It happened: Traditionis custodes (TLM crackdown) (Note: discussion is on hiatus.)

Nathan_the_Organist

I've always thought that with the mysterium fidei it is more of a "The Mystery of Faith:" with the colon indicating that what follows being the mystery.

a_f_hawkins

Salieri, I agree with most of that. A committee, sec. A Bugnini, gave us the 1962 Triduum. Another committee 7 years later, sec. A. Bugnini, put it back much the way it was before. A pity they sacked Bugnini, they should have kept him revising away. One problem is that experts on a committee often have little practical experience, many/most would never have held a cure of souls.
But, to be fair on the communion chant, what Bugnini (claimed he) wanted was the Communion from GS - a simple antiphon, in Latin, for the congregation with verses by a schola or cantor. He had tried it in a chapel in a deprived area of Rome, and he knew it could work. OTOH we do, and he did, not know how many were driven away.

Chris Garton-Zavesky

Pfreese,

In the unique form, no more is said about his soul, or that both grace and damnation are possible, at that moment. In the imprisoned form, of course there is more than merely the affirmation of so much more, but he isn't required to do anything but put out his hand.

a_f_hawkins

Nathan -

Said Father Gelineau : "… [I]t was my achievement to have succeeded in having an additional acclamation included in the center of the Eucharistic Prayer – the memorial acclamation. We actually wanted more, but we said to ourselves that we were more likely to get it past the bishops if we limited ourselves to one! Unfortunately, the memorial acclamation is not in the right place".
How did this new acclamation by the people get in the wrong place? It was the pope’s doing, Father Gelineau says. The Mysterium fidei ("Mystery of Faith") was originally part of the words of consecration of the chalice. The liturgists removed it, but Pope Paul VI insisted that it be included, so it was placed after the consecration. Thus it became the "lead-in" to the new memorial acclamation.
Father Gelineau was interviewed by Paul Inwood, past president of Universa Laus ...

Gelineau goes on to say that having the acclamation between the recital of the Dominical Words and "Therefore ..." is - idiotic I think is the word, but I can't currently find my copy. I am inclined to use a stronger term.

pfreese

“ In the imprisoned form, of course there is more than merely the affirmation of so much more.”

I highly doubt m/any Satanists know Latin, so, from a purely evangelistic perspective, I’m not sure how effective it is as a warning to would be sacrileges.

CharlesW

I saw a license plate outside church that read, "The devil hates Latin." More likely, the devil is laughing his behind off at bad Latin.

ghmus7

Just to add another thought to this medusa of a thread!
It was said that there is "nothing special about Latin".
I disagree. I don't believe that there is anything INTRINSICALLY sacred or special about Latin, but it BECAME sacred, because it was the language that the church has prayed and worshipped in for many centuries, and so it became sacral.
Don't believe me? Just read any account of an exorcism and see what the enemy does when Latin is quoted at them. - they hate it! And even more so, Latin chant.

ghmus7

>> A: we know that a Mass to be valid, must be celebrated in a Canonically designated space.

sorry, do we know that?
So the Masses offered on battlefields, or in the German concentration camps (sometimes for other prisoners, and sometimes in solitary confinement) were invalid? noooo....

I meant a regularly sceduled parish Mass.

CCooze

the same "Good Idea Fairy" who decided that everyone should bring their hymnal with them in the queue and sing loudly into the back of the head of the person in front of them, juggle their hymnal, receive in the hand, quickly consume the Host, juggle the hymnal again, and then continue singing on their way back to their pew.

I completely forgot that that was a thing!
I have never received in the hand, so that would still be different, but I forgot about those lines that had heads in a hymnal, looked up for a second to basically "commune," then put their heads back in the hymnal...

Nathan_the_Organist

Hawkins, I wasn't trying to comment on where, or if, it should be in the mass. I was offering a look at how it could make sense grammatically.

I do think it is a little bit of an odd way to break up the prayer. I think it could also have been a replacement to people splitting the Sanctus and the Benedictus. In another way I think it does make sense. If you use the option Mortem Tuam, I think it is trying to say that by this action of the priest, we are connected to the sacrifice of Calvary. Whether the form of the memorial acclamation accomplishes this can be debated, though.

chonak

CharlesW wrote:

I could see the 'Francis" document eventually causing the Trads to split off from the church and go their own way.

Well, I've known some cranky priests who predicted schism so often, it seemed as if they were rooting for it.

Incidentally though, one of the theologians who wrote the "Ottaviani intervention", Michel-Louis Guérard des Lauriers, OP, did eventually fall into schism, adopting sedeprivationist views that got him dismissed from teaching at the SSPX seminary. Later he was consecrated as a bishop by the breakaway archbishop Ngo Dinh Thuc.

That doesn't affect the status of the arguments in the essay, but it does show how some traditionalist clergy in the 1970s and '80s succumbed to despair about the state of the pope and the bishops when their appeal met with only rejection and accusation.

