Michael Voris On The Summorum Pontificum Instruction

See here a very optimistic Michael Voris about the soon to be released Instruction regarding Summorum Pontificum, about which much has been written on these pages.

Voris’ message is that his sources indicate two powerful measures in favour of the scope of Summorum Pontificum:

1) the instruction that one part of the seminarians (in every seminary, I assume) is to be instructed in the celebration of the Tridentine, and
2) words aiming at appealing to the bishops to stop boycotting Summorum Pontificum.

Whilst this sounds good at first sight, i can’t avoid posing myself the following questions:

1) what is of the already leaked – and confirmed from several sources – restrictions to the celebration of the Tridentine in the Diocese of Milan (Ambrosian Rite)?
2) What is of the also leaked rumours of ban of celebration of the Tridentine for ordinations, and of the old version of the Masses of religious orders?

Voris doesn’t say anything on this. One hopes that the outcry has been the end of those provisions. They were most certainly there as confirmed even by those who disputed their devastating influence on the edifice of Summorum Pontificum. But it goes on:

3) Why should the rectors of the seminaries take heed of what Pope Benedict says, perhaps giving some lips service if they really can’t avoid it, and
4) why should the bishops stops ignoring the Pope’s wishes now, when ignoring him is exactly what they have been doing all these years, unpunished.

At the root of the problems are not the bishops – whose allergy to proper Catholicism was always obvious – but Pope Benedict himself, who doesn’t do anything concrete to care that his “reform of the reform” is not only proclaimed, but seriously put to work. What we have, on the contrary, noticed is that those very same bishops who drag their feet and undermine his work are not only not punished, but are often promoted. There is nothing in Pope Benedict’s work that says that he doesn’t want to be only an innovator, but an enforcer of his own innovations.

On the other hand, the day Pope Benedict decides to force his bishops to acquiescence – I doubt it very much, but would be extremely happy to be contradicted by facts – he will not need any new documents, the removal of a dozen of the hardest cases being a rather more effective and immediate mean to this end.

As it is today, the impression is that Pope Benedict is happy to be the one who paves the way for a recovery of traditional Catholicism, without being the one who actually takes care that this recovery also happens in the lives of Catholics the world over. He probably thinks that this gradualisms will – as the Italians would say – save the goat of the “reform of the reform” together with the cabbages of the internal peace.

We will see. For the moment, I allow myself not to share Voris’ optimism both on the content of the Instruction, and on its ultimate application.


Posted on March 16, 2011, in Catholicism and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 2 Comments.

  1. Yes, always the same question: Why doesn’t the HF act more decisively? On my part, I think I’m too much inclined to be impulsive, to wipe the slate and thus wind up fixing up the Church like Mao fixed China. There’s all those lost sheep out there following the wrong shepherds. I like to think B16 has some kind of compassion for them and can foresee the damage that would be done by sudden course changes, just as it was done by Bugnini et al. One of my little pipe dreams is that he’s priming Cardinal Burke as the next Pope. Burke is much younger and would have a stronger hand in dealing the core of the opposition in the U. S. which is where, like it or not, the money is now.
    In the Voris video, you see that Cardinal saying 50 years. I think it’ll be more like 100 before the Church moves on to the next life-threatening challenge.

    • I agree 308s as i myself (raised up to admire decisive people, rather than cautious ones) find it difficult to believe that this strategy is the best. The safest, perhaps, but at the cost of millions of souls who will continue to be exposed to the toxic influence of their bad shepherds.

      I do think, though, that the Novus ordo is, as we say, a walking corpse.

      The fact is that we still have around people from V II, but when they’re gone some Pope of the future will consider it more and more difficult to justify the continued existence of this embarrassing incident of a period od drunkenness of the former century rather than to come back to do things properly, as they had always been done before.

      Can you imagine, in 2055, any pope ready to defend Vatican II’s mass, or V II for that matter? For whom, for tambourine players buried decades before?


%d bloggers like this: