Cardinal Cupich: "The Gift of Traditionis Custodes"
  • MarkB
    Posts: 1,025
    https://www.praytellblog.com/index.php/2021/11/01/the-gift-of-traditionis-custodes/

    Cardinal Cupich's article is quite good.
    Thanked by 2bhcordova Don9of11
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    The Good Cardinal's article is quite good, but I'm not sure at what.

    He says that the Holy Father returns authority to the diocesan bishop in regulating the older forms, but then he says that the Holy Father makes it clear that, according to this same Holy Father, the diocesan bishop must regulate it with an eye to coming to one set of books, an agreed, unique rite imbued with the beautiful teaching of Vatican II.

    Is Cupich confused, or is TC confused?

    The whole idea of having a unique form is that it be stable, unchanging over the span of years. The point of all those legal options (not depending on the feast day, but on the individual choice of the priest, based on the worshipping community) is to have great variety and flexibility and diversity, not rigidity and other similar evils.

    Cardinal Cupich doesn't explain how liturgical discipline, the unique form of the Roman Rite and the Missal of Paul VI are not in conflict with each other, nor how the diversity of accompanying people can be reconciled with a unique form.

    In this, is Cardinal Cupich confused, or is TC unenforceable and contradictory?

    His understanding of the principles of Canon Law (and tradition in general) is at odds with mine, but that probably means I don't know enough about Canon Law. It's purpose, it seems to me, is nothing to do with complying with the new spirit of the council. Nor does the principle 'If not explicitly permitted, therefore forbidden' seem to apply to liturgical innovation (including the adopting of elements from older forms, which he mentions), or to the entire course of the liturgical inculturation -- which, at least in practice, has insisted "if not strictly forbidden by people we like, therefore permitted."


    I'm going to assume on this last point that it's me, not Cupich who is confused. I'm certainly confused, but his article doesn't clarify that confusion or remove it.

    The Good Cardinal has me very, very confused when he explains that TC requires that we accept that the Second Vatican Council is in complete continuity with what the Church has always taught. If he's right, then breaking with earlier forms (which derived from the unchanging deposit of faith) is.... staying with them? I remember a great many people (including the good Cardinal) saying things like "The whole point of the council was to break with the past". How can the council be in continuity with that from which it breaks? How can TC, if Cupich is right, possibly expect us to believe that nothing changed and so everything changed at the same time? Nothing changed, and therefore the old forms must be discarded... and failure to do so results in rejecting something or the other.

    Quoting Prosper of Aquitaine, in support of the idea that diversity, a hallmark of the Missal of Paul VI, is completely consistent with the same prayers being said everywhere is.... just bizarre. It's true that how we pray and what we believe are intimately connected, but I don't know anyone who wishes to worship according to the formerly blessed and promoted rites who believes that how we pray and what we believe aren't, and shouldn't be, connected.

    Mark,


    Thank you for bringing this article to our attention. I'm persuaded that the Cardinal has expressed with great clarity the utter fogginess and confusion of the modern age.
    Thanked by 6ServiamScores KARU27 tomjaw Salieri CCooze Gustavo Zayas
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,724
    This.
    If he's right, then breaking with earlier forms (which derived from the unchanging deposit of faith) is.... staying with them? I remember a great many people (including the good Cardinal) saying things like "The whole point of the council was to break with the past". How can the council be in continuity with that from which it breaks? How can TC, if Cupich is right, possibly expect us to believe that nothing changed and so everything changed at the same time? Nothing changed, and therefore the old forms must be discarded... and failure to do so results in rejecting something or the other.


    Everything about this reflection perfectly encapsulates the schizophrenic nature of this debate. It's not different, but it is! but it isn't! and if you do the thing that's always been done before, you're bad! but we aren't doing anything different, but we are singing a nuCherch™️ into being!

    Lefevbre once famously remarked (paraphrasing) that it was so dumbfounding to him that all he did was continue to do what he had always been doing, and that if he had done what was done after the council—but on his own initiative before the council—he would have been cast out as a heretic... and yet here he was being cast out for doing what had always been done. I wish I could remember his exact words but it's not worth looking them up at the moment. The sentiment doesn't change. I found it a perfectly persuasive argument (as distinct from any feelings about the consecrations). This sentiment was echoed by BXVI "what previous generations held as sacred is sacred for us too... etc."

