SSPX in schism
TLM abrogated

or... not!

Sure, some people want both of these to be true, but since neither one is, can we take these canards out to the rubbish heap?

I almost was going to read through the thread but of course I should have known what to expect from MarkB and others, and stopped reading early on after contemporaryworship92 accused tomjaw of "intellectual dishonesty"...

Excuse me, but TC itself and Abp Roche are the ones based entirely on intellectual dishonesty, not the ones defending the traditional rite. Pope Francis and also Abp Roche afterward more recently regurgitated the outright, verifiable LIE that Pope Benedict (and JP2) allowed the TLM only as a concession to the SSPX. I repeat, that is a verifiable, blatant LIE. And you think traddies are the ones being intellectually dishonest? Pope Francis and those who support TC accuse traddies of being divisive, yet it was the creators of the NO and its supporters who themselves created the division by upending the liturgy and life of the Church in the 60s and beyond - and it is traddies who are being intellectually dishonest? Pope Francis thinks (or at least pretends to think) he is acting in a similar vein to Pius V following the Council of Trent, who got rid of any rite less than 200 years old and merely codified the Roman Rite as it had already existed for centuries; yet he tries to suppress the centuries old Roman Rite while trying to force the 52 year old Novus Ordo on everyone - and it is traddies who are intellectually dishonest? Pope Francis and Archbishop Roche talk about unity in the Church and the importance of maintaining communion: "to safeguard communion, which, as the Apostle Paul reminds us (cf. 1 Cor 11:17-34), is a necessary condition for being able to participate at the Eucharistic table" (that is a quote from Dec. 18th's document)...yet strangely enough, those who actually are dissenting from perennial Catholic teachings (Biden, Pelosi, etc. etc. etc.) can't be rebuked about eating and drinking judgement upon themselves in their reception of communion...and traddies are the ones being intellectually dishonest? Give me a big freaking break. One could go on and on and on and on and on.

People need to stop engaging the truly intellectually dishonest and giving MarkB and others an audience for their absurd and Church-destroying pope/Vat-2 worshiping. Let them have their own "springtime" and meanwhile let us all continue on as usual and do what is right and best for our sanity and for our own spiritual well-being and that of our families - i.e. ignore these uncharitable, unpastoral, untraditional, false, diabolical commands, which are not commands within the bounds of anyone's authority to begin with.

No one - NO ONE, including any pope - has the right or authority to destroy and/or forbid an apostolic liturgy under any circumstances, but especially not by imposing an entirely man-made, antiquarian, committee-made liturgy based on lies and hatred of (or at best, disdain for) tradition in its place.

1) Pray for Pope Francis and his conversion and that of all the hierarchy;
2) Pray, fast, do penance for our own full conversion of heart and holiness; (must happen simultaneously with #1 lest we be/become hypocrites)
3) Meanwhile, get yourself and your family away from any jailer of tradition (an interpretation of "traditionis custos" that seems perfectly apt to me) - yes, upend your and your families roots to have a traditional Mass and traditional education in the faith reasonably nearby. It is so, so worth it, so unimaginably worth it for our souls and especially those of our little ones!
4) Do what you can to charitably get/lead anyone and everyone to a traditional Mass and to the traditional Catholic faith as well.

This is the best bet for our spiritual and mental health for the time being. My apologies for the "outburst" - please let's pray for each other and only engage in conversation those who will actually hear the truth; no need to waste our precious time for prayer, family, and work engagements on destructive topics such as this. (Last few days of Advent would be great for focusing on this...take heed o self...)

@Schönbergian
The level of discussion, hmmm
Considering that we have people saying the Pope can do anything, behave like a despot, and we have to follow his every whim. When...
1. Only Janus could follow every whim of the present incumbent.
2. Papal authority is limited and not absolute and is clearly explained in Vatican I

Considering we have people that continually try to excommunicate the SSPX, with no authority to do so, when Pope Francis has been unusually consistent in his view that the situation is only a "minor disciplinary matter". Let alone the continual and regular edicts from Rome that they are not schismatic.

N.B. We did have a forum wide moratorium, the last discussion on this topic also started creating more hot air than light was closed down!

Pope Francis thinks (or at least pretends to think) he is acting in a similar vein to Pius V following the Council of Trent, who got rid of any rite less than 200 years old and merely codified the Roman Rite as it had already existed for centuries; yet he tries to suppress the centuries old Roman Rite while trying to force the 52 year old Novus Ordo on everyone

I confess: this was one of the things about TC that I found most fascinating. It is such an odd lie to proffer since it’s so easily dismantled by anyone with any modicum of knowledge about church history. Clearly the powers that be are either blinded by the Enemy, or are really banking on the fact that the average PiP doesn’t know much about Pius V and the promulgation of his missal. (On the latter front, they certainly have some wiggle room.)

It was just such an odd and blatant lie, and what’s worse: a complete inversion of the truth, as you mention.

It rings in the ear the exact same as the “all are welcome / Jesus loved sinners!” [so they don’t need to convert; they can come as they are and stay that way] logic, completely ignoring the fact that Christ called everyone to repentance and always ended his healings with “go forth and sin no more.” It’s all just a convenient re-telling of the story.

———
As for moratoriums on threads, all I will offer is that I find it disappointing that this forum is relatively quick to shut discussions down; more so than any other forum I frequent, right down to even editing jokes out of threads that do not attack anyone. (Lighten up)

“The offended will be with us always until the end of time” saith the Lord. I wear my big-boy panties to this forum, and I presume others do too, which is why I engage the way that I do. We all have the choice to disengage or not read various threads (a choice I enacted half way through the long original threads when TC first dropped).

Reform is one thing. Replace is another. They are not synonymous. Not by a long shot. (This is, of course, the crux of the matter.)

And even if one accepts that the council fathers had the right to replace it outright, one may rightly wonder whether or not doing so was prudent, or if doing so has borne fruit. To these questions, I would answer in the negative, but that's me. It seems the height of hubris to take an ancient rite—with roots in the apostles themselves—and scrap it, based on modern ideals. That is earthly, rather than eternal, thinking.

The target there was almost certainly Confirmations and ordinations. I suspect the pontifical mass itself was just collateral damage.

As for moratoriums on threads, all I will offer is that I find it disappointing that this forum is relatively quick to shut discussions down; more so than any other forum I frequent, right down to even editing jokes out of threads that do not attack anyone. (Lighten up)

Some people find venting cathartic, yes? It seems that some on this thread think that trads are just being nitpicky about some minor decision in the Church that will affect no one.

But, again, consider the ramifications - we are dealing with people who have said that a Latin Mass can no longer be so much as mentioned in the church bulletin. Or the fact that a priest can no longer binate, if one of the masses is a TLM. Let that sink in. The number of masses being offered in the world is now to be reduced out of a call for 'union'. If you consider the intrinsic value of the Holy Sacrifice, offered in any form, doesn't any such measure seem drastic? Is it a wonder, that sometimes those of a traditional bent sometimes question whether such actions are done out of a spirit of genuine solicitude for the faithful, or as a mere power play?

How are the 'trads' supposed to react? Remain silent? Bottle up any feelings they have of anger, disappointment, etc.? Let there be a moratorium on this thread because some find it uncomfortable? Has there ever been a situation where ignoring the problem has been a good solution? Or, should we follow in Pope Francis's example, and try to bring some resolution through honest dialogue on this subject?

Out of my morbid curiosity, I made a quick survey of other online forums which make reference to La Dubia de Cucaracha. Trust me - our discussion is the height of civility compared to what's going on elsewhere. (No one, to my knowledge, has publicly prayed on this forum for the imminent demise of the reigning pontiff in light of this proclamation, to take one vivid example.) I should hope that such conversation should continue. I realize that some with differing views from mine will be tempted eventually to give up this conversation as pointless. Please don't. The best way to fight against the prevailing idea that trads (or anyone who has differing views from you in general) are insular, irrational, and generally angry people - is to treat them in exactly the opposite manner. If we stop treating people like they are outsiders, there's a good chance that a lot of them will stop acting like outsiders.

The point is - there is no beef with people on this forum. We take issue with ideas. Thankfully the Mystical Body isn't an Idea. It's a Person.

