St Pius X), that had always been allowed, pre-SP, to continue using the traditional Mass under the tutelage of the Ecclesia Dei Commission? According to the rumor, Bergoglio would limit the use of the traditional Mass only to the FSSPX.

Common sense would imply that Bergoglio gets nothing but selfish satisfaction – and of course, the undying gratitude of all his fellow progressivists committed to the complete extirpation of the traditional Mass from the practice of the faith - by going to all the trouble of rescinding SP out of sheer spite, it would seem.

Because it does not have to be pointed out that SP does not impose the traditional Mass on anyone who does not want to have anything to do with it, and that the latter can go on 'blissfully' to their graves without ever having to think at all about the Extraordinary Form – so what rational reason is there that they have made their absolute opposition to the Mass of the Ages a 'point of honor' they would fall on their sword to defend?

Earlier this week, however, Rorate caeli did provide us with a significant historical nugget in this translation of an article written as early as 1955 by one of the great writers of the 20th century, Paul Claudel. Published by the most important French daily, Claudel wrote against the idea of a Mass celebrated ad populum (facing the people) as early as 1955, a practice that almost immediately became de facto de rigueur with the imposition of the Novus Ordo a decade and a half later, even if nowhere in Vatican II's Constitution on the Liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium) is this ever legislated.

Mass facing the people means
there's no longer an altar
by Paul Claudel
LE FIGARO
January 23, 1955
Courtesy of


I wish to protest with all my strength against the growing practiCe in France of saying Mass facing the people.

The most basic principle of religion is that God holds first place and that the good of man is merely a consequence of the recognition and the practical application of this essential dogma.

The Mass is the homage par excellence which we render to God by the Sacrifice which the priest offers to Him in our name on the altar of His Son.
- It is us led by the priest and as one with him, going to God to offer Him hostias et preces (Victims and prayers).
- It is not God presenting Himself to us for our convenience to make us indifferent witnesses of the mystery about to be accomplished.

The novel liturgy deprives the Christian people of their dignity and their rights. It is no longer they who say the Mass with the priest, by “following” it, as the saying very rightly goes, and to whom the priest turns from time to time to assure them of his presence, participation and cooperation, in the work which he undertakes in their name. All that remains is a curious audience watching him do his job. Small wonder that the impious compare him to a magician performing his act before a politely admiring crowd.

It is true that in the traditional liturgy the most touching, the most moving part of the Holy Sacrifice is hidden from the view of the faithful. But it is not hidden from their hearts and their faith. To demonstrate this, during Solemn High Masses the sub-deacon stays at the foot of the altar during the Offertory, hiding his face with his left hand. We too are invited to pray, to withdraw into ourselves, not in a spirit of curiosity but of recollection.

In all of the Eastern rites the miracle of transubstantiation takes place unseen by the faithful, behind the iconostasis. It is only afterwards that the celebrant appears on the threshold of the sacred door, the Body and Blood of Christ in his hands.

A vestige of this idea lingered for many years in France, where the old missals did not translate the prayers of the canon. Dom Guéranger protested energetically against those who had the audacity to do away with this custom.

Today’s deplorable practice has turned the ancient ceremony upside down, to the great consternation of the faithful. There is no longer an altar. Where is it, this consecrated stone which the Apocalypse compares to the Body of Christ Itself? There is nothing but a bare trestle covered with a tablecloth, reminding us depressingly of a Calvinist workbench.

Naturally, as the convenience of the faithful was held up as the guiding principle, it was necessary to rid the aforementioned table of the “accessories” cluttering it up: not only the candlesticks and the vases of flowers, but the tabernacle! The very crucifix! The priest says his Mass in a vacuum! When he invites the people to lift up their hearts and their eyes…to what? There is no nothing left in front of us to focus our minds on the Divine.

If the candlesticks and crucifix were kept, the people would be even more excluded than in the old liturgy, because then not only the ceremony but the priest himself would be completely hidden from view.*

I would resign myself to this situation with the greatest grief, as henceforth, it would appear that not the slightest spiritual effort will be required of the common people. It seems necessary to stick the most sublime of mysteries in their faces, to reduce the Mass to the primitive form of the Last Supper and in doing so, change the entire ritual.

What would be the meaning of 'Dominus vobiscum' and 'Orate frates' spoken by a priest separated from his people and requiring nothing of them? What then is the significance of the sumptuous vestments worn by those we have delegated as ambassadors to the Divinity?

And our churches, would there be any reason then to leave them as they are?

*My footnote:
Actually, the Benedettian 'six candles and a crucifix' minimum required for a Novus Ordo Mass table (how can it even properly be called an altar when it does not contain the requisite relic that every church ought to have in its altar?) does not obscure the celebrant at all.

In fact the Bergoglian stepdown of the Benedettian minimum ensures you can't possibly miss the celebrant's presence at all - two candles off to one side, a low flower arrangement on the other side, the missal rests on a pillow instead of a stand, and the Crucifix is dwarfed even by the chalices he uses! (In fairness, behind the priest on the rear wall of the chapel in Casa Santa Marta is a huge Crucifix, so maybe the pope's liturgists think having an itsy-bitsy crucifix on the altar is just fine.

BTW, unless the crucifix on the mass table in the photo is double-faced, it seems it has its back to the Mass celebrant.