CharlesW

The thing that alarms me most about this is forbidding the TLM in parochial parishes. In this diocese, all the TLMs are in parochial parishes. The bishop says he is studying this and will rule on it later.

CCooze

And of course, our main Canon Lawyers just happen to celebrate or attend the TLM in such a parish...

chonak

When I decided to become a Catholic in 1979, I was eager to learn as much about the Church and her doctrine as possible, so I read the invaluable book by the Detroit Jesuit Fr. John Hardon, The Catholic Catechism. I also borrowed an anthology of Aquinas from the college library on the subject of nature and grace, and tried to understand that as well as I could; and I read the documents of Vatican II in the Flannery edition. All of them; and the post-conciliar documents that were included in the same book.

And just now I've spent a few minutes re-reading Sacrosanctum Concilium to remind myself of just what it calls for, and what it doesn't call for. Now I will make bold to list all the paragraphs that give directions on the reform of the Mass, and summarize what they say. Note: the following is summary and paraphrase, except where quotations are indicated. I will skip over some paragraphs containing general principles, for reasons of time and space.

4. [...] "The Council also desires that, where necessary, the rites be revised carefully in the light of sound tradition, and that they be given new vigor to meet the circumstances and needs of modern times."
21. [...] "holy Mother Church desires to undertake with great care a general restoration of the liturgy itself."
"the Christian people, so far as possible, should be enabled to understand them with ease and to take part in them fully, actively, and as befits a community."
"notable differences between the rites used in adjacent regions must be carefully avoided."
25. "The liturgical books are to be revised as soon as possible", with consultation of experts and bishops.
27. Communal celebration is to be favored over quasi-private celebration.
28. Each minister who has an office to perform should only do the parts which pertain to his office.
30. "To promote active participation, the people should be encouraged to take part by means of acclamations, responses, psalmody, antiphons, and songs, as well as by actions, gestures, and bodily attitudes. And at the proper times all should observe a reverent silence."
31. The people's parts should be specified in the rubrics.
34. "The rites should be distinguished by a noble simplicity; they should be short, clear, and unencumbered by useless repetitions"
35 (1) "there is to be more reading from holy scripture, and it is to be more varied and suitable."
(2) The best place for presenting the sermon is to be specified in the rubrics.
(3) Liturgical instructions should be given by the priest or proper minister; times and recommended words should be indicated.
36. (1) "Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites."
(2) The use of the vernacular may be extended to readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants.
(3) Within those limits, the episcopal conference may decide to what extent the vernacular is to be used, with the approval of the Holy See.
(4) Translations must be approved by the episcopal conference.
37. "Even in the liturgy, the Church has no wish to impose a rigid uniformity in matters which do not implicate the faith or the good of the whole community; rather does she respect and foster the genius and talents of the various races and peoples. Anything in these peoples' way of life which is not indissolubly bound up with superstition and error she studies with sympathy and, if possible, preserves intact. Sometimes in fact she admits such things into the liturgy itself, so long as they harmonize with its true and authentic spirit."
38. "Provisions shall also be made, when revising the liturgical books, for legitimate variations and adaptations to different groups, regions, and peoples, especially in mission lands, provided that the substantial unity of the Roman rite is preserved".
39. Within limits specified in the editio typica of the liturgical books, "it shall be for the [episcopal conference...] to specify adaptations, especially in the case of the administration of the sacraments, the sacramentals, processions, liturgical language, sacred music, and the arts"
40. If a "more radical adaptation of the liturgy is needed", adaptations should be submitted to the Holy See for approval; the Holy See will authorize experiements, as needed.
50. "The rite of the Mass is to be revised in such a way that the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, [...] may be more clearly manifested"
"the rites are to be simplified, [...] elements which, with the passage of time, came to be duplicated, or were added with but little advantage, are now to be discarded; other elements which have suffered injury through accidents of history are now to be restored"
51. "The treasures of the bible are to be opened up more lavishly [....] In this way a more representative portion of the holy scriptures will be read to the people in the course of a prescribed number of years."
52. The homily should not be omitted on Sundays or holy days without a serious reason.
53. The "common prayer" of intercessions is to be "restored" after the Gospel and the homily.
54. The vernacular may be authorized for readings and the "common prayer" and the parts indicated in sec. 36.
"Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them."
55. Reception of holy Communion is strongly commended.
The Holy See may authorize reception under both species in cases to be determined.
56. Pastors are to teach the faithful to attend the whole Mass, especially on Sundays and holy days.
57. Concelebration is to be extended to Holy Thursday (both Masses), Masses of councils, bishops' conferences, and synods; the blessing of an abbot; and, if the ordinary so decides, at priests' meetings and at Masses where the needs of the faithful do not require individual celebrations. Each priest retains the right to celebrate individually at another time, except on Holy Thursday.

