gardens grow, weeds come in, and the church continues to weed her garden in due time. she also attends to the funeral of her undertakers.

Keep in mind there is both a good side and a bad side to having popes. If they behaved as they did before the Renaissance period elevated them into monarchs, the situation might be better. However Vatican I made them into demi-gods instead of head pastors. I don't know how you could get around the ups and downs without meaningful reforms in that office. And yes, JC, another council is unlikely. Would anyone in their right mind want another one to muck up things even worse? How could anyone know that another council would improve things?

On the question of arbitrary rule, two Traditionalists actually raised that issue with me yesterday. One said perhaps the problem is those two words "summorum pontificum." Another asked, "is it now just the Will to Power?"

Someone above said he doubted the Holy Spirit produces sloppy documents, or words to that effect. If He were dictating the words. He most emphatically uses the results of human frailty providentially.

But we don't even need to stitch it together. Let's look at what the Popes said:

1) Benedict: It seems to me this is a potential solution, so let's try it, but it must be analyzed, reviewed, and revised according to experience.

2) Francis: We tried. I asked. It didn't work. From now on, new priests and parishes need to be in the institutes and orders that I and my predecessors have established. Having two rites in one dioceses simply has not worked.

This is in fact what the Popes said.

What Restorationist said in 2007 was "Ratzinger is secretly one of us. Now people will see the beauty of the TLM and the Novus Ordo will fade away. WE WON!!!!" But Joseph Ratzinger had expressed himself on the new and old rites, and he was never "one of us."

What did not happen was the Traditionalists saying, "OK, this is just an experiment, so we have to prove we can live peacefully with everyone else. How do we do that?" It was just, "Roma Locuta Est and WE WON. Let's GO!!!" Triumphalism. No introspection that I saw.

This pains me because my sympathies are always with the orthodox, obedient, and traditiaonal (if not traditionalist.) There was a 13-year opportunity to seek to live with well with others, and it didn't happen.

And now the Vatican II Fundamentalists are saying, "Roma Locuta Est. We Won. The TLM will fade away!!! Let's go!!" But that is not what the motu proprio says (whatever the Holy Father might want.)

So the long slow process of the Curia coughed up a perfectly reasonable adjustment---to my eye, the Holy Spirit using human frailty. If it looks arbitrary, that can be attributed to the method of delivery...and to the way that people lasso infallibilty to their dreams.

Kenneth

In reality, can anyone actually comply with such short notice. Add to that the directives were poorly written. Time will tell, I guess.

Is that like 'or another suitable song?"

But no new personal parishes for celebrating the TLM may be created, and the TLM is not permitted at regular parishes.

So this really makes a mess for FSSP apostolates that are long standing and exist in Diocesan parishes that also offer the OF. We’ve been like this for over 25 years. We have the means and size to have our own parish, just didn’t have a bishop willing to give us our own.

Ecumenical Councils can not be reversed by a Moto Proprio or any other edict of the Pope. We'd need another ecumenical council to reverse Vatican II's decree on the liturgy. This is extraordinarily unlikely to occur in any of our lifetimes.

But the council did NOT give us the Novus Ordo, it gave vague suggestions and topics for reform, (which, were, in fact, fulfilled in 1965--which was still, technically, the TLM) without any concrete manner in which they ought to have been carried out. The Novus Ordo was composed after the council by Bugnini's consilium. AND If the Missal of Pius V and the Bull Quo Primum can be abolished by Motu Proprio, then so can the Missal of Paul VI and the Bull Missale Romanum.

MarkB, thanks for your contributions to this discussion. I believe your interpretation is correct and that it is now the mind of the Church that the TLM should be discontinued eventually. To serve ecclesially requires the same religious obedience to this decision as applies to decisions of the same type. And that includes our comments made in public forums.

Everyone who has been involved in the TLM for the past 14 years will have experienced mixed fruits from their labors. On the one hand, there is heartrendingly beautiful liturgy, moments of grace and peace and consolation, the touching of many hearts and the deepening of religious practices. On the other hand, we have also seen massive growth in precisely the attitudes described by His Holiness in this motu proprio toward the majority of the Church and of her clergy and hierarchy. Publicly criticizing the Pope is not a Catholic's God-given right, in most situations it's a sin and a canonical crime. One indeed hoped that beautiful liturgy would cause a growth in respect and love for the people whose heads and hands have been consecrated to the altar. But if the ear and the eye despise the brain and the legs, the Body is in trouble. The crazy thoughts that percolated through ghettoes of the pre-2007 Internet have become as common in parishes as Starbucks on street corners.

