'Rebellion Against the Pope'

February 2008

The Catholic Archbishop of Westminster, England, Cormac Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor, was most displeased with Summorum Pontificum, Pope Bene­dict's motu proprio that liberated the Tridentine Latin Mass. As reported by Damian Thompson in London's Telegraph (Nov. 16, 2007), "According to Murphy-O'Connor, the ruling [Summorum Pon­tificum] leaves the power of local bishops untouched. In fact, it removes the bishops' power to block the ancient [Traditional Latin] liturgy. In other words, the Cardinal -- who tried to stop Benedict [from] issuing the ruling -- is misrepresenting its contents."

Another high-placed prelate, Bishop Arthur Roche of Leeds, Chairman of the International Commission on English in the Liturgy, "claimed that the power of the bishops to stop the Tridentine Mass remained in effect" (Catholic News Agency, Nov. 23, 2007).

In fact, Article 7 of Summorum Pontificum states, "If a group of lay faithful...has not obtained satisfaction to their requests from the pastor, they should inform the diocesan bishop. The bishop is strongly requested to satisfy their wishes. If he cannot arrange for such celebration to take place, the matter should be referred to the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei." Obviously, the power of bishops to prevent the celebration of the Tridentine Mass has been severely truncated. There seems to be quite a bit of subterfuge going on here.

Archbishop Albert Malcolm Ranjith, the Secretary of the Holy See's Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, said of these episcopal dissents: "there hide on the one hand, ideological prejudices and, on the other hand, pride, which is one of the most serious sins" (Catholic News Agency, Nov. 23, 2007). According to Thompson, "Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith, a senior Vatican official close to Benedict, declared that 'bishops and even cardinals' who misrepresented Summorum Pontificum were 'in rebellion against the Pope.'"


You have two options:

  1. Online subscription: Subscribe now to New Oxford Review for access to all web content at newoxfordreview.org AND the monthly print edition for as low as $29 per year.
  2. Single article purchase: Purchase this article for $1.50, for viewing and printing for 48 hours.

If you're already a subscriber log-in here.



New Oxford Notes: February 2008

Read our posting policy Add a comment
Is the last sentence is a misprint? Posted by: fallace@optonline.net
February 04, 2008 06:31 PM EST
So, finally the wolves are being unmasked; and by their own treacherous hand. Hopefully the rebellion of these cretins will serve only to strengthen our Holy Father to push ahead. Maybe he should request the return of some red caps, after all, if said red caps are not with the Lord, then whom do they serve? Who is left to serve? Posted by: gespin3549
February 18, 2008 09:14 AM EST
To fallace@optonline.net,

No, the last sentence is not a misprint if you are referring to the verb steel (to make stronger). The spelling "steal" means to take without permission.

Thought you might like a response.

Joan		 Posted by: joanchipman
February 18, 2008 01:10 PM EST
In the U.S.A. we have a culture war on-going with secular progressives, mainly through the courts and the democrat party, pushing this country in the wrong direction - down the road toward moral decay and social unrest. If there ever was a time (in my lifetime) where we need the support and leadership of the Church, it is now. So it is with a heavy heart that I read of this clergy nonsense and the priest abuse scandals because they take away from the Church's ability to stem the tide. The UK is in serious trouble with a decline in Christian life and an increase of the muslim population. It is bad enough to hear the head of the Anglican Church play the liberal PC card wrt sharia law, now we have the Catholic Bishop over there also showing a lack of understanding of his job. That complacency and ignorant rebelion will bleed over to the USA eventually. I hope and pray that the US Bishops find their courage and wisdom.
I requested the latin mass in my parish but have not heard. Guess I'll have to ring that bell again and,perhaps, push it up to the Bishop.		 Posted by: wunsch
February 18, 2008 02:36 PM EST
Dear Joan,
It seems to me that it is very likely that some could disagree with the sentence while knowing the meaning of "steels". Thanks for your concern, nonetheless.
Posted by: fallace@optonline.net
February 18, 2008 03:21 PM EST
Dear fallace@optonline.net,

My previous comment was not intended to injure you. I do sincerely apologize if it did. Could you be a little more clear about how you believe the last sentence could be a "misprint." What do you believe the NOR article was trying to say?

Joan		 Posted by: joanchipman
February 18, 2008 05:14 PM EST
Dear Joan,

No need to apologize because I have not noticed any injuries. I am not as intuitive as you; therefore, when I am in doubt, I try to assume less and ask more . The sentence in question does not seem to be addressed to you. Again, thanks for your concern. 		Posted by: fallace@optonline.net
February 18, 2008 06:42 PM EST
Who is it addressed to? Posted by: joanchipman
February 19, 2008 12:57 AM EST
The unimpeded rebellion in the church goes unabated. When will the charlatans be driven from the pulpits? We already have in America progressives and PC catholics,(which is a mental disorder) running many chanceries and parishes. Maybe it really is true that only a remnant will remain upon our Lord's second coming. Posted by: clandr56
February 19, 2008 05:32 PM EST
Add a comment


©