[To be continued]

chonak

[Skipping over paragraphs related to the other sacraments and to the Divine Office]

106. Only celebrations of the greatest importance should take precedence over Sundays.
107. The discipline of the sacred seasons should be made "to suit the conditions of modern times", retaining their character.
108. The seasons should be given preference over feasts of saints.
109. The baptismal and penitential features of the Lenten liturgy are to be restored.
110. During Lent penance should also be external and social. The paschal fast should be kept on Good Friday and Holy Saturday.
111. Many feasts of saints should be left to be celebrated in particular countries or by particular religious orders.
113. "Liturgical worship is given a more noble form when the divine offices are celebrated solemnly in song". The vernacular may be authorized as indicated in art. 36 and 54.
114. "The treasure of sacred music is to be preserved and fostered."
115. Music is to be taught in seminaries, novitiates and other schools, including "higher institutes of sacred music".
116. Gregorian chant is proper to the Roman liturgy and should have the principal place. Polyphony and other kinds of sacred music are permitted if they "accord with the spirit of the liturgical action"
117. "The typical edition of the books of Gregorian chant is to be completed; and a more critical edition is to be prepared". "It is desirable also that an edition be prepared containing simpler melodies, for use in small churches."
118. "Religious singing by the people is to be intelligently fostered."
119. In mission lands, musical traditions are to be considered and included, as far as possible.
120. "In the Latin Church the pipe organ is to be held in high esteem". Other instruments may be approved by the bishops' conference if they can be "made suitable for sacred use".
121. Composers should cultivate sacred music, in conformity with Catholic doctrine, drawing from scripture and liturgical sources.
122. The Church has the right to judge which art works are "fitted for sacred use".
123. The "treasury of art [...] must be very carefully preserved", also with additions from the present day.
124. Bishops should "strive after noble beauty rather than mere sumptuous display". "Let bishops carefully remove from the house of God and from other sacred places those works of artists which are repugnant to faith, morals, and Christian piety, and which offend true religious sense either by depraved forms or by lack of artistic worth, mediocrity and pretense."
125. "The practice of placing sacred images in churches [...] is to be maintained", with moderate number.
126. Bishops should consult art experts, and must not dispose of or disperse sacred furnishings or works of value.
127. Bishops should provide for the education and spiritual formation of artists.
129. Seminarians should be taught about the history of sacred art.
130. The use of pontificals should be reserved to bishops and to non-bishops who hold jurisdiction.

Now, in all this, there are many things that the Council did not, not at all, not once, explicitly say:

That the Missal -- instead of being simplified -- be overloaded with options of three penitential rites, a dozen eucharistic prayers, three memorial acclamations, and two texts of the creed
That the Lectionary be swelled with two unrelated Scripture cycles (biennial and triennial)
That it be pointlessly given half a dozen or more Lenten gospel acclamations but that the GIRM have only one mention of the Lenten tract, with no instruction on singing it, and no vernacular edition of the Graduale provided;
That the eucharist be distributed by lay people;
That the eucharist be distributed into the hands of the faithful;

It also did not say

That the existing form of the Mass should be totally phased out, banished, prescribed, treated as an act of disloyalty to the Church, or otherwise extirpated.

Indeed, one cannot imagine that the magnanimous Council would say such a thing, given that it allows for cultural adaptations of the Mass, and even the adoption of some cultural practices foreign to the Roman rite, perhaps even foreign to the Christian religion.

Moreover, that big-hearted Council, in section 4 of the document above, also says this:

4. "Lastly, in faithful obedience to tradition, the sacred Council declares that holy Mother Church holds all lawfully acknowledged rites to be of equal right and dignity; that she wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way."

So to contend that the Council called for totally replacing and banning the old liturgy -- as some participants have suggested here -- appears to be incorrect.

MarkB

To the contrary, the claim is indeed correct.

4. [...] "The Council also desires that, where necessary, the rites be revised carefully in the light of sound tradition, and that they be given new vigor to meet the circumstances and needs of modern times."
21. [...] "holy Mother Church desires to undertake with great care a general restoration of the liturgy itself."
"the Christian people, so far as possible, should be enabled to understand them with ease and to take part in them fully, actively, and as befits a community."
"notable differences between the rites used in adjacent regions must be carefully avoided."
25. "The liturgical books are to be revised as soon as possible", with consultation of experts and bishops.

A revision is a new edition that replaces the former edition. If you don't accept that definition of "revision", consider the following:

What is true is that the Council used the word "revise" numerous times about the liturgy, decreeing that changes be made to the liturgy in numerous ways. What is also true is that the Council never once expressed, stated, decreed nor even implied in the slightest that the unrevised liturgy should continue to be celebrated after the revised liturgy was promulgated. "Revised" was understood to mean replacement, otherwise the Council would have expressed its wish that the then-current Roman Missal continue to be used parallel to a new, revised Roman Rite by stating something similar to the following:

"## The Apostolic See may grant permission to continue using the older rites after the revised rites have been duly authorized and promulgated."

or

"## In undertaking this revision of the liturgy, this Council in no way intends that the current liturgical rites be abrogated."

