「教皇様の心に従った司教たちを私たちに与えてください」21人のフランス人司祭たちがローマに直訴

アヴェ・マリア！

愛する兄弟姉妹の皆様、

　21人のフランス人司祭たちが、ローマに直訴したそうです。
「教皇様の心に従った司教たちを私たちに与えてください」と。

　この内容について後に日本語でご紹介しようと考えています。
天主様の祝福が豊かにありますように！
トマス小野田圭志神父（聖ピオ十世会司祭）

21 prêtres français s’adressent à Rome : « Donnez-nous des évêques selon le cœur du Pape ! »


Dans le contexte du sacre de Mgr Fonlupt et des interrogations de fidèles dont nous nous sommes faits l’écho, nous avons reçu le texte d’une supplique qu’un groupe de 21 prêtres français adressent ces jours-ci au cardinal Ouellet, préfet de la congrégation pour les évêques.

D’après ce que je sais de la situation du catholicisme français, ces 21 auraient aussi bien pu être plusieurs dizaines, mais l’animateur du groupe s’est volontairement limité pour envoyer rapidement – et, en l’occurrence, avant le sacre de Mgr Fonlupt – cette supplique à Rome.

Qui sont ces prêtres? De parfaits représentants des « forces vives » du catholicisme français: ils sont 4 religieux, 2 membres d’instituts Ecclesia Dei, et 15 prêtres diocésains. Certains ont été tout récemment ordonnés; d’autres sont prêtres depuis plus de 20 ans. Presque tous ont moins de 50 ans. En un mot, ils sont représentatifs de la génération de la nouvelle évangélisation. Ils ont vu le champ immense de la mission en France même et ne parviennent pas à comprendre que les bureaux et les officines continuent à s’arc-bouter sur des choix idéologiques d’un autre âge. Ils sont résolument favorables à la fin de la guerre liturgique et à la « réforme de la réforme » et aussi hostiles que possible aux interprétations néo-modernistes de Vatican II. L’animateur de ce groupe – qui en est aussi le doyen – a délibérément choisi de représenter cette « diversité » parmi les signataires.

Pour ma part, en recevant cette supplique, j’ai instantanément songé à la supplique des séminaristes de Milan en février dernier. Nous avions suivi cette affaire sans en parler pour éviter de jeter de l’huile sur le feu, mais, à présent qu’elle est derrière nous, je peux bien vous dire de quoi il s’agissait: quelques séminaristes du diocèse de Milan ont écrit une supplique au Pape demandant la possibilité de se former à la célébration du rite ambrosien. L’affaire engendra beaucoup de remue-ménage, à la curie, au diocèse et au séminaire, à tel point que les « fautifs » furent convoqués par le supérieur du séminaire et manquèrent de peu le renvoi.

C’est la raison pour laquelle j’ai moi-même conseillé à l’animateur de ces 21 prêtres de ne pas solliciter de séminaristes (car, en France, on ne se contenterait pas de la menace et il serait trop bête de perdre des prêtres avant même leur ordination…). Et c’est aussi la raison pour laquelle j’ai supprimé les signatures des 21 prêtres. Nous, laïcs, pouvons librement prendre la parole; il n’en va pas toujours de même pour les clercs.

---------------------------------------

A Son Éminence le Cardinal Ouellet,
Préfet de la Congrégation pour les Évêques

Éminence,

Nous voudrions vous faire part de l’incompréhension d’une large part des prêtres et des catholiques de France concernant les nominations épiscopales actuelles.

Dans notre pays, depuis trois ou quatre décennies, le catholicisme s’est réduit et continue de se réduire dramatiquement (effondrement constant de la pratique dominicale, du nombre des prêtres, des religieux, des catéchisés, des vocations, etc.) Il n’est pas impossible que le Saint-Siège soit bientôt contraint de transformer certains diocèses français en administrations apostoliques, compte tenu du nombre dérisoire de leurs prêtres en activité.