While your advice that people should focus on the N.O. is probably prudent for many, it is not the only way.

First, the eventually will likely be never, given the state of affairs with the SSPX. The Pope might eliminate the TLM from all Catholic worship, but the SSPX will remain - it would be a miracle if we do not see episcopal consecrations in the future. Ecumenical overtures with TLM-practicing Christians possessing apostolic succession will resume at some point in the future, prudence and discernment being the only rationale for picking the Benedictine or Franciscan approaches at any given time. The TLM will be back.

Second, the intention of the Church for the future is different from her intention for the present moment. The 1962 Missal is not yet abrogated. A church that will close next year still needs music on Sundays until then. Catholic 1962 Masses will continue for now, perhaps not everywhere, but at least somewhere, as provided for in this motu proprio. And musicians may choose to serve these liturgies and still be Catholic, as nurses can serve in hospice and still be nurses, and often the most important ones in their patients' lives. Even if the story of the Old Rite has passed its dénouement, the last pages are yet to be written (and I suspect it will survive until the end of time).

Third, this is speculative, but I also think we have not seen the end of the Franciscan reforms of the 1962 Missal. The Roman congregations empowered by this motu proprio with full pontifical authority are likely to issue further norms and conduct visitations and local decrees. So the medium-term future for the TLM may be much harder than most people here imagine. It is not implausible that some liturgical reform of the 1962 Missal will occur as part of an effort to achieve that unitary form of worship; hints have been given in the decree about proclaiming the readings in the vernacular. And if so, implementing such changes would require liturgical action as well and probably music. Are we to avoid this work simply because it is unpleasant? Perhaps, but it is still Church Music, and it should be done well.

And it is said the Paul VI wept on Pentecost Monday when he was told that he abolished the Octave. It may be apocryphal, but, I believe it.

I suppose that the thing that irked me the most in all of this is that while some of us were in shock and wondering why our father just punched us in the eye, others were telling us that we deserved it while kicking us in the shin and laughing.

True. If it may be true that some traditionalist Catholics are what they are described as here by a few people, it should be noted that consistent attitudes such as the above toward anything smelling of tradition over the course of fifty-plus years is likely to harden (and embitter) some people. In my experience, division has always come from the anti-trad side (happened at my home parish and elsewhere).

There is nothing in the new document which prevents a celebration of the mass in Latin ad orientem.

It does, however, contain an irony. Currently the legislation would allow the proclamation of the readings in a mass following the missal of Paul VI in Latin. But those in a John XXIII must be in the vernacular.

Chas,

It requires their proclamation in the vernacular, but that wording hides two (or three) cans of worms:

1) Whose vernacular? Think of a parish which is ethnically and linguistically diverse, and consider whether the readings must be proclaimed twice or three times, one for each vernacular?
2) What constitutes "proclamation". If one uses the generally accepted meaning, "something announced to the people", then the Epistle and Gospel in the older form will remain in Latin: they're sung to the honor of God, and the priest has his back to the people the whole time....


Donr,

I've read the document (not the news coverage) and .. to be very polite... it's a complete MESS.

The Mass which is being phased out (in a proper reading of the text) is the Missal of 1965, which is constantly referred to as that of John XXIII, who was dead by then, and didn't issue the Missal in that year.

Donr,

You're construing what you, being sensible, think should make sense. As a guardian of tradition, he should be promoting proper celebrations of Mass and reprobating what official documents call "personal restorations".

Alas, "Doing your own thing" is a hallmark of the ethos of the Missal of Paul VI.

As to the "Trad Only" mindset, can you help me understand what is essential to the Catholic faith and only enunciated at the Second Vatican Council, promulgated as the Missal of Paul VI? I don't have a "Trad Only" mindset. I wish to be an unhyphenated Catholic.

I don't believe he is talking about a parish that is doing it the right way, but those parishes that are going outside of the Church and doing their own thing like some I've heard of outside the US.

If people are doing the TLM the wrong way by going outside of the Church, is an instruction from the Pope going to have any effect on them whatsoever? Wouldn't they already be disregarding whatever restrictions (diocesan or otherwise) that are in place?