Nothing like that nor even remotely like that appears in Sacrosanctum Concilium. The Council did not foresee nor wish to express that the old rites would continue to be used alongside the new. The whole thrust of SC is that the then-existing liturgical rites needed to be revised for the good of the Church. Why continue to use what the Council thought needed to be changed for the good of the Church? Therefore "revise" means "alter, supersede and replace in usage in the Roman Church."

Consider this too:

21. In order that the Christian people may more certainly derive an abundance of graces from the sacred liturgy, holy Mother Church desires to undertake with great care a general restoration of the liturgy itself.

A "general restoration of the liturgy itself" does not leave room for maintaining that the Council wanted to add a new set of liturgical rites to the old; a general restoration means an overhaul that would replace the old with a new.

The statement

4. "Lastly, in faithful obedience to tradition, the sacred Council declares that holy Mother Church holds all lawfully acknowledged rites to be of equal right and dignity; that she wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way."

Refers to rites as in the Roman and various Eastern rites. It's not foreseeing a situation in which the Roman Rite has two parallel liturgical rites.

As for the statement that what we got in the Missal of Paul VI with its accompanying lectionary has some components that weren't expressly called for in Sacrosanctum Concilium, this excerpt from SC (not cited by Chonak)

22. (1) Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See, and, as laws may determine, on the bishop.

states that the Apostolic See (the pope) has the sole authority to regulate the sacred liturgy.

The Missal of Paul VI was promulgated by the sole Church authority that regulates the liturgy. It was promulgated in direct response to Sacrosanctum Concilium, which called for the liturgical books to be revised -- for a general restoration of the liturgy -- without stating that older books should be retained.

The reformed liturgy could have been different: it could have been more radical or more conservative while still complying with the decrees of Sacrosanctum Concilium. What the Church promulgated in the Missal of Paul VI accords with Vatican II's decree for liturgical reform; other revisions possible to conceive, perhaps more to the liking of some individuuals, could also have accorded with the Council.

We got what we got because the Apostolic See promulgated it instead of something else.

chonak

Your last sentence is a very important point, and I think it deserves more attention.

In this thread, you've written -- I think I counted nine times! -- that "the Council decreed", "the Council decreed"; and certainly the new Missal was issued in the name of the Council. But as you obviously understand, the actual contents of the revised Missal were a product of the Curia, i.e., the Consilium and SCR, and approved by Paul VI.

But you've hardly mentioned Pope Paul. Why the imbalance? Your rhetoric points people to look at the Council and until now doesn't put much attention on where the important decisions were made. Doing so would lead to more focus on the concrete decision-making, the quality of the decision-making, the quality of the scholarship applied. Those are uncomfortable questions, I understand.

Poor Paul VI: a devout man, but the Italians still describe him with the adjective amletico -- Hamlet-like, indecisive. If we are to believe Louis Bouyer's autobiography, Pope Paul let inferior officials maneuver him and even deceive him into approving things that should have been questioned; that sometimes Paul VI approved things just to avoid conflict.

Don't we really want the reformed liturgy to be based on accurate liturgical history?

I'm afraid we need a Liturgical Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

Chris Garton-Zavesky

Mark,

What great care is evident in the hacking off of the prayers at the foot of the altar?
or the last Gospel, or the REPLACEMENT of one psalm with another at the Offertory?

What careful revision is evident in 4, then 8, then 12 approved, newly composed "Eucharistic prayers"?

the light of sound tradition,

is present where?

chonak

Incidentally, the English version of SC can be a bit imperfect for sorting through these questions. It uses the word "revise" about 26 times, but the Latin on the Vatican web site has two different words: forms of "recognosco" (review, examine), and forms of "instauro" (renew) . And those words don't really solidly imply a strict replacement, let alone expressly calling for it.

Chris Garton-Zavesky

[Linguistic sidebar: the translators, could they be called traditionis traditores?]

Schönbergian

The point is that one can fully accept and agree with what Vatican II called for and still question the utility of certain decisions made in its wake regarding the 1970 Missal, or whether those decisions were truly in accord with Sacrosanctum Concilium. As mentioned above, I believe the overabundance of Eucharistic Prayers (I might be inclined to retain EPII for i.e. weekday Masses, but the Roman Canon should be normative) and the implementation of the Memorial Acclamation are flawed decisions that are unrelated to SC.

tomjaw

Fr Hunwicke has one again given us the favour of publishing his thoughts, this good and Holy priest is always worth paying attention to.
http://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com/2021/07/vacatio-legis.html

Arthur Connick

Interesting interview via Rorate Cæli with one of the founders of IBP.
Father de Tanoüarn, IBP: "It is Francis who contradicts communion. We are witnessing a rare case where the pope destroys communion."

