Archbishop Pozzo : The “extraordinary form” of the Mass can be forbidden by Church authorities

[Dawn Marie]

*NB  This post was originally posted on Rorate Caeli and then AQ and was taken down by both places.  I assume so as not give "bad publicity" to any Traditional organizations seeking to go back to an unconverted Rome.  The post below was copied before it was deleted so we have decided to post it here.  Knowledge is necessary in this battle for the Faith.  Keeping hush-hush on these matters helps no one.

DM

Begin Post:

[Ecclesia Dei Commission Secretary] Archbishop Pozzo : The “extraordinary form” of the Mass can be forbidden by Church authorities 

Posted by B. K. at 11/19/2014
Rorate Caeli (Google cache; original post removed!)

And the Institute of the Good Shepherd must “assimilate” these documents. We are reaping the fruits of the decision that was made to surrender!

Source: Disputationes Theologicae

November 15th 2014, St Albert the Great, Doctor of the Church

The founding particularities of the Institute of the Good Shepherd… are nowhere to be found!

An extensive documentation on the current situation of the Institute of the Good Shepherd has reached us. We are now publishing it at the end of this article, it is comprised of:

1. The two texts of the conferences given by the Secretary of the Ecclesia Dei commission, illustrating the new “teaching protocol” for the seminary of the Institute:

a) “The Second Vatican Council: renewal in continuity with Tradition”: drive.google.com/file/d/0B4UN1nQ7zvwONllYbWY4elExTUU/view 

b) “ministerial priesthood, liturgy and other specific issues”: drive.google.com/file/d/0B4UN1nQ7zvwOUndUMkVjSENhaXM/view

2. The letter, dated April 7th 2014, from Archbishop Pozzo to the Superior General of the Institute of the Good Shepherd, countersigned by Father Laguérie, (who even congratulates himself on this “great success”): drive.google.com/file

/d/0B4UN1nQ7zvwOSTNxazRmMFN2Q1E/view

3. The “Report on the state of the Institute of the Good Shepherd (2008 to 2013) and perspectives” date March 19th 2014:

a) introduction drive.google.com/file/d/0B4UN1nQ7zvwOcUt5YlFyV0lEVzQ/view

b) conclusions drive.google.com/file/d/0B4UN1nQ7zvwOOUZBSjN0N3c2U1E/view

THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS IN ITALIAN ( disputationes-theologicae.blogspot.com/2014/11/mons-pozzo-la-messa-straordinaria-puo.html ) – IN FRENCH ( disputationes.over-blog.com/article-mgr-pozzo-la-messe-extraordinaire-peut-etre-interdite-par-l-autorite-125015663.html ) 

[Google translation of the French version]

We note that in his letter to Mr. Abbot Laguérie (IBP Superior by forced installation outside) Pozzo does not fail to note about the two conferences: ” I want to tell you again , “the petition that ” teachers and seminarians studying to understand the contents . ” So this is where the new guidelines for training in the Institute of the Good Shepherd. At the same time, in “puppet of the Institute, in the report above, cites the phrase ” the only fundamental characteristics “of the IBP, but never specifically named; thus could follow (so illusory, as we shall see) any printing maintaining them. 

Therefore analyze conferences Pozzo, a new flagship for the orientation seminar of the Institute, and see what remains of the specific parent because it does not correspond to reality at all to think that the “sensitivity” to the old rite, just because of its beauty and solemnity, to be a ” fundamental characteristic “own IBP. 

What remains of the “constructive criticism”? 

As has been said several times in 2006 and in the following years, the Institute of the Good Shepherd had as its specific features – in addition to the pastoral and ecclesial charity recalled by name – the recognition of “constructive criticism” faculty certain points of Vatican II (and a fortiori successive developments) and faculty alike recognized the use of “exclusive” traditional rite exclusivity for members of the Institute was conceived as a founding commitment . 

In the conference, entitled ” The Second Vatican Council renewal in continuity with Tradition , “what remains of the original pillar of constructive criticism? This capacity is reduced to the bare minimum, no more than a small reference submerged under many assertions that go in the opposite direction. 