Maybe my interpretation of what you wrote is incorrect, so clarify if necessary.

I haven't read the entire document, but so far am less alarmed than many about its contents. Is it not a good thing that bishops are charged to assess whether certain EF groups do indeed recognise the validity of Vatican II and its subsequent popes? Some don't, and they should. It seems to me that the degree to which people do not grant the validity of the Council are to that degree in schism.

Having done this, it would be good, admirable, and consistent if Francis followed this up by requiring every diocese and parish to observe the liturgical and music norms as commanded by the Council. By doing so every diocese and every parish would affirm the validity of the Council - something which most do not now do.

Chonak,

Art. 3. The bishop of the diocese

§1. is to determine that these groups do not deny the validity and the legitimacy of the liturgical
reform, dictated by Vatican Council II and the Magisterium of the Supreme Pontiffs;

This is the issue as I believe the Holy Father is complaining about.

There may be a bit of vindictiveness in the Pope's letter. The Trad groups have pretty much opposed and criticized him since he took office. Is he getting even? I don't know but could be.

My assessment of Kwasniewski's article:

It’s big on witty rhetorical jabs and red meat for Trads but zero on analysis and argument. I was sorely disappointed and expected something of substance from him. His article has no substance at all.

He doesn’t analyze the motu proprio's provisions and revisions. What's especially telling is that he doesn't even mention “Vatican II” nor “liturgical reform” once in his entire article. That’s because he obviously wishes that the liturgical reform and Vatican II had never happened, and he'd prefer that the Church repeal everything that happened in liturgical reform at least since the Council but probably going back to pre-1955.

To publish an article that is a negative reaction to Traditionis Custodes without acknowledging the role of Vatican II in the present-day Church's liturgical life is beyond irresponsible: it's deliberately mendacious.

This is the most egregious statement in his article, aside from the hyperbolic article title:

ordinary Catholics cannot—and should not have to be able to—understand how a pope can act against the Church, her tradition, and her common good as Francis does and has done, again and again.

Pope Francis did not act against the Church: he acted in accord with the Church's mind expressed at Vatican II (again, I remind you that Kwasniewski never referred to that council in his article because it would defeat his stance). Pope Francis did not act against the Church's tradition: he acted in accord with the living, reformed tradition that Vatican II called for. Pope Francis did not act against the common good of the Church: he acted for the sake of Church unity to prevent further hardening of hearts against Vatican II and against the liturgical reform.

Pope Francis was correct that a significant number of Trads do indeed hate Vatican II, with a sizable number now probably about to become schismatics, in all likelihood, as Kwasniewski is encouraging people to ignore -- nay, to disobey -- the motu proprio and wouldn't mind an exodus to the SSPX.

Pope Francis did the right thing. It was appropriate that he made his new norms take effect immediately. Get it over with. Now bishops need to establish timelines for the TLM phase-out, which I think should take no more than three years and could easily take less time in some dioceses. Why delay the inevitable unnecessarily?

Bottom line is that Vatican II happened and decreed liturgical reform. The Novus Ordo Mass is the express will of the Church.

Kwasniewski was reduced to complaining without proffering a substantial rebuttal. One might suspect that he knows he's been defeated despite his rhetorical bluster. After all, no Catholic can argue against the express will of an ecumenical council.

His stance simply boils down to: I wish Vatican II had never occurred. Well, that's not a defensible stance for a Catholic, and it's not an admissible premise in any argument about the present-day Church's liturgy.

[Stop accusing people of lying ("deliberately mendacious").--admin]

“ He should, though, demand adherence to the Council's musical and liturgical commandments. .”

He should, but for purposes of controlling expectations, and given his relative laize-faire approach to the liturgy thus far, I wouldn’t count on it. Nor should we, as recipients of the Universal Call to Holiness, treat it as a precondition for us giving the Church the most holy and beautiful sacred music we have to offer.

Thanks for posting the quote, donr, but it doesn't actually contradict my impression that Pope Francis would like to see the TLM eventually phased out completely. The letter accompanying the motu proprio speaks of a "unitary" form of celebration as the goal.