    But as Chris observes, the new guard labors mightily to convince people that there is a "hermeneutic of continuity" *buzzword alert!* and everything is the same, while we all know it isn't. I find it rather insulting, because every time someone insists nothing has changed but a few externals, it's like someone is calling me a liar to my face. Doth mine eyes deceive me?! No, they doth not.
    Thanked by 4KARU27 tomjaw Salieri AugustinusLondinii
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,724
    From the article:
    ...because the word “reform” means something, namely that we leave behind a former way of celebrating the sacraments and adopt a new form.

    Seems to me the good cardinal and I have different dictionaries. I thought when one reforms something, the substance largely remains the same but altered somewhat. He seems to think that means a complete replacement with something cut from entirely new cloth.

    Another gem:
    No one would think of arguing that the earlier forms of the Code or the Catechism could still be used, simply because the word reform means something. And, so it has to mean something with regard to the liturgical reform.

    I use the Roman Catechism a.k.a. the Catechism of the Council of Trent. Is Cupich claiming this is no longer a valid catechism?
    Thanked by 3tomjaw KARU27 Salieri
  • KARU27
    Posts: 184
    But as Chris observes, the new guard labors mightily to convince people that there is a "hermeneutic of continuity" *buzzword alert!* and everything is the same, while we all know it isn't. I find it rather insulting, because every time someone insists nothing has changed but a few externals, it's like someone is calling me a liar to my face. Doth mine eyes deceive me?! No, they doth not.


    I think the term is "gaslighting".
    Thanked by 4tomjaw ServiamScores Chris Garton-Zavesky Salieri
  • KARU27
    Posts: 184
    My understanding is that Pope Francis wants to de-centralize the power of the Vatican, giving more power to the different councils of bishops, up to and including changing the liturgy and even the translations of the liturgy (maybe I'm wrong). (https://www.ncronline.org/news/vatican/francis-decentralizes-most-authority-liturgical-translations-local-bishops)
    This hardly seems like the great unifying force described in Cardinal Cupich's piece: "Simply put, it is to re-establish throughout the Church of the Roman Rite a single and identical prayer that expresses its unity, according to the liturgical books promulgated by the saintly Popes Paul VI and John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of the Second Vatican Council".
    Thanked by 4tomjaw ServiamScores M. Jackson Osborn Salieri
  • pfreese
    Posts: 147
    “ My understanding is that Pope Francis wants to de-centralize the power of the Vatican, giving more power to the different councils of bishops, up to and including changing the liturgy and even the texts of the liturgy (maybe I'm wrong). ”

    The recent legislation only has to do with translating liturgical texts from Latin to vernacular. Though Bishops Conferences are to do the heavy lifting, the Vatican still retains veto authority. It also specifically says more radical departures in translation/innovations must be approved by the Vatican (which in practice is no change from previous legislation).
    Thanked by 1KARU27
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,724
    My understanding is that Pope Francis wants to de-centralize the power of the Vatican, giving more power to the different councils of bishops

    We can all see how well that is working out in Germany...
    Thanked by 5KARU27 sdtalley3 M. Jackson Osborn Nathan_the_Organist Salieri
  • NihilNominisNihilNominis
    Posts: 986
    Decentralization through uniformity.
    Thanked by 1rich_enough
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    Nihil,

    The good Cardinal doesn't mean to be channeling George Orwell, but he is doing. That's the saddest part: he seems sincerely to believe the contradictory stuff he's promoting.
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,217
    ...and he wants you to nod your assent. Because.
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    Decentralization by consolidation... seems to fit with the general trend of having one un-stable form, AND ONLY ONE FORM, BECAUSE THE ORDO OF SAINT PAUL VI IS JUST ONE, STABLE FORM..... or something like that.
    Thanked by 1ServiamScores
  • Jeffrey Quick
    Posts: 2,046
    Das Gift des Traditionis Custodes? I didn't know the Cardinal wrote in German.
    Thanked by 3trentonjconn tandrews KARU27
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,177
    I think His Eminence has something umber on his olfactory organ.
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,177
    Decentralization by consolidation

    Like the great work of pastoral planning commissions: Spread the Gospel by closing churches.
    Thanked by 2ServiamScores Chris Garton-Zavesky
  • Chaswjd
    Posts: 256
    If the pope really wanted to de-centralize the power of the Vatican, why is there the provision in Traditionis Custodes which requires the ordinary to consult with Rome when future priests wish to celebrate a 1962 Latin Mass? Why is there a provision controlling the erection or use of parishes by groups wishing to celebrate according to the 1962 Missal? It would seem that the local ordinary himself would be able to guard the mass in his own diocese and determine who could celebrate mass according to the 1962 missal and where it could be done.