Stimson - thankyou, from one who would be happy to never attend a pre-1969 Mass again.
The measures taken by CDWDS seem to me inept, but I am trying to discern the reasoning. As far as ordinary parishes go, there has been occasionally a problem with new pastors arriving and, for example, turning over the principal Sunday Mass to the EF within a few weeks of arrival against the wishes of, apparently, a vast majority of his flock. The prohibition on advertising an EF Mass seems intended to discourage this, since heretofore there has been no measure, short of dismissal, that the bishop could deploy to stop the Pastor. OTOH bination would surely help the pastor support both ?/styles/tastes/factions/? (can't find a neutral word! sorry).
In a large parish I prefer the Oratorian approach of offering OF in both English and Latin, and an EF, on most days of the week, including Sundays and Solemnities. Unfortunately this seems to annoy CDWDS, and I do not understand that.

there has been occasionally a problem with new pastors arriving and, for example, turning over the principal Sunday Mass to the EF within a few weeks of arrival against the wishes of, apparently, a vast majority of his flock

Wow, sounds like you know traddy minded pastors with more chutzpah than in our neck of the woods. Not pastoral chutzpah, by any means . . .

n a large parish I prefer the Oratorian approach

Agreed. Something like the Oratorian/Cantian model, I think, could go a long ways towards smoothing over animosity between the two parties.

A note: the response to the dubia indicates that a 1962 Mass can't be included in the *Mass schedule* for a parish that has been approved as a hosting place, not necessarily that it cannot be published at all.

Here's hoping that's the case. It's a matter which seems quite unclear upon the first read, and frankly, coming from a niche of the Church where it's been claimed that checkerboard floor tiling is a sign of Masonic influence (no joke), it can be easy to see how that niche can read into things.

I would think anything by Mozart in E-flat would be more masonic than checkerboard floor tiles. Never heard about the floor tiles before.

some present or future pope could mandate that "Give us this day our daily popcorn" should become the sole lex orandi of the Roman Rite and abrogate "Give us this day our daily bread." Were this to happen, we all would be obliged to accept it.

It is with uncomfortable irony I relate to you the fact that PF did indeed change the wording of the Pater Noster in Italian this last year...
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/italian-bishops-roll-out-new-missal-that-includes-francis-our-father-change-altered-gloria/

Perhaps more subtle than 'popcorn', but the gauntlet has been thrown. (And the bishops let him get away with it.)

The Reform of the Reform movement could actually result in something if the EF is suppressed (as appears likely) and if the trads are willing to work to beautify the OF.

What a novel idea!

That would be an amusing gesture, had some bishops not already instructed, post-TC, that there is to be no enrichment of any sort from the TLM onto the NO.

You do realize that the trads have been working tirelessly to beautify and make-reverent the NO for decades?

[TRANSCRIPT] Archbishop Roche • “The Church has given us the celebration of the Mass in two forms. The Ordinary Form is the Mass that was developed under blessed Pope Paul VI in the 1960s; that is the Ordinary Form. That is the form that every Catholic Christian should hold as being part of their Catholic life. The Extraordinary Form is another expression, which is older than the ’69 Missal, and is a valid expression of the Church’s liturgy. I think what both have to learn from each other is, on the one hand, the wide application of the Scriptures (which is available in the Novus Ordo Missae), and on the other hand a real sense of reverence and worship…”

https://www.ccwatershed.org/2021/12/18/archbishop-roche-what-the-ordinary-form-has-to-learn-from-the-extraordinary-form/

It makes me sad to see traditionalists segregating themselves off into ghettos. The Church will be better off when you regularly interact with every other type of Catholic, and I think that both sides would benefit from this.

if the trads are willing to work to beautify the OF.

Used to be, trads could be part of ordinary parishes. And were. Often.

My trad choirs (multiple throughout my life) have sung for NO Masses, Confirmations, Ordinations, parish holy hours, diocesan events. As recently as Friday. Reliably, in force, and with devotion.Many times out-representing more local choirs even though they had ludicrously long drives. Because Jesus is it and serving Him is what they do. In OH they would even come 40+ min. every week during Lent to help me beautify stations at my extremely ordinary parish job, forgoing Liguori’s book at their home parish for the really dumb ones we were made to use.

The trads I have known are also generous financially contributing members to ordinary parishes. I had one stint of 3mo at an FSSP quasi-parish (b/c my girlfriend now wife went there, so
I did too for a summer). The rest of my work has all been Diocesan.

They also populate N.O. Daily Masses, and will use the other Sunday Masses when needful.

Now, they are compelled to choose: ghetto chapel (or existing quasi-parish) and TLM or ordinary parish and no TLM, according to the vision of this document. And if they are in a parish, sorry, you aren’t “part of the ordinary life of the parish.”

I have never stopped working and serving in NO contexts. And I have been enriched by the TLM for at least 16 years.

“Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen.”

@NihilNominis, that is a beautiful arrangement of Rorate Caeli!

