This is infuriatingly sad news, and will go down as the defining move of this pontificate. It is clearly aimed at eliminating the growth of the EF so that it dies out in a few generations. Bye bye to reconciliation with the Society. How bitterly disappointing.

Sadly, there are some particularly pernicious bits in it.

Every new priest has to appeal to his bishop who in turn has to refer to Rome? Are you kidding me? Obviously the whole point is to invest itself with power so those in Rome can say ‘no’.

Once again, I also wonder: how can one thing be true (never abrogated, universal right) and suddenly be untrue (no one except those given special permission can)?


The most concerning phrases summarized for those just coming to this thread:

Art. 1. The liturgical books promulgated by Saint Paul VI and Saint John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II, are the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.

Art. 3. The bishop of the diocese in which until now there exist one or more groups that celebrate according to the Missal antecedent to the reform of 1970:

§ 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);

§ 6. to take care not to authorize the establishment of new groups.

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.

Art. 5. Priests who already celebrate according to the Missale Romanum of 1962 should request from the diocesan Bishop the authorization to continue to enjoy this faculty.

Vive la Révolution!

At the same time, I am saddened by abuses in the celebration of the liturgy on all sides. In common with Benedict XVI, I deplore the fact that “in many places the prescriptions of the new Missal are not observed in celebration, but indeed come to be interpreted as an authorization for or even a requirement of creativity, which leads to almost unbearable distortions”.[13]

Indications about how to proceed in your dioceses are chiefly dictated by two principles: on the one hand, to provide for the good of those who are rooted in the previous form of celebration and need to return in due time to the Roman Rite promulgated by Saints Paul VI and John Paul II, and, on the other hand, to discontinue the erection of new personal parishes tied more to the desire and wishes of individual priests than to the real need of the “holy People of God.” At the same time, I ask you to be vigilant in ensuring that every liturgy be celebrated with decorum and fidelity to the liturgical books promulgated after Vatican Council II, without the eccentricities that can easily degenerate into abuses. Seminarians and new priests should be formed in the faithful observance of the prescriptions of the Missal and liturgical books, in which is reflected the liturgical reform willed by Vatican Council II.

A lot to unpack here.

I hope somebody told Benedict XVI. Because I really am that petty.

I don't want to say a lot, with trolls in our midst. And really, I know nothing: whether I have a Mass to sing, where will I attend, etc. It would just be emoting, at this point.

But looking forward, what can those of us who prefer the Roman Rite over the Neo-Roman do to keep our communities together and singing? What does this do about Vespers, if anything? Could we have Vespers, or maybe "concerts" (of Vesper music, nudge wink) with a prayer element? What about dry Masses? Granted, they wouldn't fulfill the Sunday obligation.

I'm not fond of the idea of the Latin Novus Ordo; language is not the issue.

I’m not sure how this would affect Vespers; it can be and is celebrated in the new rite, and the antiphonary for Sundays, feasts and solemnities exists in official approved form. I know a parish in Montreal where Vespers is celebrated in Gregorian chant regularly, and the choir I belong to also does so in Advent and Lent. Or did before the pandemic.

As for the Mass, from where I sit I’m only interested in two things: one, that the Mass be celebrated reverently according to the rubrics, and two, that the vast patrimony of Gregorian chant not only is preserved, but is used. Not every place every time, but often enough and in enough places that the faithful have access to it.

Our abbey does this very beautifully in the OF Mass, and our schola and others like ours do try in various other places. There are a handful of scholas doing chant, at least 3 or 4 in Québec.

I realize many feel differently, but as I age I’ve learned to pick my battles, and given that this comes from the Pope, it’s one I’d definitely lose. So I will focus on chanting well and singing the Liturgy of the Hours daily in Gregorian chant.

Ora

Despite what I think of it - it is unnecessary and doesn't address the real problems - Some in the TLM only crowd will blame everyone except themselves. They will never consider the disruption and discord they have caused in regular parishes through their own bad behaviors. It won't come up as to how they have antagonized others through arrogance, superiority, and generally snotty attitudes toward the NO and the people who celebrate it. Instead of showing the way to be better Christians and be shining examples of all that is good in Christianity, they have devolved in obnoxious little enclaves at odds with everyone else. Sad, but like I said, everyone else will get the blame, not themselves.