By cons, Pozzo insists the only “hermeneutic of continuity.” Line that in theory, as it is often heard, could be opposed to that of progressives, but in reality has shown that about a bankruptcy. To confirm that it is enough to mention the fact that a “hermeneutic of rupture” said, as Bishop Tagle, nevertheless received a cardinal (returning state recently and triumphantly that the “Spirit of the Council breath again “and without it being made ​​…” Trust “). This solution proved to be so unconvincing that someone in loco altissimo , said in the famous interview with The Civilta Cattolica , the Vatican II was ” a rereading of the Gospel in light of the contemporary culture “(one of the many things said and do not quite in line with the hermeneutic of continuity). The essential requirement to apply the hermeneutic of continuity it would be so only for traditionalists? In fact, the importance attributed to Pozzo hermeneutical question leaves so little room for the possibility of criticism, although “serious and constructive,” he insists – in a conference so ” successful “- to apply especially Dignitatis Humanae. Although, as he says himself, this Declaration is a ” how-to texts pastoral character “(p.8) – which in itself therefore requires a lower degree of approval – even it can not be criticized? To him, bypassing the friendly but specific criticisms, like those of Bishop de Castro Mayer (cfr. The religious REEDOM: a clear position of Bishop de Castro Mayer ), offers new substance in the arguments of Father Basil Barroux , theses that had not convinced the first members of the IBP in 2006 and with whom they had kept their distance: now the seminarians of the IBP have to ” assimilate “? 

Another example: Pozzo goes on to say that the last Council is ” in perfect continuity with Tradition and loyalty “(p.2). Same continuity ” perfect “! So the hermeneutic of continuity is not even, as such an approach, a way to address the problem of certain aspects of the Second Vatican Council and the successive reforms. Various authors, for example (including Cardinal Siri) had admitted the presence in these texts ambiguities, so to solve an interpretation “in the light of Tradition.” No, not even that: if there is continuity even ” perfect “, then it is not even solve a problem but to affirm – tautological – the non-existence of the problem. Moreover, a hermeneutic of continuity as follows (which is not even “the Council in the light of Tradition”) is required not only for the texts of Vatican II but also on the line: to the extent that the Good Shepherd is expected to also highlights ” the liturgical continuity between the Vetus Ordo and the Novus Ordo “(p.3). And it should be ” treated “by the seminarians! 

Pozzo indicates that such hermeneutics is the panacea of all ecclesial problem and will even say that the Pope Francis as Benedict XVI and John Paul II, has expressed ” unequivocal “to” religious indifference ” (p.6)! This is the ultimate triumph of the petition on the reality principle. 

With what courage so do we still talk of maintaining ” only basic features “of the IBP? 

So there is denial of the problem. Why then do the ratzinguérienne ” reform of the reform “? More: the Council (and more broadly, as we have seen) is not a ” Super Dogma “said Pozzo, recalling the expression of caustic Cardinal Ratzinger, however we are almost inclined to think that if it does is not a ” Super Dogma “is at least one dogma (though not unique). Indeed, in several passages of the conference it almost seems that this Council is inserted into the object of faith. Following this line, it is not surprising that in such a protocol doctrinal formation, Pozzo also condemns a position generically ” minimalist “in Vatican II, which would emphasize too that he” is a pastoral council ” (p.8). It is clear that this line is not even in favor of a resizing of the last Council. And it is also clear – to one who is not blinded by self-interest – that “constructive criticism” buried in spring, and we are even at odds with this fundamental issue. 

What remains of the “exclusive”? 

If it were possible, even less. 

Indeed, Pozzo in the letter of April 7, quoted above, expressly requires ” application of the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum and instruction Universae Ecclesiae “which is” no exclusiveness . ” We find it hard to believe that we can be so blinded by the opportunistic duplicity (which oscillates between servility in public and extremism in private) so we could not see that the direction is the opposite of the ‘ exclusive . Moreover, such an absolute query (” no exclusiveness “) is a bottomless pit that can also apply to those who, for example, try to use the new rite of the most traditional way possible: for even the exclusive use of the first Eucharistic Prayer choice (more or less the Roman Canon) is anyway a exclusivism . Similarly, the fact of excluding the tenth Preface, which feels heresy, in which it states that ” all mankind will enter into your (God’s) rest , “would be the same way an exclusion … . Where do we end up following this path, if not the absolute disarmament of all Catholic resistance? 

In this context, ” we must emphasize the close convergence of the two forms “(p.5) and in addition, would be” strongly recommended “the priests concelebrated adherents Vetus Ordo operating in dioceses (p.7) . It is true it is officially given as advice and not as a liability or as a commitment. However, the adverb ” strongly “is very reassuring and is more particularly concerned about the emerging context of the affirmation of Pozzo who throws on the whole a rather sinister light. 