Straw man fallacy.
Have a gander at all the traditional Latin chanted parts of the Mass ordinary in this order of worship from

Congratulations you have found the needle in a haystack... Although it must be said that the quality of the Liturgy has been poor in Rome for many, many years. Westminster Cathedral has been asked to help them a few times, but good liturgy does not seem part of the culture.

Excuse my ignorance, but what exactly is a felt banner ? We have a lot of beautiful ancient parish banners in rural France and I would really like them to get out of the sacristies and be put to use in processions and such.

(I don't see how a girl altar server is a real problem, even though I would gladly be rid of guitar as it is usually played at mass and of a good part of French hymns).

Of course, the dirty little secret in all of this is that much of what traditionalists hate about the NO is merely optional. And much of what the modernists hate about the EF consists of permitted options in the NO.

Imagine the following: A mass according to the Missal of Paul VI, said in Latin, using Eucharistic Prayer I, the gradual instead of the responsorial psalm, using chanted Latin propers, a Gregorian chant ordinary, said ad orientem, and for good measure omitting the sign of peace and with communion restricted to the host only (in these times of COVID one cannot be too careful).

This should make the supporters of TC very happy. Such a mass complies with the letter of current legislation. It is completely in accord with the unique expression of the Latin Rite. It should make traditionalists happy. It is in Latin. It has chant. It is said ad orientem.

If such a mass does not make the TC crowd happy, is it really about compliance with the letter of the law? If such a mass does not make traditionalists happy, is it really about the language and tradition?

For IdeK, here is a link to images of felt banners in church. Many of them appear to have been made as art projects by groups of schoolchildren.

Claire Asquith has an amusing anecdote in the beginning of her book on Shakespeare's Catholicism. The theatre she described, in Moscow, held a play which managed to pass the censors, but clearly attacked Soviet governing practices. Maybe we should do as that enterprising playwright did, or as a priest did, recently, according to Fr. John Zuhlsdorf: there will not be a scheduled TLM at 2:30, but between 2:29 and 2:31, there will a meeting of exiles from the Roman Empire.... or something like that.

@chonak, I wish I had taken a picture a few weeks ago when I was in a traditionalist church that had felt banners, made by the children, in Latin. I couldn't stop chuckling to myself.

@several others - one thing I've spent many years now exploring is the really inescapable sense that the two-liturgies is almost a secondary problem, or a symptom of, a bigger issue, which is the two-faiths-problem. That is, there is (in my personal experience) literally a double Church going on, with some overlap in the middle. One particular experience might serve to illustrate. I had gone to a TLM for the first time since my conversion. The one detail I remember with utter clarity is the priest descending to the communion rail carrying the ambula (not sure of name in English). He had it cupped in his arms as if it were a newborn infant child. That is, with such tenderness and care, he was descending those steps to bring Jesus to each communicant. I was astonished. I had never, ever, encountered any reverence like that before. I was used to people mobbing their way to the front, hosts being handed out by lay people in a casual way. And it wasn't incidental - the churches that celebrated the NO were specifically constructed to prevent ease of kneeling for communion. The ritual was constructed to be welcoming, informal and friendly. I leave aside, at the moment, whether that is right or wrong! Some people really like it, and for all I know that's what Jesus wanted us to do. But the point is that the structure of the rituals accompanies a completely different attitude to sin, to comportment, to how God is understood, to what God wants from us, to what we are here for.

The only times I have encountered a 'more traditional' style NO are at parishes that celebrate both rites. At other parishes, it is actually forbidden to include anything remotely similar to traditional rite practices. I know many new young priests who try to bring more reverence, who want to include Latin, who try to follow the rubrics set out in the Missal, and their superiors punish them for it and prohibit it. Members of the congregation tattle and complain. It's considered 'backward' or 'rigid'. Equally, if a traditionalist TLM-only priest dares to adapt in any way to the NO Mass or begins to also celebrate the NO Mass, some people will begin to complain and slander him online, and he will suffer for it.

I was actually so very happy to find several places that were bi-ritual, because for the first time I could simply sink into reliable Catholic teaching, great sermons, reverent Masses (and I would go to either). At those parishes, the extremists on both ends dropped away and there was a peace and mutual benefit flourishing.

Now, however, that is under threat. If forced to choose one side, I will probably go back to the traditionalists, since the theology and catechesis line up with my own values and faith more accurately. I really think it's a shame that these new papal documents have instigated more antagonism in a situation that was (to my mind) actually calming down and becoming more fruitful over the years.

