Posted on 03/16/2021 1:53:44 PM PDT by ebb tide
Dear friends and enemies of Stilum Curiae, thanks to Korazym.org, a site you know well and that you know is very much appreciated in these parts, we have gained a better understanding about the mysterious unsigned note without a protocol number that was issued by the First Section of the Secretary of State on the regulation of Masses in Saint Peter’s Basilica, without the new Archpriest of the Basilica, who was recently appointed to replace Cardinal Comastri, knowing anything about it. It appears that the note originated from “Number One” – the one whom Henry Sire very aptly defined in his book “The Dictator Pope.” And in fact, in addition to being irregular, the semi-clandestine note (so much so that there were those who thought that it was a joke, that it was false) has all the probability of being illegitimate. But what does that matter! If the Pope wants something, what do laws matter? Enjoy your reading.
§§§
In Vatican City State not a leaf moves unless Bergoglio wants it to
The directives imposed by the unusual document from the Secretary of State, which lays down – outside of the proper competences, in violation of canon law and the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church – directives for liturgical functions in the Papal Basilica of Saint Peter, will take effect beginning March 22, 2021. Beginning on that day, it will no longer be permitted to celebrate individual Holy Masses in Saint Peter’s Basilica celebrated by a single priest without the faithful. The Note also drastically reduces Holy Masses in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite, limiting them to just one altar in the crypt of the Basilica.
An internal source has given definite confirmation that the author of this directive is the Substitute for General Affairs of the Secretariat of State and that the seal on the stamp at bottom of the Note is the authentic stamp of the Substitute. This confirms that the Substitute is only a faithful executor of higher orders. Before, it was Becciu; now it is Peña Parra. Furthermore, it has been learned – from the same internal source – that the unusual directive was issued at the order of Pope Francis. Therefore, the reason for this communication issued with this unusual and irregular modality is the absolute discretion requested by the Pontiff, so that the order would be received with a low profile. The timing with which this Note was issued is surprising – not even a month has passed since the resignation of Cardinal Angelo Comastri when he reached his age limit. All of this supports the idea – and has convinced us – that the operation has been organized for some time. The documented was issued as an internal Note, for which it is the practice of the Substitute to affix only a seal. But there’s more. The document has no protocol number, an obvious sign that the document is not meant to have any official tracking.
The Substitute did what the Pope ordered, and he did it with the requested discretion. Cardinal Burke has declared the directive illegitimate, because it is outside the competence of the Secretariat of State. For this reason, Cardinal Burke has asked that it be retracted before March 22, the date on which it takes effect.
The crucial question remains in this strange case – to use a euphemism: if the document was requested by the Pope, despite the violation of Canon Law and the Doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, is the directive legitimate?
Previously, Korazym had published this note:
The First Section of the Secretariat of State, headed by the Substitute for General Affairs, Archbishop Edgar Peña Parra, with a Note issued on March 12 has directed that beginning on March 22, 2021, it will no longer be permitted to celebrate individual Holy Masses in Saint Peter’s Basilica, celebrated by a single priest without the faithful, and also orders the drastic reduction of Holy Masses in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite, limiting them to one single altar in the crypt of the Basilica. There are three recipients of the Note: the Extraordinary Commissioner of the Fabbrica di San Pietro, Msgr. Mario Giordana, in charge of the administration of the maintenance of the basilica; the Canons of the Vatican Chapter; and the Service [or Office] of Liturgical Celebrations of the Basilica. The customary practice in Saint Peter’s Basilica has been quite different up until now, with many priests celebrating Mass each morning at the many side altars of the basilica, often alone and often in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite.
At first, there was a doubt about the authenticity of the Note from the Second Section of the Second Section of the Secretariat of State, which was unsigned and had no protocol number. It is in fact authentic, and many questions remain about the violations of canon law and the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. Of course, the Substitute of the Secretariat of State (who put his seal on the letter but did not sign it) will consider himself competent in the matter, because he addresses the Extraordinary Commissioner of the Fabbrica di San Pietro, however at the same time he snubs the brand new Archpriest of the Basilica, Cardinal Mauro Gambetti, O.F.M.Conv. (and we can imagine what he thinks). We are still awaiting a statement on the matter from the Press Office of the Holy See. Meanwhile, we report in our Italian translation the Declaration of Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke, who presents the sensational case and clearly formulates the punctum dolens of the matter [HERE in English, German, Spanish, Portuguese, and Polish]. It should be borne in mind that Cardinal Burke is one of the greatest experts in canon law, the Former Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, the President of the Court of Cassation of Vatican City State and President of the Commission for Canonical Advocates from 2008 to 2014.
Ping
This is up there with wondering whether or not it is Kosher to go in the Jordan River after Christ drove 2000 pigs into the Sea of Galilee.
If you want a headache, you can have a headache.
I don't want headaches; I'm not looking to find headaches. What I do want is a Catholic pope.
Unless you are planning on celebrating the Holy Sacrifice in the Basilica yourself in the near future or planning on bathing in the Jordan, figuring out whether the decree is valid or the answer to the cleanliness is attempting to get clarification on a point that isn’t likely to clarify and isn’t immediately relevant.
I plan on neither. But I do not appreciate the supression of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in any Catholic Church.
Your cavalier attitude about this matter is also not appreciated.
While I don’t appreciate the EF being limited in anyway, attempting to figure out whether or not this note has any authority is a different question.
The note is bad—but is it in some ways authoritative?
It is any private mass at any side altar in St Peter's.
They must now be concelebrated and “animimated".
FYI. There is no canon law that states a priest must concelebrate the Mass.
Don't bother asking me. Ask Jorge.
I understand the canon law perfectly. It is kind of them to include the OF as well.
The practicalities of it is that unless someone is willing and able to squash a few petty dictators, one of whom may be entitled to wear a tiara, the folks running St. Peter’s will do and allow what they will.
The rule of man and not of law.
Are you serious? The tiara was given away by the masonic Paul VI in 1964. And the current Jesuit on the See of Peter has rejected the title of "Vicar of Christ".
The Vicar of Pachamama.
I realize that the event is somewhat unlikely—that doesn’t mean he’s not entitled.
Not one Mass has been offered at the high altar of St. Peter's Basilica since Bergoglio worshiped a pagan idol over the tomb of St. Peter. And now Bergoglio has prohibited private masses at side altars.
Do the math.
A heretic is not entitled to any honors.
Not as a heretic. But one honours the office, not the man, and taking steps to honour one’s own office more can be a step towards executing it more seriously.
I kneel in confession whether or not the priest is inclined to honour Christ and the priesthood, not the individual who has been ordained priest as an individual. I kiss the episcopal ring for the same reason.
The penalties for the crime of heresy include automatic excommunication (Canon 1364 §1); for clerics, automatic removal from any ecclesiastical office that the heretic might have possessed (Canon 194 §1, no. 2); for religious, automatic expulsion from their religious order (Canon 694, §1, no. 1).
He remains the putative Pope until shown to be other wise, and the crime involves not merely material but formal heresy. While I do my best to stay away from quasi-magisterial musings, my limited (but extent) knowledge of CIC cause me to pause after the phrase “for the crime of heresy” and say that this is above my paygrade.
On November 28, 2013, Fr. Kramer (author of the Devil's Final Battle) announced on his Facebook page that he rejects Francis’ claim to the papacy due to manifest heresy found in his (then newly-published) “Apostolic Exaltation” EvangeliiGaudium. He wrote:
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.