Fr. John Lovell

Oriens Journal has announced that it will be running a series of articles in which official representatives of the SSPX will be presenting their case in writing, with charitable responses from those who disagree with them. Although one can see some precursors to this kind of dialogue over at OnePeterFive and Pelican+, I would say the project as they have set it up is unique, and a true opportunity for mutual understanding. As you’ll find in this inaugural post, the purpose and methodology are clear and Catholic. A highly commendable initiative and one worth following. oriensjournal.substack.com/p…

This is the most insanely revisionist and mendacious interview one could ever wish to read (or not read). Archbishop Roche has the audacity to claim, for instance, that he's unaware of any diocese in the world where, in the Novus Ordo, Latin, chant, and strict adherence to the rubrics are not "evident"! And it just goes downhill from there... It's like having a prefect who lives in cloud cuckoo land. «AV: You mentioned the Second Vatican Council. The principal document for your dicastery is Sacrosanctum Concilium. Something which might surprise the average Catholic – it states: “priests cannot change the liturgy on their own initiative”; “the Latin language in the Latin rite shall be retained”; “the faithful should be singing together in Latin”. How would you respond to someone who says that the 1969 Holy Mass promulgated by Pope St Paul VI is, at points, not a true reflection of what that initial document stated? AR: I would say that would be a misreading of the tradition they have received. I have never known of that in my own priestly life. I have been a priest for 51 years, a bishop now for 25, and I have never not known a situation within a diocese where those elements have not been evident. In my own particular diocese of Leeds, Bishop Gordon Wheeler was very careful to ensure that, after the Council, the new Mass was celebrated somewhere in every deanery in Latin every Sunday. That showed how very wise he was as a pastor, to foresee some of the difficulties that may follow when you are not quite as generous with the application of the liturgy as that – and the reduction of the liturgy to something which it is not.» Later, he claims that there's no more evidence of orthodox faith and Catholic commitment among trads than in the mainstream Novus Ordo churches (!): «The mix is different. But is the level of commitment different? Is the level of faith different? I did not see that. As a pastor, I have never seen that.... [A]t the end of the day, they know where their home is, and they know their home is where they are taught and where they receive life..» As I say, cloud cuckoo land, as if he's not even aware of the progressive shrinking of new Mass congregations, compared with the packed TLMs (where they are "permitted" for the troglodytes, as Roche sees it). advaticanum.com/article/excl…

A fine example of a decree that can have no legal force, because it is premised on several factual errors. 1. The practice of "versus populum" was not "restored," because the original and authentic tradition was "ad orientem"; it's not like that was a deviation that had to be corrected. 2. As numerous authors have explained, the Latin of no. 299 of the GIRM does NOT mean that Mass must be celebrated toward the people whenever possible. It means the altar should be freestanding so that it can be incensed all around, and so that Mass *may* be celebrated versus populum. Just do a search for GIRM 299 at Fr. Z's site and you'll get the nitty-gritty. 3. Most importantly, a bishop's local law cannot trump universal law, and the universal law clearly allows (indeed, presupposes) Mass ad orientem. For the same reason, a local bishop cannot mandate communion in the hand, when communion on the tongue is still permitted, indeed is the universal norm.