Or ce catholicisme malade n’est pas mort. Transformé par la terrible épreuve de la sécularisation, il a encore – pour combien de temps ? – la capacité de se revitaliser en son état de minorité : scoutisme, écoles vraiment catholiques, mouvements, pèlerinages, communautés nouvelles multiples, communautés traditionnelles jeunes et vivantes, nouvelles générations de prêtres réellement missionnaires, séminaristes diocésains et nombreuses vocations potentielles de type « génération Benoît XVI », possibilités liturgiques et vocationnelles offertes par le Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, jeunes familles chrétiennes nombreuses, groupements très actifs de soutien à la vie. Ce catholicisme-là veut tourner une page mortifère : abus liturgiques, prédication désastreuse concernant la morale du mariage, complexe anti-romain latent, pratiques sacramentelles déviantes (bénédictions de « remariages » des divorcés remariés, absolutions collectives), catéchèse douteusement catholique sur l’eucharistie, etc.

Dans ce contexte, les nominations épiscopales nous paraissent inintelligibles. Bien des évêques de France sont en décalage croissant avec ce nouveau catholicisme. Et c’est une immense déception de voir qu’une partie de ceux nommés aujourd’hui même, sous le pape Benoît XVI, comme s’ils se reproduisaient par cooptation, ont encore un esprit « génération 68 » plus ou moins recentré, et que l’autre partie est choisie, pour les besoins d’un consensus introuvable, parmi des hommes d’une timidité réformatrice extrême.

Les prêtres, les religieux, les clercs que nous représentons désirent que soit faite à l’adresse d’une société de plus en plus indifférente une annonce claire de l’Évangile. Ils sont en outre animés d’un vrai désir de réconciliation et de paix entre tous les catholiques de France, qui se savent désormais largement minoritaires. Mais pour mettre en œuvre une nouvelle pastorale, il faut choisir de nouveaux pasteurs. Il se trouve que les prêtres de 50 à 60 ans qui ont un profil pastoral, psychologique et intellectuel solide, répondant parfaitement aux besoins vitaux du nouveau catholicisme français, sont désormais nombreux.

Éminence, le salut du catholicisme français dépend de la nomination d’évêques qui répondront à ses besoins réels et à ses vraies attentes.

Nous exprimons à Votre Éminence notre profond et religieux respect, et La prions de transmettre à notre Saint-Père le Pape l’expression de l’affection dévouée et respectueuse de ses enfants fidèles, prêtres de Jésus-Christ.

“UNIVERSAE ECCLESIAE”についてのピーター・スコット神父様のコメント その２

アヴェ・マリア！

愛する兄弟姉妹の皆様、

使徒書簡「スンモールム・ポンティフィクム」の適用に関する指導文書（Instruction）「ウニヴェルセ・エクレジエ　Universae Ecclesiae」（2011年5月13日発表）に関する、ピーター・スコット神父様のコメントの続きをご紹介します。これの日本語については、後に準備して愛する兄弟姉妹の皆様にご紹介したいと思っております。
天主様の祝福が豊かにありますように！

トマス小野田圭志神父（聖ピオ十世会司祭）

4) Underlying this instruction is to be found a hidden agenda that is not clearly expressed. This was already indicated by Benedict XVI in 2007, when he asked that the two rites "be mutually enriching" (July 7, 2007) by the inclusion in the old Missal of new saints and new prefaces. This process was already begun by changing the Good Friday prayer for the Jews in the traditional rite so as to exclude the prayer for their conversion. §25 of the present instruction tells us that such changes are indeed going to continue: "New saints and certain of the new prefaces can and ought to be inserted into the 1962 Missal, according to provisions which will be indicated subsequently."

It was, however, Cardinal Koch himself who, in the above-mentioned address, explained the Roman plan that underlies this granting of permission for a rite that requires no permission. He explained that it is the Pope’s wish for the traditional Mass to be an “ecumenical bridge," for by it the Pope “wished to contribute to the resolution of this dispute and to reconciliation within the Church: the Motu proprio promotes, so to speak, intra-Catholic ecumenism...if the intra-Catholic ecumenism fails, the Catholic controversy over the liturgy will also extend to ecumenism, and the old liturgy will not be able to carry out its ecumenical function of bridge-building.” (Op. Cit.) The purpose of this instruction is consequently to force all Catholics, liberal and traditional, to accept one another’s liturgy, so as to end all dispute on doctrinal questions. Surprising as it may seem, it is the same ecumenical spirit, emanating from Vatican II, that has produced the Assisi world meetings and that is behind Rome’s permission for the traditional Mass that Rome admits needs no permission!