    Of course, the document is self is plagued by internal consistencies. If the ordinary is truly the guardian of the liturgy, why are there not 176 authentic forms of the Latin Rite in the U.S.? (I believe that is the number of Latin rite dioceses here).

    If the document were to be consistent and synodial, it could simply have said: "The regulation of saying mass according to the 1962 Missal shall be left up to the ordinary. The ordinary should ensure in his regulation that use of the 1962 Missal does not lead to the denial of the validity of any mass said according to the Missal of 1969."

    It seems that Pope Francis's vision of synodality depends on the issue in question.
    Thanked by 4Caleferink tomjaw KARU27 rich_enough
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,724
    Ecumenism! Communion for all! †1








    †1 (except the faithful)
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,724
    If the pope really wanted to de-centralize the power of the Vatican, why is there the provision in Traditionis Custodes which requires the ordinary to consult with Rome when future priests wish to celebrate a 1962 Latin Mass? Why is there a provision controlling the erection or use of parishes by groups wishing to celebrate according to the 1962 Missal?


    Because he doesn't want to decentralize. He wants to give the appearance of decentralization so the trail is hard to trace. The immediate reaction by people on both sides was that TC was iron-fisted. (And it was / is.)
    Thanked by 2tomjaw KARU27
  • Caleferink
    Posts: 429
    Is Cupich confused, or is TC confused?

    Yes.
    Thanked by 7tomjaw Nathan_the_Organist ServiamScores Salieri Dixit_Dominus_44 dad29 mmeladirectress
  • trentonjconn
    Posts: 543
    Nice subtle play on vocabulary there, Jeffrey. Well done.
    Thanked by 2tomjaw Jeffrey Quick
  • Ted
    Posts: 202
    This may seem like a minor point, but nowhere does the official Latin text of Sacrosanctum Concilium speak about a "reforma" of the liturgy. It speaks, rather, of an "instauratio". The meanings are quite different. Into English, "instauratio" can best be translated as "renewal", not "reform." The later concept expresses a rejection of the past, usually the immediate past, whereas the former, highlights its importance. The word "reform" grew in importance in the 16th century and the European Enlightenment. The Protestants are not renewers but Reformers. To redo the form of something is to change its essence. To renew is to bring out its essence. It is interesting that the English translation of SC speaks of "reform". Clearly philosophical Modernism has invaded the Church for some time, severely altering the intent of Conciliar documents.
    Thanked by 7ServiamScores Dixit_Dominus_44 KARU27 toddevoss tomjaw WJFR Gustavo Zayas
  • MarkB
    Posts: 1,025
    Jeff Ostrowski responds:
    https://www.ccwatershed.org/2021/11/02/cardinal-cupich-publicly-demands-greater-use-of-latin-gregorian-chant-at-chicago-masses/

    You can tell he's writing from a place of hurt and frustration, but I think his points are also quite good.

    If the Church is going to decommission the 1962 Missal and impose liturgical uniformity in the Roman Rite in the form of the Novus Ordo Missae, I think much good will result if those attached to the 1962 Missal face the music and bring their ars celebrandi to the Novus Ordo and celebrate it more authentically and more in accord with the Council's express intent for liturgical reform.

    There is also the possibility that they might just go to SSPX chapels.
    Thanked by 4CharlesW Dixit_Dominus_44 toddevoss Don9of11
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,177
    Those who bring their "ars celebrandi" with them with be sent to places like the St. John Vianney Institute for psychological evaluation and reprogramming into the gnu-Church, or will be laicized.
    Thanked by 4ServiamScores CCooze KARU27 tomjaw
  • Andrew_Malton
    Posts: 1,159
    The 1962 Roman Missal, which might or might not be the most current Missal edition of the Roman rite, could become the basis of a new typical edition of the Rite, and so itself be “decommissioned”. (What a horrible word, what is it, a helicopter?)

    The Roman rite itself cannot be suppressed or “decommisioned”. What could that mean?

    And the Montinian rite, which is a different rite that emerged out of certain religious and social movements in the mid-last century, and was established largely by Pope Paul VI (Montini), will no doubt continue its own uniform and authentic way.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,724
    There is also the possibility that they might just go to SSPX chapels.

