EWTN Proves Once Again That They Are Not Catholic

Pee Wee Herman a/k/a Raymond Arroyo and his "Papal Posse" were at it once again, proving that they are the enemy of Pope Francis and the Catholic Church.  

Here is the story.  

In 2021, when Pope Francis promulgated his Motu Proprio, Traditionis Custodes, which limited the practice of the Latin Mass in diocesan parishes, some bishops tried invoking Canon 87 in an attempt to ignore Pope Francis and basically thumb their noses at him.  They really thought they had pulled a fast one on the Holy Father.

But much to their surprise and consternation, the Holy Father has just pulled the rug out from under them. If it was a game of chess, Pope Francis would be saying "checkmate."  (Apologies for the mixed metaphors)

The following is from a blog post I wrote in July 2021, "Traditionalists Live In Their Own Reality." 

From my post:

Bishop Paprocki has used Canon 87, section 1, to support his position that he is allowed to ignore Traditionis Custodes:

Pope Francis’ motu proprio Traditionis Custodes (“Guardians of the tradition”), issued last Friday and effective immediately, allows individual bishops to authorize the use of the Traditional Latin Mass in their respective dioceses. Previously, Pope Benedict’s 2007 apostolic letter Summorum Pontificum recognized the rights of all priests to celebrate the Traditional Mass, and did not require them to obtain the permission of their bishop to do so.

A provision of the new document says that bishops are to “designate” the locations of traditional liturgies, adding that they cannot be offered at “parochial churches.”

Paprocki cited Canon 87, section 1 of the Code of Canon Law for his decision to issue the dispensation for the two parishes in his diocese.

The canon states: “A diocesan bishop, whenever he judges that a dispensation will contribute to their spiritual good, is able to dispense the faithful from universal and particular disciplinary laws issued for his territory or his subjects by the supreme authority of the Church."

As I stated in that post:

There is no way that the original purpose of Canon 87 was to allow bishops to disobey a Motu Proprio.  This canon was for the purposes of allowing something like eating meat on a Friday during Lent, or changing a Holy Day from a weekday to a Sunday, or dispense the obligation to attend Mass during an epidemic, as we saw last year.  Canon 87 has never been used as Bishop Paprocki has used it. Canon 87  was never meant to be used to countermand a Motu Proprio.  

Paprocki's misuse of Canon 87 has certainly created a great Get Out of Jail Free card for the Traditionalists in his diocese.  Other bishops have also jumped on the Canon 87 bandwagon, such as Bishop Daniel Thomas of Toledo, Ohio.  

I would not be surprised if these dispensations are challenged by the Vatican.  Canon Law Art. 90 §1:

One is not to be dispensed from an ecclesiastical law without a just and reasonable cause, after taking into account the circumstances of the case and the gravity of the law from which dispensation is given; otherwise the dispensation is illicit and, unless it is given by the legislator himself or his superior, also invalid.

It has taken a while, but Pope Francis has finally responded to these rogue bishops through the Vatican's Liturgy office, headed by Cardinal Arthur Roche.  

From the USCCB:

Diocesan bishops must have Vatican authorization to allow the celebration of the pre-Vatican II Mass in a parish church, to establish a new "personal parish" for devotees of the old Mass or to allow its celebration by a priest ordained after July 2021 when Pope Francis issued rules restricting the celebration, he said.

Any bishop who has granted a dispensation from those rules must inform the Dicastery for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, "which will assess the individual cases," said a rescript approved by Pope Francis during a meeting Feb. 20 with Cardinal Arthur Roche, prefect of the dicastery.

The rescript, signed by Cardinal Roche, was released by the Vatican Feb. 21.

BAM!

Well, of course all the Trads have started screaming like stuck pigs, claiming to be the innocent victims of Big Bad Heretical Pope Francis.  All they want to do, as the only remaining faithful Catholics on earth, is to worship God in the only true worship, the Traditional Latin Mass.  And Pope Francis hates them for it and is in league with the devil in trying to destroy them.

None, of course, screamed louder than Pee Wee and his merry band of Papal Posse, Father Gerald Murray (who always looks like he about to upchuck at any moment) and Robert Royal.  Here is the video of their pity party.

As you will see from the video, Pee Wee invited a special guest to the party, Peter Kwasniewski, whom I have written about previously.  HERE is one of those posts, entitled "Traditionalists Are Their Own Worst Enemy". Suffice it to say, Kwasniewski can out-Rad Trad the best of them.  He is supreme among Pope Francis haters.  Pee Wee knows how to pick 'em.