Pope Benedict XVI, who was present at the council, explained in Summorum Pontificum that the TLM had never been abrogated. Thus, it was not abrogated by Vatican II. That Pope Francis has abrogated Summorum Pontificum does not thereby retroactively cause Vatican II to have abrogated the TLM. Just because Vatican II decreed a liturgical reform, it does not thereby imply that the TLM must necessarily be "phased out" to use Mark's term. Nor does it mean that those of us who wish to see the TLM preserved are at odds with an ecumenical council. Nor does it mean that the TLM is not also the express will of the Church.

I am about to turn 38 years old. I have been been attending the TLM in full communion with Rome for 30 years. I have received countless Sacraments and graces because of the TLM. We are talking about the single most important thing this side of heaven in my life next to Christ's True Presence in the Eucharist and the Sacraments themselves. That is what is at stake here. Please have some charity towards your fellow Catholics who are--with very good reason--attached to the Latin Mass. Merely reading this thread is a trial.

Please note that the content of TC is not a matter of doctrine: it is a disciplinary document, and the reasons stated for the decision are matters of prudential judgment.

For this reason, Catholics who think it was not a good decision -- because they view the facts differently or they may think the Pope has misinterpreted the situation, or they may value the old liturgical forms more highly -- have the moral and legal right to say so, with due respect to the Roman Pontiff and the pastors of the Church, as indicated in Canon 212.

Y'know, CCooze, I think we should be a little cautious about interpreting the reference to "private" Masses in the letter of the bishop of Little Rock.

Many TLMs offered under the provisions of SP have been officially "private" Masses. "Private" does not mean that the priest is necassarily alone, but that the Mass is not part of the official public schedule of the parish.

It's possible that the bishop may want TLMs offered by diocesan priests to be conducted without a congregation: or he might only be directing that they not be presented in the name of the parish.

(Sent to the clergy of the Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis)

July 16, 2021

Dear Brothers in Christ,

Pope Francis promulgated this morning an apostolic letter, Traditionis custodes, with new norms governing celebration of what we normally refer to as the “Extraordinary Form” liturgy. You can find Pope Francis’ motu proprio here, and the accompanying explanatory letter to the bishops of the world here. I encourage you to read both documents.

The norms take effect today. I will need some time to study the new norms, examine our local situation and seek counsel. With that in mind, I am happy to grant the necessary faculties so that those priests who are already celebrating the rites of the Extraordinary Form may continue to do so. I similarly direct that the Mass in the Extraordinary Form continue in those locations where it is currently being offered in the Archdiocese. No new public liturgical celebration of the Extraordinary Form, however, should be introduced anywhere in the Archdiocese at this time without my written permission.

If you currently celebrate the Extraordinary Form and would hope to continue, I would ask you to write me prior to the Solemnity of the Assumption to request authorization, as required by Article 5 of Traditionis custodes.

[ ... task force details omitted ... ]

We are blessed in the Archdiocese by so many individuals and families who love the liturgy in both of its forms and find in the Eucharist the nourishment they need to live exemplary lives of service. Nonetheless, on this Feast of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, let us ask Our Lady’s intercession for an even greater devotion to the Eucharist so that we might be drawn together in even greater unity as we journey together towards the eternal liturgy of heaven.

With every good wish and the promise of a remembrance in my prayer, I remain,

Fraternally in Christ,

Most Reverend Bernard A. Hebda

Archbishop of Saint Paul and Minneapolis

Sadly, no word (yet) from the Diocese of Superior or the Archdiocese of Milwaukee.

I just don't understand the defense of the motu proprio and its implementation specifically. Whether you agree with the TLM's existence or not, the way that this was handled practically invites disobedience and fuels the same schismatic attitudes that it claimed to be addressing—except this time, that side can legitimately and unequivocally claim to have been treated in an unfair manner. I have been critical of the walled-garden TLM attitude and worried about the NO becoming a liturgical ghetto, and should support this initiative—but after seeing what it has done to dear friends of mine, how it has caused chaos and rupture, and practically invited open questioning of the Pope's motives and the validity of the document, I cannot in good faith defend this. I cannot defend an announcement made on a Friday that gives part of the Catholic world maybe 24 hours to figure out how they will adjust and implement this, and I remain curious how its defenders like MarkB would justify that. There seems to be no excuse for the lack of grace period and announcement immediately before the weekend other than to deliberately cause chaos or if the Vatican has seriously become that incompetent as to not realize the ramifications of what they were doing. It is certainly not pastoral in any way.