    Possibility, or foregone conclusion?
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • Nathan_the_Organist
    Posts: 434
    I like what Ostrowski said, and I agree with his logic. However, most liturgical modernists haven't read enough of Vatican II's documents on the liturgy to understand what Vatican II asked for. Something tells me that what Cupich is calling for in regards to conformity with Vatican II isn't what Vatican II said we should conform to. I think the Cardinal hasn't arrived at the same conclusion as Ostrowski.
  • Schönbergian
    Posts: 1,063
    Part of the problem I see is that Extraordinary Form communities exclusively use a Pre-Vatican II edition of the Missal. If the argument is that the reform of the liturgy that occurred was flawed in implementing the wishes of the Council, or that the Ordinary Form represents a fundamentally different rite, then a separate reform of the 1962 Missal should be proposed that updates it in line with the wishes of the Council. To my knowledge, no such reform has ever been seriously promoted or considered by the loudest voices within the community.

    You simply cannot have two halves of Catholicism simultaneously existing on either side of a pivotal ecumenical council. Unfortunately, the most hardcore traditionalists seem to pretend that Vatican II never existed rather than merely preferring the Extraordinary Form in its own right, and that has led to these disciplinary actions (whether they are fair or not)
    Thanked by 4CHGiffen CharlesW toddevoss Elmar
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,177
    Schoenbergian: Part of the issue is that 1962 is that last Typical Edition of the Missal issued prior to the Typical Edition of the Novus Ordo in 1969; And that is what permission was granted for: the use of the Typical Edition of 1962. I don't think that its necessarily fair to fault people for using that which they have been ordered to use per the prior Motu Proprios of Ecclesia Dei and Summorum Pontifficum. I have heard some debate on whether when using the Editio Typica of 1962 the provisions of Paul VI in Inter Oecumenici, et cet., should be applied, and the general consensus is that since John Paul II & Benedict XVI never made reference to them, but only that the 1962 edition should be followed, most use 1962 without any alterations: IIRC there are some (NB:) SSPX communities (in France) which use the 1962 with the rubrical changes of 1964 & 1967--I think even Lefebvre used these.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,372
    1962 was the last editio typica of the complete Missal but in 1965 the rubrics were revised, formally decreed, and published in editio typica, giving effect to Inter Oecumenici. Missals from then on contain these revised rubrics. this: http://blog.adw.org/2015/01/a-look-at-the-actual-mass-of-vatican-ii-the-1965-missal/ Further more radical changes were promulgated in 1967. Archbishop Lefebvre used these and AFAIK raised no objection to them, it was some of his followers who pushed him into returning to 1962. JPII was concerned either to bring Lefebvre back on board or at least chip off some of his followers and recover them, that was his motive for approving 1962, and it was still a major concern of BXVI, as it still is.
  • Schönbergian
    Posts: 1,063
    Salieri, my issue is not with the use of the 1962 Missal but with the view of it as something that required no revision. It gives the impression of the EF being an implicit rejection of the principles of Vatican II and the desire to ignore the Council's revisions to the Roman Rite. If, however, the Novus Ordo is irrevocably flawed, and constitutes a separate rite altogether, what would the issue be with a cautious revision of 1962 with the hindsight of Bugnini's reform? Was the "plan" to place the 1962 in stasis for eternity, thus literally reverting to liturgical historicism?
    Thanked by 2toddevoss CHGiffen
  • toddevoss
    Posts: 162
    I'm always interested in "where the rubber meets the road" - concrete applications of the otherwise abstracted "blah-blah". So far Cardinal Cupich has supported the Canons of St. John Cantius. For those who don't know, they have a charism to promote "beauty" and celebrate BOTH the (formerly known as) OF and the EF every Sunday (actually every day). Sundays have OF - Latin, OF - English, EF -Low, EF Solemn, and maybe EF -sung (can't recall but you get the point). And of course, they celebrate the OF with traditional options with great beauty and reverence. But if the long-term goal is only the Novus Ordo , then somewhere down the line, he is going to have to have a difficult conversation with them (or perhaps his Successor) if TC is not softened or even revoked by the next Pope. Unlike FSSP , the curtailment of the EF would not leave the Canons without their charism, it would just deprive it of one of its richest expressions. That would not be the worst case. The worst case would be to come down on them on "how" they celebrate the OF. I actually don't see Cardinal Cupich doing that (not that I am a fan of Cardinal Cupich). He had already come to an understanding with the Canons several years ago and I think respects their very young leader (and yes I am very well aware of the unfortunate situation of the original founder and yes Cupich may have been unfair to him - but we will never know).
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • Randolph Nichols
    Posts: 398
    I'm glad toddevoss brought up the case of the Canons of St. John Cantius in Chicago. Their home parish and its outreach have been amazingly successful and Cardinal Cupich knows taking a hard line would be politically treacherous. That the Canons have decided to continue streaming Masses only enhances a growing appeal for their liturgies and one can only wonder if and when Cupich will be pressured by Rome to act.
    Thanked by 4CHGiffen tomjaw CCooze toddevoss
  • rich_enough
    Posts: 1,033
    If the argument is that the reform of the liturgy that occurred was flawed in implementing the wishes of the Council, or that the Ordinary Form represents a fundamentally different rite, then a separate reform of the 1962 Missal should be proposed that updates it in line with the wishes of the Council. To my knowledge, no such reform has ever been seriously promoted or considered by the loudest voices within the community.