Indeed, it shows a strange and disturbing explanation “hermeneutics” the Vetus Ordo was never abolished in itself (p.4) and that because it says so quite simplistic, the Church ” does not abolish not a form such as “however” the authority of the Church limit or restrict the use of liturgical texts “; and in fact this is what ” happened in the years following the Council , “and all must obey such restrictions (p.4), which in fact may not allow in certain time or certain subjects, the celebration of the traditional Mass though it, itself , remains “forever abolished.” It is probably a hermeneutic of continuity so pushed to the extreme (not her she would also ” the idealization “?) she wants to see the same continuity between the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum (with his “forever abolished”) and the notorious and recent prohibition of such a celebration at some order, although bi-partisan as ritualistic and the blind obedience . But – de facto – such as speech has a tone of warning: in reality, the traditional Mass can be removed. 

We do not really see how warnings of this kind can not be a dangerous psychological conditioning, when placed too high in relation to invitations to concelebrate. Packaging also related with the memory of priestly ordinations that the Commission, in consultation with the Commissioner and Rev. Forgeot Aulagnier, blocked – June 10, 2013 – the night of the celebration! Two deacons of the Good Shepherd have learned at the end of their retreat in preparation for ordination, the next morning at 9:00, they would not be ordained priests; they had to send home their parents (from Brazil), cancel their first Masses, and that for ” political reasons “, as it was explicitly stated. Unrestrained even by violating canon 1030 (CIC). 

We do not see how an ” assimilation “of such discourse in education, and in such a context, could be compatible with the original charism of the Institute, which – with the permission of the Holy Father – was in the exclusive one of its basic points. 

The denial of the original charism of IBP directly …. 

Higher current IBP are they agree to take this path? Certainly not in their hearts: the point also in private (with a style that is not for us), they talk about Pozzo in the heavily offensive language and defined the “New Mass” with untold expressions. In internal conferences seminarians (again! In 2014) Father Aulagnier said – with a unique exegesis of the Apocalypse – that ” blasphemy that comes from the mouth of the Beast is the new Mass , “and it was automatically appointed by Dom Forgeot rector of the seminary (and all that, is it something serious?). And yet, in public discourse Abbot Laguérie talking about Pozzo as our ” protector “and an official document such as the” Report on the State of the Institute of the Good Shepherd (2008-2013) and prospects ” we speak of ” constant support “from Rome to the Institute stating that it would have” kept intact on its solid foundation ! ” 

In this document, the superiors certainly ask ” favor (sic!) to extend its statutes in the state and it (the Institute, editor) grant final recognition by the Holy See “, but these, as is evident in the framework we have just outlined, would be completely devoid of substance. The current statutes remain, possibly just for the front (and also because of public objections against these maneuvers by some challengers that we know …). And that is so objectively founded in this document “-marionnettes Superiors” – IBP we read that some amendments to the Articles ” may seem desirable in the long term “, however” it is not possible today and could be fatal . ” It is significant that such a statement ( can be changed but not today) appear immediately after the following sentence, which clearly refers to what was our inner strength, conducted when he was just a try: ” Institute of the Good Shepherd needs a period of calm, work, improvement in the virtues of respect, obedience (internal and external) although sometimes abused in the past . ” 

And it is so true that the critics are not allowed, in the literature cited above, we found also, explicitly, that in substance we already knew: the Commissioner of the IBP, Abbot Antoine Forgeot, author of “coup Fontgombault” as called one present at the vote ( What are the consequences of altering the electoral body of the IBP? and the so-called “election” of the Abbot Laguérie to Superior IBP ), wrote September 29, 2013 at the Signature, to ” silence ” a priest of the Institute, Don Stefano Carusi, ” very procedural and contestateur . ” Aside from the tendency obviates customize, we note with amazement that some may be bothered by the attention to follow the canonical procedures rightly (the rest is fashion ….); but also note the healthy conditioning, this time, what represented, of course, objections resistant. 

For their part, the superiors resettled outside Have something to say about ” assimilation “of such a” doctrinal protocol “? And, without limitation documents: they have something to say about the church scandals news, such as the Synod? The Abbot of Tanouarn for example, they call “left PBI” and that is not on our positions, has had the intellectual honesty on his blog by documented articles. Disputationes Theologicae wrote: will ” The roots of poison Synod “, recalling some of the studies against the” New Theology. ” And senior IBP? Or rather, instead of loyally resist such pressures, they chose the dual carriageway to show rallied (and praise) and officially leave the private sphere by criticism that compensation is very violent and destructive? And those who, IBP, say romainement draw on the fighting spirit of Bishop de Castro Mayer, they have something to say? 