Then there are the empire building priests who want to run their own show. Another matter for another time.

Using multiple languages is equally as bad as using one that hasn't been spoken in 1500 years. Language is irrelevant when not understood and out of context. Trads need to base their case on more than language. If you have something to sell or share, find a better way to do it, like put it in English and display what it has to offer. It has much to offer when understood.

Now that is petty.

CharlesW, I share your thoughts. I led the music for the occasional Tridentine Mass at our parish in the mid-90’s. We were the designated site for the archdiocese. The pastor was totally against it and did nothing to facilitate it. I was, however, charged with organizing and leading all the music, and with a small group of others, coordinating the priest and servers. I was very sympathetic to the cause. We did everything, and I mean everything, to accommodate the Latin Mass group and provide the most beautiful Masses we could. I have to tell you, this group was the most difficult, rigid, and sour group of people I have ever worked with in my 40 years of ministry. It left a real bad taste in my mouth. Really sad it had to come to this.

I see nothing in this motu proprio nor in the letter than any Catholic could take issue with. I think it was the correct decision, needed at this time to clarify that the Novus Ordo is normative, the preferred liturgy of the Roman Church, and that permitting the TLM is an exception, whose celebration cannot be allowed to encouraged disunity in the Church.

Except for the heavy-handedness of this motu proprio causing the exact kind of disunity it deplores?

Kind of over the top isn't it? All this usually degenerates into bickering. Without that bickering over often, non-essentials might have produced a different outcome from the Vatican.

I have to tell you, this group was the most difficult, rigid, and sour group of people I have ever worked with in my 40 years of ministry.

Been there, done that. Many Trads should declare they have met the enemy and it is themselves.

They had the chance and blew it.

Note: I actually thought highly of that transitional mass.

Something to ponder. The first reading for this Sunday that we are all meant to hear:

FIRST READING
Jer 23: 1-6
Woe to the shepherds / who mislead and scatter the flock of my pasture, / says the LORD. / Therefore, thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, / against the shepherds who shepherd my people: / You have scattered my sheep and driven them away. / You have not cared for them, / but I will take care to punish your evil deeds. / I myself will gather the remnant of my flock / from all the lands to which I have driven them / and bring them back to their meadow; / there they shall increase and multiply. / I will appoint shepherds for them who will shepherd them / so that they need no longer fear and tremble; / and none shall be missing, says the LORD.

Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, / when I will raise up a righteous shoot to David; / as king he shall reign and govern wisely, / he shall do what is just and right in the land. / In his days Judah shall be saved, / Israel shall dwell in security. / This is the name they give him: / “The LORD our justice.”

Re Charles, I’m reminded of King Hezekiah (having recently read 2 Kings as part of local boy Fr. Mike Schmitz’s Bible In A Year). He was a great king of Judah, and late in his life he successfully pleaded with the Lord to spare his life during an illness and lived another 15 years. By all accounts he used these extra 15 years poorly, producing his heir Manasseh who would become a terrible King himself, and vainly boasted of his wealth to the King of Babylon, enticing their nation to eventually lay waste to Israel and Judah.

I’ve been to several joyful EF masses in the last several years, and I have the pleasure of knowing many faithful Catholics who greatly profited spiritually from SP. But I unfortunately also witnessed what the Holy Father observed that in the 13 years of SP, it “was exploited to widen the gaps, reinforce the divergences, and encourage disagreements that injure the Church, block her path, and expose her to the peril of division.” WhatAbout this all you want, but MANY faithful Catholic laypeople, priests and bishops who otherwise might be more inclined to support their cause perceived or experienced this as well. I think SP lulled too many EF radicals into thinking they were untouchable, and they weren’t.

As with Charles I don’t think TC gets to the roots of the issue, or even that it will be a net gain for effort of fending off schism. But the hard truth is that so long as we inhabit a world of fallen beings, we will always have to deal with people in positions of legitimate authority who don’t readily agree with us. We cannot control their actions but we can control ours, and our actions have consequences. How EF Catholics use the next several years will be critical to determining the future their movement in the Church. Also, FWIW, Pope Francis won’t be around forever, and we don’t know who his successor will be and what views he may have about the EF movement.