    And what would be the point in calling for such a reform? As far as Rome is concerned, it has already been carried out in the Mass of Paul VI, which according to TC, is what the Council intended. So you are faulting the traditionalists for failing to advocate what would be DOA anyway.
    Unfortunately, the most hardcore traditionalists seem to pretend that Vatican II never existed rather than merely preferring the Extraordinary Form in its own right, and that has led to these disciplinary actions (whether they are fair or not).

    I still don't understand the notion of suppressing a rite based on the opinions of those who advocate for it. By this logic, the newer rite should be suppressed or curtailed since many of those who advocate for it most ardently take positions directly contrary to the teaching of the Church on important doctrinal issues.

    If the rite is flawed, suppress it; if the people are, instruct or discipline them. But suppressing an historical rite in the interests of historical continuity fools no one (except those not interested in such continuity anyway) and will only further alienate those you are claiming to bring back to the fold. At the same time those who "prefer the Extraordinary Form in its own right" are deprived of a legitimate and beautiful expression of the faith.
    Thanked by 4tomjaw ServiamScores drforjc KARU27
  • Schönbergian
    Posts: 1,063
    And what would be the point in calling for such a reform? As far as Rome is concerned, it has already been carried out in the Mass of Paul VI, which according to TC, is what the Council intended. So you are faulting the traditionalists for failing to advocate what would be DOA anyway.

    The seemingly perpetual use of the 1962 Missal and the implicit rejection of the reforms that Vatican II called for were never going to last, in that case. The fantasy that the Extraordinary Form would become the dominant rite in the Church as a living liturgy and eventually supersede the Ordinary Form, while remaining in liturgical stasis seemingly forever, would never occur. If you are correct that traditionalists felt zero reform was possible in the Church's political climate, what was the plan for the next few decades or centuries? Why would they talk about the "Mass of the Ages" as a separate rite that would never be allowed to develop or be revised in a natural way, as occurred for centuries? How anyone could see this as the basis for a sustainable movement, rather than a temporary concession to the SSPX and groups like it, makes no sense to me.
    I still don't understand the notion of suppressing a rite based on the opinions of those who advocate for it. By this logic, the newer rite should be suppressed or curtailed since many of those who advocate for it most ardently take positions directly contrary to the teaching of the Church on important doctrinal issues.
    The reformed rite is the normative liturgy of the Church, as opposed to being permitted as an olive branch towards traditionalist communities like the SSPX. As the purpose of that olive branch was distorted and led to a further rift, it was deemed harmful to the very goals it originally had.

    I do not agree with the manner in which this was carried out, but tolerating outright rejection of Vatican II and the authority of the Pope was never tenable in the long-term.
    Thanked by 5MarkB a_f_hawkins CHGiffen Elmar toddevoss
  • NihilNominisNihilNominis
    Posts: 986
    The fantasy that the Extraordinary Form would become the dominant rite in the Church as a living liturgy and eventually supersede the Ordinary Form, while remaining in liturgical stasis seemingly forever, would never occur.


    And yet the rite is not celebrated now as it was in 1962 -- new feasts, new prefaces, change to the Good Friday orations, adaptations, such as vernacular lessons during Low Mass, permitted....

    No, it was on its way to becoming a specific *use* of the Roman Rite, just as the Ordinariate liturgy.

    This kind of thinking only makes sense when you think of the Church from the top down, like a corporation. When you apply Catholic Social Teaching to the Church, when you recognize the application of subsidiarity, the question turns on its head.

    Stable, permitted liturgies that are nourishing really vital communities in their lives of grace should, on principle, be permitted to continue. And there are perfectly feasible, historical, paralleled-in-the-present-day legal and disciplinary structures that can accommodate that.

    And this is what Ordinaries and Pastors do all the time with less-than-exemplary parish liturgical customs being permitted to continue. That the USA doesn't even have a national hymnal -- that the parish down the road is allowed to do its LifeTeen thing -- that the other parish has a NeoCatechumenal Way Liturgy -- but this permission for a stable group of the faithful who have, many over their entire lifetimes, worshipped in this particular, historic, until-recently-praiseoworthy way, is a bridge too far in a Church with that mindset, where visceral unity is not a value at all?