However, Cardinal Koch was even more explicit in his analysis of the ultimate goal of this initiative, namely that the traditional and new Masses will eventually evolve together into a common rite, namely that both are to disappear: “Benedict XVI knows well that in the long term we cannot remain with a coexistence between the ordinary and extraordinary forms in the Roman rite, but that the Church will again need in the future a common rite...However, given that a new liturgical form cannot be decided in an office, as it requires a process of growth and purification, for the time being the Pope stresses above all that the two forms of use of the Roman rite can and must enrich one another mutually.” (Ib.) Rome’s permission of a Mass that needs no permission is that it might ultimately disappear! What a diabolical paradox!

5) Nowhere in this document is contained any missionary zeal or effort to spread the traditional rite of Mass. The traditional Mass is always presented as something that priests and faithful must request of their own initiative, and never something that is positively to be promoted by the Church’s hierarchy. What a strange overturning of the usual government of the Church, or rather a vacuum of authority, that the simple people and priests must be in the driving seat! For this reason also, it cannot be the vehicle for a widespread return to the traditional Mass.

6) The tonsure, minor orders and the major order of the subdiaconate are reduced to the level of simply pious ceremonies, without any canonical value or spiritual importance or power attached to them (§ 30). No longer does the tonsure make a young man a cleric, even in the communities in which only the traditional rite is used. Furthermore the “non-cleric” who receives the minor orders is not recognized as receiving anything. Also, the vow of chastity that is included in the ordination to the subdiaconate is somehow considered as not existing, even when this order is received, nor is the young man who has received this major order even considered to be a cleric. His situation is exactly the same as in the Novus Ordo. He becomes a cleric at the diaconate only. This makes a mockery of all the traditional rites of ordination, that date back to the third century, retained by the Motu proprio purely for sentimental and ecumenical reasons.

The conclusion from these brief considerations is quite clear. Cooperation with the Ecclesia Dei commission’s administration of this Motu proprio is an unacceptable compromise on principle, the profession that there is no crisis in the Church, and a formal cooperation in the ecumenical spirit that refuses to resolve the doctrinal problems of modernism. It is to live a contradiction: namely to chose the traditional Mass because the New Mass is wrong, and yet at the same time to profess that the New Mass is not wrong so as to be able to celebrate the traditional Mass. It is the ultimate contradiction of asking permission for that which needs no permission, that that which needs no permission might ultimately be forbidden!

“UNIVERSAE ECCLESIAE”についてのピーター・スコット神父様のコメント その１

アヴェ・マリア！

愛する兄弟姉妹の皆様、

　使徒書簡「スンモールム・ポンティフィクム」の適用に関する指導文書（Instruction）「ウニヴェルセ・エクレジエ　Universae Ecclesiae」（2011年5月13日発表）に関する、ピーター・スコット神父様のコメントをご紹介します。これの日本語については、後に準備して愛する兄弟姉妹の皆様にご紹介したいと思っております。

　この文書自体については、バチカンサイトにある、次のリンクをクリックしてください。

PONTIFICAL COMMISSION ECCLESIA DEI
INSTRUCTION ON THE APPLICATION OF THE APOSTOLIC LETTER
SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI GIVEN MOTU PROPRIO
（英語）


ラテン語については次のリンクをご覧下さい。

PONTIFICIA COMMISSIO ECCLESIA DEI
INSTRUCTIO Ad exsequendas Litteras Apostolicas Summorum Pontificum
a S. S. BENEDICTO PP. XVI Motu Proprio datas


　では、ピーター・スコット神父様のコメントです。

The Instruction “UNIVERSAE ECCLESIAE” - BLESSING OR TRAP?