Pee Wee starts out with a loaded question, filled with lies and falsehoods.  He directs it to Fr. "Upchuck" Murray, ironically a Canon lawyer:

It appears the Vatican is doing away with the discretion of the local bishop in all aspects of the old Latin Rite.  What is being done here canonically?

 Where are the lies?

1. The Rescript is not "doing away" with anything.  It is merely restating the Authority the Holy Father has always had.
2. It is NEVER within the discretion of a bishop to purposely disobey the Holy Father.  Cherry picking a Canon law and misusing it to disobey just doesn't cut it.  
3. There is no "old Latin Rite."  There is one Latin Rite with two forms.  Their beloved document, Summorum Pontificum (which they consistently misquote and misrepresent), plainly states:

Art 1. The Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the lex orandi (rule of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. The Roman Missal promulgated by Saint Pius V and revised by Blessed John XXIII is nonetheless to be considered an extraordinary expression of the same lex orandi of the Church and duly honoured for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church’s lex orandi will in no way lead to a division in the Church’s lex credendi (rule of faith); for they are two usages of the one Roman rite.

Murray's answer is just as filled with falsehood as Pee Wee's question:

In Canon Law, when the Pope issues a decree or Apostolic Constitution, the local bishop has the power according to Canon 87 paragraph 1, to dispense from provisions according to the pastoral need in his diocese.  In Traditionis Custodes, which was the Apostolic Constitution concerning the old (oops, he almost repeated Pee Wee's lie), the Traditional Latin Mass, the Pope said don't use parish churches, don't create new parishes specifically for the Latin Mass, and that priests who are ordained after this Constitution, you need to consult Rome before giving them permission.

But it was consult.  It wasn't get permission from Rome.  

Now that's all been changed.  So this Rescript is really new law and it goes in the direction of depriving bishops of the rights they enjoy in Canon law to make pastoral decisions based on what they see.  Now it's fascinating because TC was issued on the basis of a survey in which we were told that there is a lot of dissatisfaction among the world's bishops about the Traditional Latin Mass.  But the fact that bishops were allowing it to continue in their dioceses indicates the opposite.

So I think this is a Roman effort, sad to say, to further marginalize, restrict and banish Latin Mass people, and these are precisely a group of practicing Catholics who are very obedient.  So I find this to be very distressing and not according to what the Pope has always said, go out to the marginalized and help them.  

First and foremost, Murray, who claims to be a Canon lawyer, doesn't seem to know the difference between an Apostolic Constitution and a Motu Proprio.  TC was a Motu Proprio, NOT an Apostolic Constitution.

• Apostolic constitutions (apostolicae constitutions) are considered the most solemn papal documents and concern weighty doctrinal or disciplinary matters that are published as either universal or particular law of the Church. Examples: Constitution on the Liturgy [Sacrosanctum Concilium]; Constitution on the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

• Motu proprio is a legislative, apostolic letter written and signed by the pope on his own initiative. Originally used to settle the affairs of the Curia and administer the Papal States, they now handle legislative matters which are significant but do not merit a constitution. Motu proprios are generally brief, and handle specific issues relevant to the Church in a specific time in history. In recent years they have been one of the principal sources of new laws outside of the Code.

You would think a Canon lawyer would know that, wouldn't you?

If we go by Murray's statement, this would mean that a bishop can disavow anything coming out of Rome if he doesn't like it.  Really?  So how would Murray have felt if the bishops had invoked Can. 87 and refused to implement Summorum Pontificum in 2007?  You think Murray would have supported bishops in that move?

As I wrote back in 2021, Can. 87 is obviously referring to such things as approving of eating meat on certain Fridays in Lent, suspending the duty to attend Sunday Mass during a pandemic, etc.  

Canon 87 is NOT a get out of jail free card.  It is NOT a means for bishops to disobey the Pope. 

You would think a Canon lawyer would know that, wouldn't you?

Murray then says that TC instructed bishops to consult with Rome in regard to using parish churches and allowing priests ordained after TC to celebrate the TLM.  Is that what it says?  

Here is the only portion of the document which uses the word "consult":

Art. 4. Priests ordained after the publication of the present Motu Proprio, who wish to celebrate using the Missale Romanum of 1962, should submit a formal request to the diocesan Bishop who shall consult the Apostolic See before granting this authorization.

Does Murray really believe that if, after consulting with Rome, the bishops were told no, such and such priest is not allowed to celebrate the TLM, that such decision could just be ignored?  Really?