    I just have a hard time with that.
    Thanked by 5tomjaw KARU27 CCooze trentonjconn rich_enough
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    Schoenbergian,

    I won't speak for anyone else here, except myself, but the concept of "accepting" or "rejecting" the Council is mired in the whole question of what the Council taught, and with what degree of authority it did so. I don't want people to say "see.... your normal parish is what the Council required". I want propositions stated in such a way that they can clearly be assented to (or clearly rejected, I guess) based on terms which actually mean specific things.

    When I listen to Pope Francis, I find that St. Francis de Sales could have said these things and I would have had no trouble accepting the profound truths they represent, but Francis of Rome says them and I see stalking horses of heresy, and am alarmed that ambiguity (not clarity) is the means and the end at the same time.
    Thanked by 2KARU27 tomjaw
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    No one would think of arguing that the earlier forms of the Code or the Catechism could still be used.
    eyebrows raised higher than the tippy top of my head... and honestly, this is not even worth the time it takes for me to argue about it... other's have brought this to its LOGICAL conclusion, in an age where logic is rejected and personal feelings are above all. This argument totally destroys the ruse...

    https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2021/11/an-unwanted-gift-from-cardinal-cupich.html
    Thanked by 3CCooze tomjaw Gustavo Zayas
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,372
    I don't agree with all the provisions of TC, but the general principle implied by the title, and by Cdl Cupich is that liturgical regulation is the responsibility of the relevant Ordinary. Not uniformity imposed by the Congregation of Rites or its successors, or the Pope. Well, that has been a guiding principle for the Church since Apostolic times, so we should all be able to accept it.
    But we can't expect to avoid diversity at the same time, and we can't expect that our Ordinary will give us what we want, even if the neighbouring diocese has it. To take an example not of Mass, the normal age of Confirmation has migrated over the last century in different diocese at different rates and in different directions. That can be a problem for any child who moves from one diocese to another.
  • bhcordovabhcordova
    Posts: 1,152
    No one would think of arguing that the earlier forms of the Code or the Catechism could still be used.


    If I remember correctly, when the Catechism of the Catholic Church was published, it was said that it did not do away with the Roman Catechism. The Roman Catechism was written for priests in ministering to the faithful, while the Catechism of the Catholic Church was written for bishops as a guide to writing local catechisms. So the comparison with the Ordinary Form and the Extraordinary Form are really inappropriate.
    Thanked by 2MarkB Gustavo Zayas
  • pfreese
    Posts: 147
    “When I listen to Pope Francis, I find that St. Francis de Sales could have said these things and I would have had no trouble accepting the profound truths they represent, but Francis of Rome says them and I see stalking horses of heresy, and am alarmed that ambiguity (not clarity) is the means and the end at the same time.”

    To a certain extent, that’s on you, not the Holy Father. That you may harbor a sneaking suspicion that he’s a heretic does not make it so. The sooner that we who expect our ecclesial leaders to give us charity and the presumption of good faith, practice it ourselves, the better things will turn out for all of us in this world and the next.
    Thanked by 3Schönbergian a_f_hawkins bhcordova
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,724
    As the purpose of that olive branch was distorted and led to a further rift,

    I take umbrage with the sentiment implied by this statement writ large; you're hardly the first to express it whether explicitly or implicitly.

    It seems to me that the onus of the burden of proof is upon those who change the tradition, rather than those who maintain it, to prove their case. That is to say, I do not believe that those who continue using the old rite are the ones responsible for widening the gap of the rift. That responsibility falls on the shoulders of those who push the church in ever more modernist directions, placing yet further distance between what they do and the traditions from which they split.

    Saying otherwise is to at least tacitly express the idea that the saints of old are in schism with the modern church as though the saints are the ones at fault. I don't disagree that there is a difference between the two factions in the Church... I find it quite obvious. But to imply that those who hold as sacred what was always held as sacred are somehow in the wrong, is preposterous.
    Thanked by 4tomjaw CHGiffen KARU27 Gustavo Zayas
  • CharlesSA
    Posts: 163
    ServiamScores - you just expressed 100% what I have thought ever since TC came out and accused "traditionalists" as being divisive. The modernists and those splitting from tradition are the ones that were divisive in the first place.
    Thanked by 4tomjaw ServiamScores KARU27 Gustavo Zayas
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    That you may harbor a sneaking suspicion that he’s a heretic does not make it so.
    pffff... who's harboring a sneaking suspicion???? Why do think "bishop is rising against bishop"?!!!, serious charges have been levied canonically, and that Elvis has left the building?
    It seems to me that the onus of the burden of proof is upon those who change the tradition, rather than those who maintain it, to prove their case. That is to say, I do not believe that those who continue using the old rite are the ones responsible for widening the gap of the rift. That responsibility falls on the shoulders of those who push the church in ever more modernist directions, placing yet further distance between what they do and the traditions from which they split.