This document is the long awaited application of Pope Benedict XVI’s Apostolic Letter Summorum Pontificum of July 7, 2007, and was published on May 13, 2011, signed by Cardinal Levada, President of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, and approved by the Pope. It was hoped that it would take practical measures to positively promote the use of the traditional rite of Mass. Written entirely in the spirit of the Apostolic Letter that it applies, and faithful to it, it has both positive and negative aspects for the Church.

POSITIVE ASPECTS

The positive aspects are as follows. There is a clear reminder that not only was the traditional Mass "never juridically abrogated," and "always permitted" (as Benedict XVI put it in his July 7, 2007 letter to the world's bishops to accompany the Motu proprio) but that it never could be abrogated, quoting from the same letter: “What was sacred for prior generations, remains sacred and great for us as well, and cannot be suddenly prohibited altogether or even judged harmful” (§ 7). The document even gives the profound reason why it is that truly Catholic liturgical worship cannot be suddenly and radically suppressed, namely because they express and profess the unchanging Faith of the Church: “…usages universally handed down by apostolic and unbroken tradition…are to be maintained not only so that errors may be avoided, but also so that the faith may be passed on in its integrity, since the Church’s rule of prayer corresponds to her rule of belief” (§ 3).

Less admirable is the excuse given for Rome’s nearly absolute suppression of this non-abrogated traditional rite from 1969 until 2007: “When the new Missal had been introduced under Pope Paul VI, it had not seemed necessary to issue guidelines regulating the use of the 1962 liturgy.” (§ 7). This is worse than a weak cover-up. It is manifestly dishonest, since Paul VI made no bones about the fact that he was trying to impose the New Mass and to suppress the traditional rites: “The reform about to be implemented, then, corresponds to an authoritative mandate of the Church. It is an act of obedience…It is a law…We shall do well to accept it with joyous enthusiasm and to implement it with prompt and unanimous observance” (Address on the new rite of Mass, November 19, 1969).

Also on the positive side is the recognition that every priest has the right to celebrate in the traditional rite, whenever he celebrates without faithful and that he does not require any special permission from his Ordinary or superior to do so (§ 23). Also is contained the unrestricted use of the traditional forms of the Breviary and Ritual (§32 & 35) as well as "permission" to use the traditional rite of Confirmation, although logically not required if the traditional rite has never been abrogated. The authorization for assistance at the traditional Mass by groups of faithful can hardly be called a positive aspect of this instruction, for even when such a group exists in a stable manner, it only has the right to request of the Novus Ordo bishop, who has authority to decide in liturgical matters, a suitable church and priest, with the possibility of recourse to the Ecclesia Dei commission.

NEGATIVE ASPECTS

Alas, however, the rest of this document is both dangerous and harmful for Tradition, being from beginning to end an attempt to neutralize the very symbolism, meaning and reasons for the existence and celebration of the traditional rites of Mass. It is an effort to nullify any efforts that might be made to use the traditional Mass to bring about a return to Tradition. It seems strange that a document issued to encourage the celebration of the traditional rite of Mass be essentially and profoundly opposed to the return to the practice of the traditional Catholic Faith. However, the following affirmations contained in this document clearly indicate that this is indeed the case:

1) It states that there is neither contradiction nor rupture between the traditional and new rites of Mass, so that both are the expression of the same law of prayer (§ 6 & 7). This affirmation, already made by Paul VI in the above-mentioned address, is manifestly false, for, as Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci declared in their letter of Pope Paul VI of September 25, 1969: "The Novus Ordo Missae…represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session 22 of the Council of Trent."

2) It maintains that the New Mass and the traditional Mass are but "two usages of the one Roman rite," that the New Mass is to be considered as the Ordinary form and the traditional Mass as the Extraordinary form. This distinction was invented by Pope Benedict XVI, in Article 1 of the above-mentioned Motu proprio, which states that the Mass of Paul VI "is the ordinary expression of the law of prayer of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite" and that the traditional Mass "is to be considered as an extraordinary expression of that same law of prayer." This is manifestly false, since the New Mass, devoid of the sacred, and of Protestant and Modernist inspiration, is the expression of a banquet meal, a celebration of the community, whereas the traditional Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice, the reactualization of the sacrifice of Calvary. A quite different law of prayer governs each one, nor can that which expresses Catholic doctrine be called "extraordinary," nor that which fails to do so "ordinary."