Do you understand the pontiff's grievance with traditionalists, that the traditional liturgy is being used to reject the Second Vatican Council?

I am strongly opposed to any fetishism of Vatican II, a fetishism has nothing to do with the theological infallibility of the Council itself. It was a pastoral council that took place during a time of extraordinary optimism. Today we are in a very different situation: a very dark period, extremely black. The optimism that made Vatican II is entirely forgotten. ...
...
We are in a completely different time from the 1970s. It is therefore natural that Catholics are looking for something other than Vatican II to cope with it. This does not constitute a condemnation of Vatican II per se. But this Council was the expression of another time, another era. And I fear that our aging pope does not adequately perceive the oldness of Vatican II.

This seems like an important point: VII addressed the needs of the time, but that time was long ago.

CharlesW

I agree the council was too much a product of its time. Some would say it was called too hastily by an administration ill equipped to manage it. All that aside, if bishops forbid their priests from celebrating the TLM and don't allow their churches to be used for it, it will fade to the far fringes of Catholicism. Canon lawyers not withstanding, that seems to rest with individual bishops to make that call at this time. WWTNPD? What will the next pope do? God only knows.

Schönbergian

I don't see what needs V2 specifically addressed that aren't relevant today, just over fifty years later. The "Spirit of Vatican II", sure, but the Council drafted important documents in line with and reinforcing tradition that really aren't controversial. It's what was done afterwards that has become hopelessly dated or, rather, not timeless.

CCooze

the English version of SC... but the Latin on the Vatican web site...
And those words don't really solidly imply a strict replacement, let alone expressly calling for it.

And yet again, everything is supposed to be read and understood according to the Latin in which it was written...

MarkB

Pope Paul might have had the flaws described in some posts above. Regardless, he was the Holy Father and he had the authority to regulate the Church's liturgy, which he did by promulgating the Novus Ordo. Personality quirks or flaws are irrelevant in considering the juridical effect of his decisions.

And if the Latin were ambiguous about whether SC envisioned the older rites continuing in use after the new rites were promulgated, it would not have been necessary for Paul VI to grant exceptional permissions to the small number of groups/individuals that he did to continue saying Mass using the older books; those permissions would have been unnecessary because standing permission to use the older books would have been presumed to exist, but that was not the case.

Germane to this discussion is what happened when the Liturgy of the Hours was promulgated:
https://catholic-resources.org/LoH/LiturgyOfTheHours-ApostolicConstitution.pdf#:~:text=Apostolic Constitution promulgating the revised book of the,many centuries, in a rich variety of forms.

We decree that this new Liturgy of the Hours may be brought into use as soon as it is published. Meanwhile, the episcopal conferences should see to the preparation of editions of this liturgical work in the vernacular and, after approval and confirmation by the Apostolic See, should fix the date when vernacular versions may or must be used, either in whole or in part. Beginning on the day when these vernacular versions are to be used for vernacular celebrations, only the revised form of the Liturgy of the Hours is to be followed by those who continue to use Latin.
It is lawful, however, for those who because of advanced age or for special reasons experience serious difficulties in observing the new rite, to continue to use the former Roman Breviary, in whole or in part, with the consent of their Ordinary, and exclusively in individual recitations.

In the case of the LotH, there was a clear statement that liturgical reform involved replacing the former liturgical books with the revised liturgical books. The older books were not to be used following mandated use of the revised books, except in exceptional cases for pastoral reasons, and then only for individual use, not for the public liturgy of the Church.

In promulgating the new Missal, Paul VI said the following in his apostolic constitution:
https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-vi_apc_19690403_missale-romanum.html

The recent Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, in promulgating the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium, established the basis for the general revision of the Roman Missal

...

One ought not to think, however, that this revision of the Roman Missal has been improvident.

...

Let us show now, in broad lines, the new composition of the Roman Missal.

...

In this revision of the Roman Missal, in addition to the three changes mentioned above,

...

In conclusion, we wish to give the force of law to all that we have set forth concerning the new Roman Missal.... While leaving room in the new Missal, according to the order of the Second Vatican Council, "for legitimate variations and adaptations,"(15) we hope nevertheless that the Missal will be received by the faithful as an instrument which bears witness to and which affirms the common unity of all.

Although not as explicit as the instructions in the promulgation of the LotH, the apostolic constitution promulgating the new Missal makes references to the revised Missal, "the new composition of the Roman Missal" (not a second Missal to be used alongside the former Missal), and states hope that the new Missal will be received to bear witness to and affirm the common unity of all in the Church.

How could it be THE Roman Missal if there were an alternative Roman Missal (the older one) still authorized for use? No... following promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae, there was one Roman Missal authorized for use in the Church.