An OF Mass with Latin was celebrated in my home parish of St. Mary's in Akron, Oh., for almost thirty years (1978-2005). The mass was celebrated on the last Sunday of the month, at one mass only, the 10am, this is the mass the choir sang. There was an entrance and recessional hymn in English that the congregation could sing. The mass settings were sung by the choir (not chanted). Offertory and Communion hymns were typically Latin hymns but not always. The Eucharistic Prayer, prayer 1, was chanted by the priest. The choir with congregation responded accordingly. The Lord's prayer was chanted in Latin.

The organist began playing in 1929 and so was quite familiar with the old rite. Everything was beautifully done. People came from miles around the parish to celebrate mass. It was greatly appreciated and loved by parishioners and visitors. Now, every other year on Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, Easter Vigil, and Easter Sunday we celebrated the OF with Latin as described above with the addition of a Christmas and Easter music program that began about a half-hour before mass.

I'm certain that this same approach could be done today or at the very least something similar. I haven't read or heard that Pope Francis, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, or my local Bishop are opposed to Latin in the OF since it is already permitted. In my current parish we celebrate the OF mass with some Latin, especially during Advent (which our priest options for Ad orientem), and during Lent. Many of our parishioners really appreciate the use of Latin and they've gotten used to it. I think it can be done and done beautifully. It's all in your attitude.

Of course, the dirty little secret in all of this is that much of what traditionalists hate about the NO is merely optional. And much of what the modernists hate about the EF consists of permitted options in the NO.

Don't tell the novus ordo crowd that though! They will insist you're wrong whilst simultaneously refusing to read the documents that prove the case.

Imagine the following: A mass according to the Missal of Paul VI, said in Latin, using Eucharistic Prayer I, the gradual instead of the responsorial psalm, using chanted Latin propers, a Gregorian chant ordinary, said ad orientem, and for good measure omitting the sign of peace and with communion restricted to the host only (in these times of COVID one cannot be too careful).

This should make the supporters of TC very happy. Such a mass complies with the letter of current legislation. It is completely in accord with the unique expression of the Latin Rite. It should make traditionalists happy. It is in Latin. It has chant. It is said ad orientem.

Would that this be true. But the cosmetics are only a part of the whole. Yes, they are important. Über important, in fact. But it goes much, much deeper than that. Have you ever compared the collects? Have you ever compared when/where some of the readings were changed (especially those sections suppressed in the new lectionary), or the propers were reordered? Have you ever compared the rites of baptism, exorcism, or confirmation side-by-side? If you do these things, you'll realize this is a structural problem, not a merely æsthetic one.

one thing I've spent many years now exploring is the really inescapable sense that the two-liturgies is almost a secondary problem, or a symptom of, a bigger issue, which is the two-faiths-problem. That is, there is (in my personal experience) literally a double Church going on, with some overlap in the middle.

This is the elephant in the room. (The elephant that the poachers just shot with tranquilizer.) This is also why TC was such a revelatory document. It is a blessing, in a way. For decades, trads have been crying that there were two rites, two theologies, two faiths. Everyone poo-pooed them and said they were overreacting. Then BXVI came along and said, "two halves of the same coin". This comforted some people, but true hardliners were never pacified...

But now, here we are: TC drops, and all of the sudden, Rome admits what the trads have been shouting from the rooftops for years: there ARE two rites. There ARE two schools of theological thought. There ARE two groups of catholics. ...there are, in essence, two faiths.

This is why they are now suddenly trying harder than ever to suppress the old rite. As long as it lives, the old Faith lives too, and that is muy problemático for them.

I doubt that Papa Ratzinger thinks there are two faiths, I certainly do not. The faith I was taught in Elementary school before 1950 is with me still and nourished by the NO. Of course I understand it more deeply than I did as a nine year old confirmandus, and I knew even then that the nuns were capable of error, and that I had to be prepared to cross-check things. A few years later, one of the monks who taught me remarked that it was impossible to preach without uttering heresy, and explained that whatever you say to a congregation, someone is going to misunderstand. I used to have a text on my office noticeboard

I know you think you understood what I said.
What you may not realise is that what you heard is not what I meant.

I accept that the Irish Jansenisim prevalent in my childhood has been largely displaced in the NO by an opposite set of heresies, but there are always fashionable heresies.

Well, whenever he wants, Pope Francis could issue instructions to make the OF more reverent. I wonder why he doesn't.