And what does TC say about using parish churches:

§ 2. is to designate one or more locations where the faithful adherents of these groups may gather for the eucharistic celebration (not however in the parochial churches and without the erection of new personal parishes);

There is NOTHING in this article which indicates the bishops should "consult" with Rome regarding the use of parish churches.  It is a very plain directive that parish churches are NOT to be used for the TLM.  There is no wiggle room for the bishops.  

It is quite clear that the Can. 87 bishops clearly disobeyed the Pope by refusing to consult with Rome in regard to priests ordained after the implementation of TC, contrary to Art. 4.  

Further, the Can. 87 bishops arbitrarily, without any "consultation" whatsoever with Rome, made the decision to allow the TLM in their parish churches in direct disobedience to the Pope.

As a result of their deliberate and willful disobedience, these bishops have no standing in their opposition to Rome on this matter.  

You would think a Canon lawyer would know that, wouldn't you?

Murray was also wrong when he said the Rescript is new law.  If it was new law, this could not, by definition, be a Rescript.  A Rescript is only for clarification, not for making "new law".   The Rescript at issue is restating the authority that the Pope has always had and which he has given to Cardinal Roche.  Murray is completely obfuscating the intent of both TC and the Rescript.  

You would think a Canon lawyer would know that, wouldn't you?

What is a Rescript?  According to the Catholic Encyclopedia: 

"Rescripts are responses of the pope or a Sacred Congregation, in writing, to queries or petitions of individuals. Some rescripts concern the granting of favours; others the administration of justice, e.g. the interpretation of a law, the appointment of a judge."

The Rescript here is the Pope's answer to those who question the validity of Traditionis Custodes.  As the Catholic Encyclopedia says, "Rescripts have the force of a particular law, i.e. for the persons concerned." New law cannot be contained in a Rescript.  

You would think a Canon lawyer would know that, wouldn't you?

When Murray starts pontificating against the Pope, saying this is a Roman effort "to further marginalize, restrict and banish Latin Mass people, and these are precisely a group of practicing Catholics who are very obedient", I start to feel like I am going to upchuck.  

Obedient?  These Can. 87 bishops are being called out because of their purposeful and defiant disobedience of a Motu Proprio!  The goal of the Rad Trads is to destroy the "Novus Ordo" Mass and every other part of the post Conciliar Church.  These are the people who complain about every move Pope Francis makes.  They unabashedly call him a heretic, and as Rad Trad Michael Matt publicly told Pope Francis, "Get The Hell Out Of Our Church!" 

Rad Trads are not marginalized people.  They are a danger to the unity of the Church.  This is why Pope Francis had no choice but to act as he has.  He must protect the Church from this small but very dangerous faction.  

When a bishop is consecrated, this is part of the Oath of Fidelity that he makes:

Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.

If we are to accept the Rad Trad position, we would have to believe that Can. 87 is a legal way for bishops to ignore the Holy Father and break their Oath of Fidelity.  

Yes, the bishops have great authority in their dioceses to make unilateral decisions.  But it can NEVER be in opposition to Rome.

Can. 381 §1. A diocesan bishop in the diocese entrusted to him has all ordinary, proper, and immediate power which is required for the exercise of his pastoral function except for cases which the law or a decree of the Supreme Pontiff reserves to the supreme authority or to another ecclesiastical authority.

The bishops now have to make a very personal decision.  Do they continue to defy the Holy Father and put their personal salvation as well as that of the faithful at risk?  The next few weeks should be very interesting.

This post is getting very long, and it is interfering with my Lenten practices. I may or may not do follow up posts dissecting more of the Papal Posse Pity Party.

From The

Accompanying Letter to 

Traditionis Custodes

A final reason for my decision is this: ever more plain in the words and attitudes of many is the close connection between the choice of celebrations according to the liturgical books prior to Vatican Council II and the rejection of the Church and her institutions in the name of what is called the “true Church.” One is dealing here with comportment that contradicts communion and nurtures the divisive tendency — “I belong to Paul; I belong instead to Apollo; I belong to Cephas; I belong to Christ” — against which the Apostle Paul so vigorously reacted. 

In defense of the unity of the Body of Christ, I am constrained to revoke the faculty granted by my Predecessors. The distorted use that has been made of this faculty is contrary to the intentions that led to granting the freedom to celebrate the Mass with the Missale Romanum of 1962. 

Because “liturgical celebrations are not private actions, but celebrations of the Church, which is the sacrament of unity”, they must be carried out in communion with the Church. Vatican Council II, while it reaffirmed the external bonds of incorporation in the Church — the profession of faith, the sacraments, of communion — affirmed with St. Augustine that to remain in the Church not only “with the body” but also “with the heart” is a condition for salvation.