We are certainly ” very litigious and challengers, “but the fact remains that we, we supported openly theses, we conducted studies on the issues raised, in which we tried to achieve a healthy criticism and even time we tried to show how the specifics of the Institute may be compatible with the standards (see the “own rite” and the “hermeneutic of continuity” are sufficient? and Novus Ordo Mass: legitimacy express frankly own theological thought ). And them? 

…. And indirectly 

There is also another way to destroy the founding charism of the Institute, in denying the while trying to save his own pride: it lies in the choice of certain priests, obviously disagree with the above “official” of the IBP individually to go elsewhere. 

In the Report on the State of the Institute (in which deducted more than the “compensation” for these changes, represented by the opening of new ministries, leaves much to be desired, see eg the case of Zarate-Campana Argentina …) said that ” two of our incardinated priests and another to be all three discouraged, have joined the Society of St. Pius X “. In passing, note that in this report we talk about the SSPX as ” groups “schismatics” “not” manifestly strengthen their fatal error “(significantly in unison with a few sentences of Pozzo in his office in Rome) while on other occasions Laguérie Father spoke about the SSPX very differently. 

Others priests of the Institute joined the Fraternity of St. Peter or individually dioceses. 

It is clear (or it should be) if we also dissolves, obviously we are not strong in its own identity. We do not believe I have something specific to say. 

Not to cancel this charism 

In this context, how can we say that the “infiltration” of this absolutism ” to be in , “is the way to automatically obtain greater results? Which was made ​​public earlier, shows the exact opposite. The real result by imposing or accepting the well-known way (and this is the case to say ” errare humanum is perseverare diabolicum ” ) is the one to make in traditional media, some complexed and not fearful be sufficiently ” integrated “(ie that the IBP we called the” complex rallied “) and others – taken in an extreme spiral – frustrated. 

However, the conclusion to be drawn is not that to be resigned to the death of the founding characteristics. And this is precisely why the former resistance IBP stayed together, united in the Association of St. Gregory the Great, continuing to testify in favor of these specificities in 2006 were the reason for the Institute, and they are proud. 

Faced with this painful annihilation, both by way of opportunism by the additional path of discouragement, we find by cons in the literature reviewed elements that show how our testimony, though modest, is anything but vain. 

For example, if we expose to address the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura -in making claims as heavy, especially for a religious, such as ” do the silent “- if the evidence, that represent our objections were without effects? Obviously, we are well aware of the impact that this franchise may expose us, but wait … 

And for what reason we were sent this material, obviously by colleagues who are still inside the IBP, if not because they really believe that we – unlike the ones who mouth and hands related – we can publicly ask questions? 

Faced with this multifaceted solution, we propose again the founding manifesto of our young community ( link ). 

Clerics Association “Saint Gregory the Great”
Written by Tom

View all posts by: Tom
< Previous post 
Next Post > 
2 Comments to “Archbishop Ecclesia Dei Commission Secretary Pozzo : The “extraordinary form” of the Mass can be forbidden by Church authorities”
Tom says: 
November 19, 2014 at 2:37 PM Background: Some past posts from The Eponymous Flower:

1. Institute of the Good Shepherd: Ecclesia Dei Imposes Commissar Administrator for New Election

Tuesday, April 23, 2013

(Bordeaux / Rome) Nine months after the elections for the appointment of a new Superior General and a new General Council of the traditional Instituts du Bon Pasteur and the subsequent internal conflict is now before the decision of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei. The Commission, which is under the Institute since 2006, has appointed a provisional administrator, who has a mandate of six months. Its mission is to prepare new elections for the governing bodies at this time and carried out under his supervision. The Institute of the Good Shepherd was made up of former members of the Society of St. Pius X. and established that because they no longer wanted to endorse their canonically irregular status. 

The Institute, based in Bordeaux, is in contrast to the SSPX, recognized as a society of Apostolic Life of Pontifical Right of the Church in 2006 and placed under the Ecclesia Dei Commission.

In spring 2012 a visitation of the Institute by the Ecclesia Dei Commission came to the election of the Institute. The visitation by the then-Secretary of Ecclesia Dei, Monsignor Guido Pozzo, had caused quite a stir and considerable unrest in tradition-bound circles. It had been put out as an example within the SSPX, as a reason why the Brotherhood should not agree to any agreement with the Holy See. Rome had demanded and required of the Institute an appropriate consideration of the Second Vatican Council in priestly formation, to reconsider the categorical exclusion of the celebration of the New Rite and to recognize the Catechism of the Catholic Church in its 1997 edition as the authoritative compendium of Catholic doctrine.

