My gratitude to a reader who pointed out to me that a Latin text for Traditionis custodes has emerged, to join the English, German, Italian and Spanish versions.Fr Hunwicke’s Mutual Enrichment: Nastier and Nastier
I drafted and wrote those words three days ago. Since then, Responsa ad Dubia have emerged from the CDW. It is remarkable how apposite my comments were before I had sight of this latest Bergoglian document. I will therefore publish IN BLACK what I originally drafted for this morning, with today’s additions (or modifications) in RED [BOLD].
Readers will recall that the nastiest and most spiteful Article was 4: which required that a priest ordained after the promulgation of the Motu proprio and who wishes to celebrate the Authentic Use of the Roman Rite must send a formal petition to his Bishop who, before granting it, “shall consult the Apostolic See”.
Nastier and nastier: in the ‘new’ Latin version, consult is changed to “will ask for (rogabit) a licentia from the Holy See”. I have checked the other Modern Language versions: they all, like the English, have consultiert; consultera; consultera. But ‘consulting’ implies a certain equality of standing between parties. That’s not the Bergoglian ethos. Down on your knees! And be quick about it!
So, in the latest Responsa, the word CONSULT, present in all those vernacular versions, is changed. I should have written “eliminated.” Indeed, CONSULTATION is now off the table. “This is not merely a consultative opinion, but a necessary authorisation given to the diocesan Bishop by the CDW.” We are informed that “the Latin text … is the official text to be referenced”. Quite how bishops were supposed to “reference”a Latin text which, until a few days ago, had not appeared, readers may wonder.
There has clearly been a policy decision to tighten up. To stop up a loophole.
But Roche and his aides cannot admit this. In Bergoglian culture, the principle is “Lie whenever possible. Truth is only for fools.” The generous mendacity of PF, carefully picked up and emulated by his Roches, is perhaps the most disgraceful feature of this pontificate.
We were told that the reestablishment of episcopal control over liturgy is one of the principles of Tc. A very senior curial official significantly remarked ” … not, of course, control by conservative bishops”. With this new Latin text, now reinforced by the Responsa, a bishop cannot even give a liturgical permission to the most junior curate without grovelling to some curial pen-pusher. Mere ‘consultation’ has gone out of the window … it is not strong enough.
Who’d be a bishop during this imperious Byzantine dictatorship?
As far as clergy who already celebrate the real Roman Rite are concerned (Article 5), the previous texts talked about them seeking authorisation; autorizzatione; autorizacion; gennehmigung. This has now become licentiam rogabunt. It is not now good enough for a bishop to give one of his priests a pastoral intimation of his consent. He now needs to embody it in formal garb.
In Article 3: 1, a Bishop is now required to check that groups using the Authentic Use accept the auctoritatem of the novel post-conciliar rites. In the vernacular versions, this Article read validity; validita; validez; gueltigkeit. This is even true of a quotation of these words within the Responsa. In other words, when it suits the authors of the Responsa, they cheerfully quote the vernacular versions of the Motu proprio, forgetting that in their recently concocted Latin version they had changed the text to auctoritatem.
Validity and Auctoritas are quite simply not the same thing. I have no trouble accepting that the Conciliar rites fulfil all the theological requirements for validity. To claim that they possess auctoritas is sheer nonsensense.
So the new tinkered version of Tc, followed by the more recent Responsa, are full of nasty snivelling bits of dishonesty designed to make them, at every turn, an even nastier document.
More lies: the Responsa assert that the old liturgical books have been abrogated. Since Benedict XVI said in 2007 that they had not been abrogated, Roche and his fellow conspirators need to explain to us when, and by whom, since Benedict XVI made that statement in 2007, the “abrogating”was done. Or he should withdraw this contrafactual assertion. It is not sufficient just to keep mouthing the same untruth, without giving any justification.
Roche now claims that the reformed liturgy is “the primary source of spirituality for the Christian life”. It appears even to be “a condition for salvation.” Dear me. Bad news for members of the sui iuris Oriental Catholic Churches. Bad news for the Dominicans. Bad news for the Ordinariates (I wonder when the bullies will get round to us?).
Roche’s advice to seminarians is that “It is … absolutely essential that priests ordained after the publication of the Motu Proprio share this desire of the Holy Father”. “Absolutely essential”?? Do these people have no sense of the meaning of words? Has it ever previously been asserted, with regard to any previous pope, that it essential for any Christian to share all his desires?
But there is one point at which something different has happened … something rather intriguing. Article 7 of the new Latin version of the decree.
The new Latin version talks about the two dicasteries which will exercise the authority of the Holy See observantiae harum dispositionum invigilantes … watching over, keeping an eye on, the observance of Tc. And the other modern language versions also expressed the same idea of watching over (vigilando; wachen). But the English version eliminated the suggestion that the two dicasteries would be super-snoopers. It read ” … exercise the authority of the Holy See with respect to the observance of these provisions”.
This is what I think happened.
The Decree was drafted in Italian or Spanish. The Italophones and the Hispanophones, brought up on the purest milk of Peronist dogma and praxis, had of course no problem about the idea of two dicasteries acting like Stasi agents, snooping around in their battered trilbies jotting down incriminating information about bishops and clergy who are, in terms of rigid Bergoglian ideology, off- message.
But then Somebody Anglophone in the CDW looked at the texts, and remarked: “Er … English people don’t much like spies and sneaks and the Gestapo and informers and tell-tales and lickspittles. Um, er, we’d better tone the English version down a bit.”
You’re dead right, Sunshine. We don’t.