3) However, most astonishing in this entire document is the condition that is imposed upon the faithful who request the traditional Mass, which is contained in §19: "The faithful who ask for the celebration of the forma extraordinaria must not in any way support or belong to groups which show themselves to be against the validity or legitimacy of the Holy Mass or the Sacraments celebrated in the forma ordinaria or against the Roman Pontiff as Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church."

This condition is very strong and uncompromising, directed as it is against traditional Catholics. If they accept that the New Mass is not in itself necessarily invalid, and if they accept the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff, they rightly absolutely refuse to accept the legitimacy of the New Mass. It is precisely for this reason that they refuse to attend it, and why they request the traditional rites. Consequently this condition excludes from the celebration of the traditional Mass under the Motu proprio all those who insist on their right to keep the Faith. For such traditional Catholics to use it, is objectively to do so under false pretences. If this condition were to be strictly applied, it would exclude the very reason why the traditional Mass is celebrated, and it would mean its death, except for a few people with sentimental attachments.

This refusal of the legitimacy of the new rite of Mass is an immediate consequence of the observation that the New Mass does not follow the law of the Catholic Faith, that it undermines the interior life and destroys the Faith of those who assist at it, that it propagates modernist ideas, especially the loss of respect for the sacraments, notably the Blessed Sacrament, as well as respect for the ordained priesthood, and promotes the naturalism and humanism that permeate its ceremonies. These are the observations to be made by every thinking Catholic, and the radical explanation as to why so many Catholics have abandoned their practice of the Faith. These considerations make the new rite of Mass in a very real sense illegitimate, because incapable of fulfilling its purpose to sanctify souls, as well as wrong and a grave evil that has brought great harm to the Church. The official approval from the liberal post-conciliar Popes does nothing at all to change this.

It is very interesting to note that this fact was effectively admitted by Cardinal Kurt Koch, President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, in an address given to a congress held on Summorum Pontificum on May 15, 2011. He admitted that "the post-conciliar liturgical reform is considered in large circles of the Catholic Church as a rupture with tradition and as a new creation" and that in the novus ordo "that sacredness that attracts many to the old use must manifest itself more forcefully." (www.zenit.org 5/17/2011) It is an understatement, but at least it is a recognition that in the minds of the faithful there is a real problem with the Novus Ordo. It is the very recognition of this problem which, according to the text of the instruction itself, excludes one from taking part in the Masses celebrated in virtue of the Motu proprio.

“UNIVERSAE ECCLESIAE”についてのコメント (続き）

アヴェ・マリア！

愛する兄弟姉妹の皆様、

　聖ピオ十世会の本部から出されたこの「ウニヴェルセ・エクレジエ」に対するコメントの続きをご紹介いたします。


The paradoxes in this Instruction reflect the diplomatic compromises made in order to facilitate the hitherto laborious application of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, but they substantially rest on the oft-repeated affirmation that there is doctrinal continuity between the Tridentine Mass and the Novus Ordo Missae: “The Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI and the last edition prepared under Pope John XXIII, are two forms of the Roman Liturgy, defined respectively as ordinaria and extraordinaria: they are two usages of the one Roman Rite, one alongside the other. Both are the expression of the same lex orandi of the Church.”
(n. 6)

Now, on this point we can only note the opposition between two Prefects of the Congregation for the Doctrine for the Faith, Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, in his Short Critical Study of the New Order of Mass [the “Ottaviani Intervention”], and his [remote] successor, Cardinal William Levada, signer of the present Instruction.

In his study, submitted to Paul VI on September 3, 1969, Cardinal Ottaviani wrote, “the Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was…definitively fixed” by the Council of Trent. And Cardinal Alfons Maria Stickler, librarian of the Holy Roman Church and archivist of the Secret Archives of the Vatican, wrote on November 27, 2004, on the occasion of the reprinting of the Short Critical Study by Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci: “The analysis of the Novus ordo made by these two cardinals has lost none of its value nor, unfortunately, of its relevance…. The results of the reform are considered by many today to be devastating. It was to the credit of Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci that they discovered very quickly that the change of the rites led to a fundamental change of doctrine.”