I don't realistically expect unity from any of this. Those who hated the TLM will still hate it. Badly behaving Trads will see this as justification for their behavior and become even more extreme. Nothing good will come from it.

Vee vill haf unity, und anyvon who ist not unified vill meet der conzekvenses.

Always true that the innocent often get punished for the sins of a few. I understand

... powerless to silence the voices of the schismatics, amplified over the Internet, who deny the Church, deny the Pope and deny the Council, whether formally or practically.

I have seen that happen with one family threatened with arrest if they ever showed up at mass again. The amount of trouble they caused was unbelievable.

MarkB, we’ve repeatedly asked you over the last week to look at the texts of the two masses and compare them. No one can do that and say that the new mass is not a rupture with tradition and a new thing. Yet you consistently follow the gaslighting that the higherarchy is inflicting in the church by saying that 2+2=5. That is not academic, or even quasi academic.

Anyone who compares the 1962 Missal with the new Missal will conclude they have much in common, unless they have a bone to pick with the new Missal and focus on minutiae instead of the overall structure of the liturgies. I know all about people who have criticized the new Mass's prayers. There was an article on the New Liturgical Movement website yesterday that did that, but the author deceptively switched focus from a claim that 90% of the "texts" of the two Missals overlap to restricting focus on the prayers of the two Missals. That was intellectually dishonest.
https://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2021/07/mythbusting-how-much-of-1962-missal-is.html#.YPHAej2SmZs

If you compare the old Mass with the new Mass in structure, they overlap considerably and the lex orandi is the lex credendi of the Catholic Church in both cases.

Both lex orandis express the same lex credendi. However, the Church has seen fit since Vatican II to embark on a reform of her liturgy. You might prefer the former, unreformed liturgy for your own personal reasons. The Church has decreed and has now legislated that the new, reformed Mass is the only path forward for the Church and that it is the proper liturgical expression of the Church's faith.

MarkB, we’ve repeatedly asked you over the last week to look at the texts of the two masses and compare them. No one can do that and say that the new mass is not a rupture with tradition and a new thing. Yet you consistently follow the gaslighting that the higherarchy is inflicting in the church by saying that 2+2=5. That is not academic, or even quasi academic.

I utterly despite the trad rhetorical tactic of "they could have changed x amount, which would have been fine with me, but they instead changed y amount, which means discontinuity and rupture."

Clearly, the Novus Ordo is a revised edition of what came before it. I simply can not stand the rhetorical practice of enumerating the revisions to claim to prove that the Novus Ordo is wholly novel.

These practices are not intellectually honest.

the prayers at the foot of the altar are gone

Nearly everyone on this board knows that the prayers at the foot of the altar are gone because Sacrosanctum Concilium called for duplicate parts of the liturgy to be removed and that these duplicated the penetential rite. Hence, any dispute with this is with Vatican II itself, which is precisely Pope Francis' concern.

Mark, I sincerely hope that a greater number of ad orientem Latin NO Masses with solid liturgy is what will come out of this—but it's hard to be optimistic when another schism seems likely.

[Please, folks, do not get personal about this (or any disputed matter). --admin]

I didn't affirm the claim of 90% of the texts are the same. I simply pointed out that the author of the article I linked to switched from that claim to talking about prayers instead of texts, and how that was a dishonest move.

I asserted that there is considerable overlap between the two Missals, which is true, and that the lex orandis of both Missals express the lex credendi of Catholic faith, which is also true.

As jclangfo has pointed out, you don't need to focus on a count of duplicated words, with a threshold of x% as your minimum duplication, to achieve substantial expression of the same faith in a reformed liturgy.

I have also asserted over the past week or so that the new Missal is the definitive liturgical expression of the Church in the post-Conciliar era. That is true too, and Pope Francis just declared and legislated to that effect in a manner that no one who wishes to remain in full communion with the Church can dispute.

Mark, I sincerely hope that a greater number of ad orientem Latin NO Masses with solid liturgy is what will come out of this—but it's hard to be optimistic when another schism seems likely.

I think that there is good reason to hope for this. I hope that the strategic decision that the traditionalists make is is to take thier love of chant, Latin, ad orientem, and so forth to the Novus Ordo.