At the General Chapter on 5 July, a new Institute’s director was chosen for younger members, who were critical of the Roman terms. The New Superior General, Father Roch Perrel, however, was a choice that was disputed by the founders and former Superior General, Father Laguérie, due to procedural deficiencies in Rome. In one of his first acts as prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Müller appealed which took place on the 30th of July 2012 and ordered the repeat of the elections.

This recent decision of Rome dealt at first sight with neither of the two warring sides fairly. They also denied the claim of Abbé Philippe Laguèrie to continue to be the rightful superior general. Elections under Roman supervision will provide clarity and bring peace back to the Institute. Long periods of time are considered problematic, in which ambiguity and uncertainty prevail: first nine months until the decision of Rome and now another six months to the elections. The majority of the Institute, it was possible, despite the adverse circumstances, to be faithful to the the founding charism with the necessary peace and serenity. This solid foundation made possible the growth in the Institute by new entrants and seminarians in the last few months.
_________________________________________________________________________________________

2. Father Philippe Laguerie is Again the General Superior of the Institute of the Good Shepherd 

Monday, September 16, 2013

Edit: the problem is the return of the creatures of +++Sodano and the Old Liberals against Benedict’s regime.

(Paris) The General Chapter of the traditional Institut du Bon Pasteur (Institute of the Good Shepherd) was elected on the 12th of September, the Feast of the Holy Name of Mary in Fontgombault Abbé Philippe Laguerie back to the Superior General. Assistant to the Superior General, Father Abbot Vella Yannick, pastor of Saint Eloi and Father Paul Aulagnier, rector of the St. Vincent de Paul Seminary of the Institute were elected. This ends a dispute over the general management of the Institute, which had broken open at the General Chapter of 2012.

The Institute, a society of apostolic life of pontifical right, was recognized ad experimentum by Rome in September 2006,and thus returned to full communion with Rome. Father Laguerie had in common with others of the Society of St. Pius X, separated and founded his own institute.

In the wake of an Apostolic Visitation, which took place under the leadership of then and now renewed Secretary of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, Monsignor Guido Pozzo, there was some internal unrest in the institute. The visitor had asked the Institute to affirm the Second Vatican Council in its formation of priests and to use the Catechism of the Catholic Church in its revised edition from 1997 as the authoritative basis of the Church’s teaching. In addition, there can be given no categorical refusal of the celebration of the Novus Ordo. Reasons for criticism were also found in some critical articles about post-Conciliar developments that had been written by priests of the Institute.

The Roman measures have strengthened the critics an agreement with the Holy See within the SSPX, which appeared to be within reach in Spring of 2012.

At the General Chapter in May 2012, Father Laguerie was not confirmed as Superior General, but a younger Director was elected under the new Superior General Perell Roch, who took a more critical position against the Roman principles. However, the electoral process was controversial because of a re-election, and was challenged by Father Laguerie. In July 2012 the new CDF appointed by Pope Benedict XVI., Curial Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Müller, became President of Ecclesia Dei confirmed the opposition to the former Superior General. In April 2013, the Vice-President appointed by Ecclesia Dei, Curial Archbishop Augustine Di Noia convened as acting superior general of the Institute with the Abbot Emeritus of Fontgombault, a new contract with the General Chapter and to repeat the election of the General Government. The term of office of the newly elected General Council will last until 2019.
__________________________________________________________________________________________

3. Clerical Association of Saint Gregory the Great — New Community of Tradition: Society of Good Shepherd Splintering

Monday, February 24, 2014

(Rome) within the traditional Institut du Bon Pasteur (Institute of the Good Shepherd), there have been times of disquiet. The calm was restored by Rome’s intervention in the sense at the price that some priests and seminarians of the Institute have now established with the Clerical Association of Saint Gregory the Great, a new community. A canonical recognition is not yet available.

The Institute was canonically erected by the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei in 2006. The founder and Superior General, Philippe Laguérie and the first members of the young Institute came from the Society of St. Pius X. A Visitation of the Institute in the spring of 2012 by the then and now renewed Secretary of the Commission Ecclesia Dei, today’s Curial Archbishop Mario Pozzo, led to internal conflict in the institute. Among other things, Rome had called for a more positive view in the formation of priests with respect to the Second Vatican Council in the setting of Disputationes Theologicae and a change in the statutes in which the designation of the traditional Rite as “exclusive Rite” of the Institute, “the Institute’s own rite” should be changed (see separate report Institut du Bon Pasteur has new Superior General – If it Comes to the Dividing of the Institute? ). 