Indeed, it is because of the serious failings and omissions of the Novus Ordo Missae and of the reforms introduced under Paul VI that the Priestly Society of St. Pius X seriously questions, if not the validity in principle, then at least the “legitimacy of the Holy Mass or the Sacraments celebrated in the forma ordinaria” (n. 19), since it is so difficult, as Cardinal Ottaviani had already noted in 1969, to consider the Mass of St. Pius V and that of Paul VI to be in the same “apostolic and unbroken tradition” (no. 3).

No doubt the Instruction Universae Ecclesiae, which continues along the lines of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, is an important stage in recognizing the rights of the Traditional Mass, but the difficulties in applying the Motu Proprio which the Instruction strives to address will be fully resolved only by a study of the profound divergence, not so much between the Society of St. Pius X and the Holy See, as between the Traditional Mass and the Novus Ordo Mass. This divergence cannot be the subject of a debate about the form (“Extraordinary” or “Ordinary”) but about their doctrinal basis. (DICI no. 235, dated May 19, 2011)

（これの日本語については、後に準備してご紹介する予定です。）

愛する兄弟姉妹の皆様の上に天主様の祝福が豊かにありますように！

トマス小野田圭志神父（聖ピオ十世会司祭）

“UNIVERSAE ECCLESIAE”についてのコメント

アヴェ・マリア！

愛する兄弟姉妹の皆様、

　こんにちは！いかがお過ごしでいらっしゃいますか？

　2007年7月7日付けで、教皇ベネディクト十六世が使徒書簡「スンモールム・ポンティフィクム」を発表しました。そして、この使徒書簡の適用に関する指導文書（Instruction）として、2011年5月13日に「ウニヴェルセ・エクレジエ　Universae Ecclesiae」という文書が発表されました。愛する兄弟姉妹の皆様にご連絡をするのが遅れてしまい申し訳ありません。

　この「ウニヴェルセ・エクレジエ」は、レバダ枢機卿（エクレジア・デイ委員会委員長）によってサインされ、ベネディクト十六世によって承認されています。この文章は、聖伝のミサを積極的に肯定的に促進するために、実際的な処置を取るものと期待されています。これは、「スンモールム・ポンティフィクム」と同じ精神の内容で、きわめてそれに忠実であります。

　聖ピオ十世会の本部から出されたこの「ウニヴェルセ・エクレジエ」に対するコメントを愛する兄弟姉妹の皆様にご紹介いたします。

Announced as early as December 30, 2007, by Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Instruction Universae Ecclesiae on the application of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum (July 7, 2007) was made public on May 13, 2011, by the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei. Signed by Cardinal William Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and by Msgr. Guido Pozzo, Secretary of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, this Roman document is being issued after the bishops throughout the world had the opportunity to send to Rome an account of their experiences in the three years that have passed since the publication of the Motu Proprio, in keeping with the wish expressed by Benedict XVI in his accompanying letter dated July 7, 2007.

This major delay shows the extent to which the application of Summorum Pontificum has met with difficulties as far as the bishops are concerned. So much so that the official purpose of Universae Ecclesiae is “to guarantee the proper interpretation and the correct application of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum” (n. 12), but also and above all to facilitate the application thereof, to which the Ordinaries [generally speaking] only grudgingly consent. The foreseeable discrepancy between the de jure right to the Traditional Mass, recognized by the Motu Proprio, and its actual, de facto recognition by the bishops had been foretold by Bishop Fellay in his Letter to the faithful of the Society of St. Pius X as early as July 7, 2007.