How could the Roman Missal bear witness to unity if the older books were, as a matter of general permission, allowed to continue to be used?

In so many ways it is clear that Vatican II's decrees and Paul VI's juridical acts promulgating the new liturgical books were intended to have the new, revised liturgical books replace the former books for use in the Church.

Chris Garton-Zavesky

How could it be THE Roman Missal if there were an alternative Roman Missal (the older one) still authorized for use?

Surely the answer to this is the same as how the "Guardian of Tradition" can attempt to eviscerate it?

pfreese

“ Surely the answer to this is the same as how the "Guardian of Tradition" can attempt to eviscerate it?”

Well, he is the Pope. If he thinks the Mass of Pius V is counterproductive to carrying on the Church’s tradition at this point in time, that’s his judgment call to make.

Maybe a question we should ask ourselves, as self-described faithful Catholics, is maybe there’s some truth to what he’s saying.

Chris Garton-Zavesky

Pfreese,

How does a guardian of tradition chuck out tradition in the name of promoting and protecting it? That's what doesn't make sense.

chonak

Surely the answer to this is the same as how the "Guardian of Tradition" can attempt to eviscerate it?

Well, he is the Pope. If he thinks the Mass of Pius V is counterproductive to carrying on the Church’s tradition at this point in time, that’s his judgment call to make.

Maybe a question we should ask ourselves, as self-described faithful Catholics, is maybe there’s some truth to what he’s saying.

That exchange is typical for this discussion. Allow me to exaggerate for the sake of simplicity:

Reader A says: This decision is dishonesty wrapped in hypocrisy!

Reader B says: That doesn't matter. He has the power to order anything, and that's all that matters. PS: Besides, he accused you of something: don't forget that!

---

Please, guys, this is not substantial discussion. It's just accusation and bickering. Please drop it.

CCooze

The traditional Mass is a treasure that belongs to the entire Church, since it has been celebrated and deeply regarded and loved by priests and saints for at least a thousand years. In fact, the traditional form of the Mass was almost identical for centuries before the publication of the Missal of Pope Pius V in 1570. An almost one thousand-year-old valid and highly esteemed liturgical treasure is not the private property of a pope, which he can freely dispose of.

Therefore, seminarians and young priests must ask for the right to use this common treasure of the Church, and should they be denied this right, they can use it nevertheless, perhaps in a clandestine manner. This would not be an act of disobedience, but rather of obedience to Holy Mother Church, who has given us this liturgical treasure. The firm rejection of an almost one thousand-year-old liturgical form by Pope Francis represents, in fact, a short-lived phenomenon compared to the constant spirit and praxis of the Church.

Bp. Schneider gave a wonderful set of answers to these interview questions.
Read the full text here.

These families, young people and priests could address to Pope Francis these or similar words: “Most Holy Father, give us back that great liturgical treasure of the Church. Do not treat us as your second-class children. Do not violate our consciences by forcing us into a single and exclusive liturgical form, you who always proclaimed to the entire world the necessity of diversity, pastoral accompaniment, and of respect for conscience. Do not listen to those representatives of a rigid clericalism who counseled you to carry out such an unmerciful action. Be a true family father, who “brings out of his treasure what is new and what is old” (Mt 13:52). If you will hear our voice, on the day of your judgment before God, we will be your best intercessors.”

MarkB

Sigh, for the thousandth time: Holy Mother Church decreed that the liturgy was to be revised/reformed/changed at Vatican II. Bishop Schneider is promoting schism under the false cover of obedience to something that is against the mind of the Church.

I never expected Pope Francis' explanation for curtailing the TLM -- that groups and persons have misused the permission to celebrate the TLM as a means of sowing discord and division in the church -- to be manifested here in this forum.

If you say, "I accept Vatican II as long as I don't have to go along with it," then guess what? You don't accept Vatican II.

At 485 or so comments in this thread now, it's far too long to be of continuing value, so I will cease commenting here anymore.

CCooze

We can all sigh.
The sighs and tears so well understood by and expressed in the statements by Cdl Burke & Bp Schneider are lost on you in your obstinate refusal to understand any argument that is not exactly your own. It's mindbogglling.

CharlesW

I understand the arguments both for and against the TLM. I also understand that none of it is my decision either way. The competent authority is Pope Francis, like it or not. He has delegated that authority to the bishops. At a practical level, it might be a good idea to be nice to the bishop and stay on his good side.

CharlesSA

Reader B says: That doesn't matter. He has the power to order anything, and that's all that matters. PS: Besides, he accused you of something: don't forget that!

...followed by,

Sigh, for the thousandth time: Holy Mother Church decreed that the liturgy was to be revised/reformed/changed at Vatican II. Bishop Schneider is promoting schism under the false cover of obedience to something that is against the mind of the Church.

I never expected Pope Francis' explanation for curtailing the TLM -- that groups and persons have misused the permission to celebrate the TLM as a means of sowing discord and division in the church -- to be manifested here in this forum.