    Saying otherwise is to at least tacitly express the idea that the saints of old are in schism with the modern church as though the saints are the ones at fault. I don't disagree that there is a difference between the two factions in the Church... I find it quite obvious. But to imply that those who hold as sacred what was always held as sacred are somehow in the wrong, is preposterous.
    And this is very well stated... and absolutely spot on. You can bet your bottom dollar The Gnu-Arians will certainly have to answer for the present apostasy before the Lord of Lords... I wouldn't want to be anywhere near that camp when the bolts start flying.
    Thanked by 1ServiamScores
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,724
    ServiamScores - you just expressed 100% what I have thought ever since TC came out and accused "traditionalists" as being divisive. The modernists and those splitting from tradition are the ones that were divisive in the first place.

    It's the classic "accuse them of what you are guilty of to throw them off balance." To a 't'.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • Schönbergian
    Posts: 1,063

    It seems to me that the onus of the burden of proof is upon those who change the tradition, rather than those who maintain it, to prove their case. That is to say, I do not believe that those who continue using the old rite are the ones responsible for widening the gap of the rift. That responsibility falls on the shoulders of those who push the church in ever more modernist directions, placing yet further distance between what they do and the traditions from which they split.
    The Church has the authority to alter and regulate its own liturgy, whether we like the changes, agree with the changes, or believe that the changes were made in good faith. In that sense, the onus is on those who wish to use an older form of the liturgy different than the most recent editions of the Roman Missal. If you think the reforms of the 1960s were of poor quality or ill-advised, then propose another one.

    Saying otherwise is to at least tacitly express the idea that the saints of old are in schism with the modern church as though the saints are the ones at fault. I don't disagree that there is a difference between the two factions in the Church... I find it quite obvious. But to imply that those who hold as sacred what was always held as sacred are somehow in the wrong, is preposterous.

    There is no schism, because those saints were using the current form of the liturgy in their era, just as individuals who lawfully celebrate the Extraordinary Form today do. I don't see how you can draw that conclusion.
    I want propositions stated in such a way that they can clearly be assented to (or clearly rejected, I guess) based on terms which actually mean specific things.

    Sacrosanctum Concilium and the partial reforms of 1965 and 1967 would be a good place to start.
    Thanked by 5smvanroode CHGiffen MarkB CharlesW toddevoss
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,724
    The Church has the authority to alter and regulate its own liturgy, whether we like the changes, agree with the changes, or believe that the changes were made in good faith. In that sense, the onus is on those who wish to use an older form of the liturgy different than the most recent editions of the Roman Missal. If you think the reforms of the 1960s were of poor quality or ill-advised, then propose another one.

    For starters, it is not my place to propose reforms for the liturgy. There are plenty I could offer and loads I'd love to see, but it's not my place. So you can't simply throw that at me, a layman, as though I'm just supposed to 'put up or shut up.' I may not be the right person to propose reforms—as such—but I sure as hell know liturgical abuse when I see it. And I've lived 32 years in the N.O. and I've also read the documents of the church, and I know that we were sold a false bill of goods. What we got was not what was asked for, and I've paid the price for it my whole life. So let's not pretend like I don't have skin in the game. I've had to plead to have my children baptized according to the old rite. I've literally been fired from one church job simply for "insisting on kneeling down to receive communion" which is my literal right.

    I'd sure love to know, for instance, how SC can call for latin to be retained, and Paul VI can publish a special booklet with chants every catholic should know, and then find yourself absolutely driven out of town, practically with firebrands, just for attempting to sing in latin in church. I'd also love to know how the ever-beloved "council fathers" can ask for these things, only to recently find out that the vatican has prohibited reissuing the missal of Paul VI in latin. Hmmm... let's see... perhaps it's because the people steering the boat are coo-coo for cocoa puffs! This is what I mean when I say the onus of the burden is on THEM, not ME, to prove that we are supposed to "submit to the wishes of the council" whilst simultaneously trampling them underfoot!