This factual situation obliges the Roman document to recall several points:

- By this Motu Proprio, the Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI promulgated a universal law for the Church, with the intention of giving a new regulatory framework for the use of the Roman Liturgy that was in effect in 1962. (n. 2)

- The Holy Father returns to the traditional principle, recognized since time immemorial and necessarily to be maintained into the future, that “each particular Church must be in accord with the universal Church not only regarding the doctrine of the faith and sacramental signs, but also as to the usages universally handed down by apostolic and unbroken tradition. These are to be maintained not only so that errors may be avoided, but also so that the faith may be passed on in its integrity, since the Church’s rule of prayer (lex orandi) corresponds to her rule of belief (lex credendi).” (n. 3)

- The Motu Proprio proposes:
a) To offer “to all the faithful the Roman Liturgy in the Usus Antiquior, considered as a precious treasure to be preserved”;
b) To guarantee and ensure effectively the use of the Extraordinary Form “for all who ask for it”, given that the use of the Latin Liturgy in effect in 1962 “is a faculty… granted for the good of the faithful and therefore is to be interpreted in a sense favourable to the faithful who are its principal addressees”;
c) To promote reconciliation at the heart of the Church. (n.8)
Likewise, because of the legal disputes caused by the paucity of good will on the part of the bishops in applying the Motu Proprio, the Instruction grants the Ecclesia Dei Commission additional authority:

- The Pontifical Commission exercises this power, not only by virtue of the faculties previously granted by Pope John Paul II and confirmed by Pope Benedict XVI (cf. Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, articles 11-12), but also by virtue of its power to decide, as hierarchical Superior, upon recourses that are legitimately sent to it against an administrative act of an Ordinary which appears to be contrary to the Motu Proprio. (Universae Ecclesiae, n. 10 §1)

- In the case of a legal dispute or of well-founded doubt concerning celebration in the Extraordinary Form, the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei will decide. (Summorum Pontificum, n. 11)
Provisions are made, however, for a possible appeal:

- “The decrees by which the Pontifical Commission decides recourses may be challenged ad normam iuris before the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura.” (n. 10 §2)
It will be advisable therefore to watch carefully in the coming months whether these regulations prove to be effective and whether the de facto actions of the bishops really conform to the de jure regulations that the Ecclesia Dei Commission is in charge of enforcing.

*****

The diplomatic character of this Roman document is easy to discern, since it is attentive to cases of resistance and very careful to treat divergent viewpoints with respect. Thus the reader finds several paradoxes which, despite the declared desire for unity, betray the dissensions that it had to take into account:

- Oddly, the bishops interested in applying the Motu Proprio generously may not be able to ordain seminarians from their dioceses in the traditional rite. Indeed, n. 31 stipulates: “Only in Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life which are under the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, and in those which use the liturgical books of the forma extraordinaria, is the use of the Pontificale Romanum of 1962 for the conferral of minor and major orders permitted.”

In this regard the document recalls the post-conciliar legislation that suppressed the minor orders and the subdiaconate. Candidates to the priesthood are incardinated only upon entering the diaconate, but it will nevertheless be permissible to confer the tonsure, minor order and the subdiaconate in the old rite, without ascribing the least canonical value to them, however. This point is directly opposed to the principle recalled in n. 3 concerning adherence to “the usages universally handed down by apostolic and unbroken tradition”.

- Paradoxically, the Roman document excludes from its regulations those priests who are most attached to the Traditional Mass as a “precious treasure to be preserved” (n. 8), and who for that reason are not bi-ritual. Indeed, n. 19 declares: “The faithful who ask for the celebration of the forma extraordinaria must not in any way support or belong to groups which show themselves to be against the validity or legitimacy of the Holy Mass or the Sacraments celebrated in the forma ordinaria or against the Roman Pontiff as Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church.”
The reader will note here a nuance: the Instruction speaks about “validity” or “legitimacy” in the same context in which the Letter of Benedict XVI to the Bishops dated July 7, 2007, called for “recognition of [the] value and holiness” of the Novus Ordo Mass and the non-exclusive celebration of the Traditional form. Nonetheless this article n. 19 just might provide bishops with the opportunity to neutralize the Instruction effectively by paralyzing its stated wish for a broader application of the Motu Proprio “for the good of the faithful” (n. 8).