Yup, this second post fits your "Reader B" exactly, chonak.

Agreed that this discussion is going nowhere when one side continually tries to end it all with a false argument of authority.

CharlesW

It is what it is. Let's review it in 6 months. It may be the same or different. I'm sure of one thing, no one here can change it.

Chris Garton-Zavesky

Chonak,

I shall try not to contribute to the scenario you identified. Accordingly, I shall be more careful in what I write.

pfreese

Same here

chonak

I would like to see someone make a sober identification of who Pope Francis could be referring to with his rather unspecified complaint about attitudes among traditionalists. He doesn't name any names -- as is appropriate; but then he didn't have the CDF write something on the issue to identify the problematic views. And since he didn't give any specifics, one is left wondering. The Pope probably doesn't spend time on the internet himself watching videos from fringe trads. He's said the only newspaper he reads is La Repubblica, run by his atheist friend Scalfari, and fringe-trad views don't make it into mainstream newspapers anyway.

He might be basing his thinking on old conflicts he had with lay people back in Argentina, where he authorized a couple of TLMs. Since he reportedly required the priests to use the modern lectionary, the relationship was probably not warm.

Certainly there are fringe trad figures out there who totally reject Francis as pope and consider their little remnant or "resistance" movement as the "true church", but in the logic of such a position, they do not want to be in eucharistic communion with him, so they have a strong reason not to attend approved Catholic TLMs. Instead, they would associate with the mini-sects and "independent" priests that share such views. The desire of Catholics for approved TLMs is itself evidence of the wish to be in full communion with the Church, including acknowledgement of Francis as pope.

Is it conceivable that he might just be just repeating claims that were made by complaining French or Italian bishops? Who can tell? Alas, an accusation as vague as the one he published doesn't lend itself to exploration. It's hard to give it the serious treatment a papal statement deserves.

Salieri

This decree is much the same as his 2010 decision about the TLM in Buenos Aires.

What I fail to see is how a priest, ordained according to the new rite, by a bishop ordained according to the new rite, who celebrates the Novus Ordo seven days a week, and offers the TLM once a week on Sundays is somehow schismatic. If anything, parish priests and parish churches being used for the TLM would guard against schismatic tendencies, because the wing-nuts will consider it invalid and go somewhere else.

Chris Garton-Zavesky

Archbishop Sheen once noted something to the effect that a tiny percentage of people actually hate what the Catholic Church teaches, but vast multitudes hate what they think the Church teaches. I wonder if something similar is at work here: the Holy Father surrounds himself with people who hate the faith and every traditional expression of it, and then we are dismayed that he issues documents such as this one -- but they're the logical extension of the sources of information he has chosen to consider true.

Elmar

The competent authority is Pope Francis, like it or not. He has delegated that authority to the bishops. At a practical level, it might be a good idea to be nice to the bishop and stay on his good side.

How does this work out in your dioceses?

(BTW I think that's more interesting than arguing whether it was wise on the part of pope Francis to issue TC, now or in general; what might or might not be his motives, whether he has the authority to decree what he decreed; whether he meant what he wrote etc etc etc...)

Our bishop did the following:
- state that we are to obey the pope, even if the decision hurts;
- explain in his own words the rationale behind TC (essentially paraphrasing the accompanying letter);
- point out that in our diocese there aren't any TLM groups known for calling into question the legitimacy of VII nor the NO (especially no FSSPX);
- already gave the required permission to most priests who offered the TLM to continue what they have been doing for the time beeing;
- dispensate from moving the TLMs away from their parish church, by lack of other churches or chapels in the diocese;
- leave intact the (single) personal parish run by FSSP priests, pointing out that canon law puts high hurdles against eliminating a parish (territorial or personal);
- clarify that according to his understanding, 'proclaiming' readings in the vernacular means: either Latin+vernacular or vernacular only, and only applies to masses with congregation.

Further our bishop encourages traditional communities to (re-)discover the Latin NO mass, which to his regret has almost disappeared from our diocese after SP - and is of course always licit without further permission and can be celebrated ad orientem.

Schönbergian

Our bishop did the following:
- state that we are to obey the pope, even if the decision hurts;
- explain in his own words the rationale behind TC (essentially paraphrasing the accompanying letter);
- point out that in our diocese there aren't any TLM groups known for calling into question the legitimacy of VII nor the NO (especially no FSSPX);
- already gave the required permission to most priests who offered the TLM to continue what they have been doing for the time beeing;
- dispensate from moving the TLMs away from their parish church, by lack of other churches or chapels in the diocese;
- leave intact the (single) personal parish run by FSSP priests, pointing out that canon law puts high hurdles against eliminating a parish (territorial or personal);
- clarify that according to his understanding, 'proclaiming' readings in the vernacular means: either Latin+vernacular or vernacular only, and only applies to masses with congregation.