    As for the concept of schism writ large, I'm proposing that the broader trend far transcends (no pun intended) the liturgy. The clerics who are clamping down on the TLM are people who prefer banal novus ordo liturgies with liturgical dance, indian shamans, and the like, yes, but they are often also pro LGTB (in a sense that far exceeds recognizing innate human dignity and goes on to subtly express support for mortal sin), don't believe in the Real Presence (as is evidenced by their behavior at the altar and the abuses they permit in their dioceses), don't believe in the traditional devotional life of the church, etc. And we all know that all of these things ultimately stem from the liturgical life of the church. So the schism far transcends liturgy, although it is currently the linchpin issue being debated.

    There is no schism, because those saints were using the current form of the liturgy in their era,

    And just to be clear, it's difficult to claim "schism" simply based on the rite. Schism implies much more than a liturgical preference. It implies disobedience to JUST commands (yet to be proven) and typically persistent adherence to heretical belief. The saints are not heretics. But I'd bet my bottom dollar that if St. Alphonsus Liguori, or St. Thomas Aquinas, or St. Fracis de Sales, or St. Teresa of Avila, or, or, or, showed up at the average parish today, they'd have a conniption! (That's assuming they even recognized the parish was a church to begin with!) Verily I say.

    I refuse——read me very carefully here——I refuse to be labeled as schismatic (or allow others to be called so) for holding to the ancient beliefs expounded by the church fathers, and for wishing to see the liturgy (that was THE liturgy of the roman catholic church for centuries) flourish. I refuse to be labeled as 'schismatic' whilst people pretend like the clerics that push the modernist agenda are in "full communion" with the church all the while denying fundamental dogmas of the faith. PiPs who live in objective and perpetual states of mortal sin, who pick and choose what they will believe like it's a Golden Corral buffet and blaspheme the Holy Eucharist week in and week out are "catholics in good standing" but trads are schismatic. Here we shift from outrage to hilarity. "The best humor is based on real life."

    Again, the onus of the burden is not on those who hold the tradition, but those who seek to change it.
    "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."
    Thanked by 3tomjaw KARU27 Gustavo Zayas
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,372
    those who hold as sacred what was always held as sacred
    The official position is, surely, not that these things are no longer sacred, just that some of them are out of current use. For example all those diocesan rites which had the required pedigree but which the diocese chose to discard in favour of Pius V Missal. Many French dioceses maintained their rites until the 19th century, when they formally replaced them. Or those many sequences which were never in the Roman Curial Missal.
    Thanked by 4CharlesW Schönbergian CHGiffen toddevoss
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,934
    As for the concept of schism writ large, I'm proposing that the broader trend far transcends (no pun intended) the liturgy. The clerics who are clamping down on the TLM are people who prefer banal novus ordo liturgies with liturgical dance, indian shamans, and the like, yes, but they are often also pro LGTB (in a sense that far exceeds recognizing innate human dignity and goes on to subtly express support for mortal sin), don't believe in the Real Presence (as is evidenced by their behavior at the altar and the abuses they permit in their dioceses), don't believe in the traditional devotional life of the church, etc.


    You are making some huge assumptions here. I was 15 when the Council ended. Not once have I ever seen Indian shamans or support for mortal sin. Nor have I seen liturgical abuses. That must be a strange place where you attend church.

    I'd also love to know how the ever-beloved "council fathers" can ask for these things, only to recently find out that the vatican has prohibited reissuing the missal of Paul VI in latin.


    Could it have to do with the fact that publishing is expensive and that missal doesn't sell? Is there even any demand for it?

    I've had to plead to have my children baptized according to the old rite. I've literally been fired from one church job simply for "insisting on kneeling down to receive communion" which is my literal right.


    Yeah, that would be pretty ridiculous. I have never seen such where I live.
    Thanked by 1toddevoss
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    Not once have I ever seen Indian shamans or support for mortal sin. Nor have I seen liturgical abuses. That must be a strange place where you attend church.
    You have lived an unusually sheltered existence in liturgy land, or you may be in denial.
    Thanked by 3ServiamScores tomjaw Jahaza
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,934
    Nope, just lived among good priests and people who did as they should.
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,724
    You are making some huge assumptions here. I was 15 when the Council ended. Not once have I ever seen Indian shamans or support for mortal sin. Nor have I seen liturgical abuses. That must be a strange place where you attend church.

    You clearly didn't see the recent opening mass for the synod on synodality:
    https://youtu.be/D6f6du2hv0g?t=749
    Two weeks ago. Bishops in attendance. Indian shaman bowing to the four cardinal directions, waiving an eagle's wing (oh the irony) and incense, liturgical dance, half-naked people in costumes dancing to drums. The whole gambit.
    Thanked by 2tomjaw KARU27
Add a Comment