Certain rash commentaries led some to believe that the Priestly Society of St. Pius X was also excluded because of its opposition to the Roman Pontiff, which is not correct, since the “excommunications” of its bishops were lifted precisely because Rome considered them not to be in opposition to the primacy of the pope. The decree dated January 21, 2009, in fact, adopted the terms used in a letter by Bishop Fellay dated December 15, 2008, addressed to Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos: “firmly believing in the primacy of Peter and in his prerogatives”.

（続く）

天主様に感謝します

アヴェ・マリア！

愛する兄弟姉妹の皆様、

　こんにちは!!

　昨日の聖伝のミサには20名の愛する兄弟姉妹の皆様が、今日の聖伝のミサには21名の愛する兄弟姉妹の皆様が、聖体拝領をされました!!天主様に感謝します!!


　秋田巡礼の記念品は人気がありありで、来月追加注文してまたもっと持ってきます。


　東日本の震災でまだ難儀されておられる方々が沢山いらっしゃいますので、心から拙い祈りではありますがお捧げいたします。


　愛する兄弟姉妹の皆様の上に天主様の祝福が豊かにありますように!!

トマス小野田圭志神父（聖ピオ十世会司祭）

“UNIVERSAE ECCLESIAE”についてのコメント (続き）

アヴェ・マリア！

愛する兄弟姉妹の皆様、

　聖ピオ十世会の本部から出されたこの「ウニヴェルセ・エクレジエ」に対するコメントの続きをご紹介いたします。


The paradoxes in this Instruction reflect the diplomatic compromises made in order to facilitate the hitherto laborious application of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, but they substantially rest on the oft-repeated affirmation that there is doctrinal continuity between the Tridentine Mass and the Novus Ordo Missae: “The Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI and the last edition prepared under Pope John XXIII, are two forms of the Roman Liturgy, defined respectively as ordinaria and extraordinaria: they are two usages of the one Roman Rite, one alongside the other. Both are the expression of the same lex orandi of the Church.”
(n. 6)

Now, on this point we can only note the opposition between two Prefects of the Congregation for the Doctrine for the Faith, Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, in his Short Critical Study of the New Order of Mass [the “Ottaviani Intervention”], and his [remote] successor, Cardinal William Levada, signer of the present Instruction.

In his study, submitted to Paul VI on September 3, 1969, Cardinal Ottaviani wrote, “the Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was…definitively fixed” by the Council of Trent. And Cardinal Alfons Maria Stickler, librarian of the Holy Roman Church and archivist of the Secret Archives of the Vatican, wrote on November 27, 2004, on the occasion of the reprinting of the Short Critical Study by Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci: “The analysis of the Novus ordo made by these two cardinals has lost none of its value nor, unfortunately, of its relevance…. The results of the reform are considered by many today to be devastating. It was to the credit of Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci that they discovered very quickly that the change of the rites led to a fundamental change of doctrine.”

Indeed, it is because of the serious failings and omissions of the Novus Ordo Missae and of the reforms introduced under Paul VI that the Priestly Society of St. Pius X seriously questions, if not the validity in principle, then at least the “legitimacy of the Holy Mass or the Sacraments celebrated in the forma ordinaria” (n. 19), since it is so difficult, as Cardinal Ottaviani had already noted in 1969, to consider the Mass of St. Pius V and that of Paul VI to be in the same “apostolic and unbroken tradition” (no. 3).

No doubt the Instruction Universae Ecclesiae, which continues along the lines of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, is an important stage in recognizing the rights of the Traditional Mass, but the difficulties in applying the Motu Proprio which the Instruction strives to address will be fully resolved only by a study of the profound divergence, not so much between the Society of St. Pius X and the Holy See, as between the Traditional Mass and the Novus Ordo Mass. This divergence cannot be the subject of a debate about the form (“Extraordinary” or “Ordinary”) but about their doctrinal basis. (DICI no. 235, dated May 19, 2011)

（これの日本語については、後に準備してご紹介する予定です。）

愛する兄弟姉妹の皆様の上に天主様の祝福が豊かにありますように！

トマス小野田圭志神父（聖ピオ十世会司祭）