Further our bishop encourages traditional communities to (re-)discover the Latin NO mass, which to his regret has almost disappeared from our diocese after SP - and is of course always licit without further permission and can be celebrated ad orientem.

This sounds entirely reasonable to me.

Liam

A Pope is not busy reading blogs, discussion fora, and agitprop - whether from the Catholic Lefts, Great Middles, Rights, or ultras of any type. And this Pope is very likely not reading much in the way of English-language sources directly: the English-speaking world is not as central to his vision of the Church as those of us in the English-speaking world may fancy.

This Pope made inquiries of ordinaries 13 years after SP. I would have liked that process to be more transparent: to know who was consulted - and for the ordinaries' processes to be transparent in turn - and for the feedback to be transparent at each of those levels. I totally get that Roman culture views transparent feedback with great horror, and that the best feedback is always as discreet as possible. The Roman cultural preference is not without its merits, but it's at its weakest in any situation where trust of the faithful in general needs to be cultivated. For power to exercise authority effectively, greater transparency is prudent.

(It would also be prudent for English-speaking prelates and others who wish to plead the case for Catholic traditionalists to cultivate very good personal relationships with the Pope, without which conversation becomes much more fraught.)

Arthur Connick

Pope Francis in his Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium renders what appears to be a spiritual critique of traditionalists.

No to spiritual worldliness

93. Spiritual worldliness, which hides behind the appearance of piety and even love for the Church, consists in seeking not the Lord’s glory but human glory and personal well-being. ...

94. This worldliness can be fuelled in two deeply interrelated ways. One is the attraction of gnosticism, a purely subjective faith whose only interest is a certain experience or a set of ideas and bits of information which are meant to console and enlighten, but which ultimately keep one imprisoned in his or her own thoughts and feelings. The other is the self-absorbed promethean neopelagianism of those who ultimately trust only in their own powers and feel superior to others because they observe certain rules or remain intransigently faithful to a particular Catholic style from the past. A supposed soundness of doctrine or discipline leads instead to a narcissistic and authoritarian elitism, whereby instead of evangelizing, one analyzes and classifies others, and instead of opening the door to grace, one exhausts his or her energies in inspecting and verifying. In neither case is one really concerned about Jesus Christ or others. These are manifestations of an anthropocentric immanentism. It is impossible to think that a genuine evangelizing thrust could emerge from these adulterated forms of Christianity.

95. This insidious worldliness is evident in a number of attitudes which appear opposed, yet all have the same pretence of “taking over the space of the Church”. In some people we see an ostentatious preoccupation for the liturgy, for doctrine and for the Church’s prestige, but without any concern that the Gospel have a real impact on God’s faithful people and the concrete needs of the present time. In this way, the life of the Church turns into a museum piece or something which is the property of a select few. ...

Oddly this could equally be a critique of the Novus Ordo absolutists.

MarkS

the Holy Father surrounds himself with people who hate the faith and every traditional expression of it

Statements like this are where you lose me.

Chris Garton-Zavesky

Mark,

I'm not meaning to lose you, but you need only to look at example after example. Here are just the most obvious I can quickly put down:

1) Fr. James Martin receives accolades from His Holiness.

2) He assembled a group of bishops to discuss the family, and it's a small miracle that the vote in favor of chucking the teachings on contraception, divorce/remarriage more uxorio, was not unanimous.

3) Cardinal Cupich.... nearly every utterance.

4) Cardinal Tobin... again, nearly every utterance.

5) The Council of 9.

6) Cardinal Marx.

7) Amoris Laetitia

Arthur Connick

Observation from Timothy Kirchoff* writing in America in 2017:

Last year, Pope Francis spoke openly about his misgivings about liturgical traditionalists in an interview that would serve as an introduction of a book of his sermons as Archbishop of Buenos Aires:
I always try to understand what’s behind the people who are too young to have lived the pre-conciliar liturgy but who want it. Sometimes I’ve found myself in front of people who are too strict, who have a rigid attitude. And I wonder: How come such a rigidity? Dig, dig, this rigidity always hides something: insecurity, sometimes even more.... Rigidity is defensive. True love is not rigid.
I have been pondering this statement since I first read it. I wondered whether I was the sort of person he had in mind. Was I a “rigid” Catholic? The experience of being surrounded by the saints at the Latin Mass was one of the most profound and formative spiritual experiences of my teenage years.

*Not sure if Timothy Kirchoff is a real person. No online exsistance after 2017. But this passage is linked to by many other publications.

pfreese

I don’t wander through America much anymore, but they had an interesting essay today:

https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2021/07/27/pope-francis-latin-mass-traditionis-custodes-241121?pnespid=lvN19vpWCQqNBDl_599tHLhGuSc.1TV5T1_rQ5PT&utm_source=piano&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=12362

Welcome to the MusicaSacra Forum!

Categories