Conflict was Sparked by the Interference of Rome

An internal conflict flared up about the identity of the institution. A majority of younger members of the institute struggled at the general chapter in that year against Roman interference and selected on 5 July a new General Council headed by Abbé Roch Perrel. The deselected founder and former Superior General Laguérie fought with the support of Rome in the election. He warned against internal battles and a rebellion against Rome. The election was declared invalid and Laguérie was reinstated as Superior General. Under the supervision of Ecclesia Dei a new General Chapter took place on 12 September 2013 which held that again the Superior General Abbé Laguérie was elected for a six year period. (see separate report Father Philippe Laguerie Again Superior General of the Institut du Bon Pasteur ).

But what has happened since with the group of priests and seminarians who made 2012 resistance? The majority acquiesced to the decisions of Rome.

Four appeals to Rome – two “answers”

However, four priests of the Institute went to the Apostolic Signatura in Rome with four requests on various issues. Meanwhile, there are answers to two appeals before.

The first appeal concerned the right to inspect certain documents to the common questions. The decision of the Church court was negative (Protocol No. 48339/13 CA Pictavien, electionis, Rev.dus St. Carusi – Pontificia Commissio Ecclesia Dei, 17 September 2013). The second appeal was directed against the repeat of the election of the General Council and the interventions to make in the electoral body, “that would have led to a contradiction even in Burkina Faso,” as the Clerical Association of Saint Gregory the Great, noted in a written statement. It was initially partially approved. 

Appeals Archived Because of “Lack of Money” and “Time Limit Exceeded”

On 11 December, 2013 however, the appellants were informed in a letter dated 30 November that the appeal had been archived. By reason of exceeding the deadline and financial aspects. The applicant had lack of income, because for months he no longer received grants from his Institute, then he requested the allocation of a public defender, which was refused. The rejection was not transmitted until 30 days after the deadline and at the same time succinctly explains that it had been archived due to exceeding the deadline of appeals. The procedure is reminiscent of an elegant little tricking. That it was moored to a question of money, makes recent acclamations of the recently emphasized “Church of the poor” more bitter than funny.

Other signals are interpreted by the priests and seminarians that resisted the intervention of Rome not very positively. By circular dated 11 November 2013 it was communicated to the priests of the Institute, that Jean-Pierre Cardinal Ricard, archbishop of Bordeaux would be the canonical reference point for the Institute. In the Diocese there is the general headquarters and other facilities of the Institute. From the circular it is not entirely clear whether Cardinal Ricard is in a sense a kind of “permanent Visitor” or “Commissar” of the Institute. The Masonic magazine Franc-Maçonnerie magazines from the September October 2013 reported that the cardinal urged priests of his archdiocese to continue to go to the lodge meetings, because in allusion to Pope Francis, the Freemasonry was in the “existential periphery”. [Bishop Pontier member of Grand Orient.]

Clerical Association of Saint Gregory the Great – Five Priorities

The appellants wanted to exhaust all ways, and also by the answers as they write, to be able to recognize a “Wink of Providence.” “After everyone has checked to see, we came to the conclusion that it was time to leave.” The group decided to stay together and to form their own community in order to preserve the identity of the Institut de Bon Pasteur in another form.

They founded the Clerical Association of Saint Gregory the Great, in order to make their “contribution to the Catholic tradition.” The new altrituelle Community lists five priorities of their work:

1) The formation of seminarians in fidelity to the Church’s tradition.

2) The website Disputationes Theologicae, which is published in French and Italian, as an organ of a “constructive criticism”. [Guess what's going up on the blogroll?]

3) Communal prayer life, “especially for the triumph of faith for the Church and for souls, who are exposed to great trial and particularly the persistent need of prayer.”

4) The maintenance of the traditional Mass “on a large reliance on the fruits of the Holy Victim of the Altar.”

5) The use of the confessional, a service that the priests of the Clerics Association of Saint Gregory the Great offer to dioceses.

Those who signed the explanation were two priests Abbé Louis-Numa Julien (France) and Don Stefano Carusi (Italy) and the Polish seminarians Łukasz Zaruski and Bartholomew K. Krzych.