Responsa ad Dubia concerning Traditionis Custodes
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,177
    Update: I managed to watch the entire Mass (at 2x speed). All Italian, no chant except the "standard" mode vi triple Alleluia before the Gospel, and Litany of Ss., modern ordinary, no propers, just four-hymn sandwich (actually three...the "organ" played softly so Francis could talk to the families individually in the chapel after the Mass).
  • francis
    Posts: 10,759
    sometimes when i am at an NO mass I wish I could do 2x speed, especially through the homily.
    Thanked by 2tomjaw Salieri
  • Don9of11Don9of11
    Posts: 699
    I think some of you are being overly "critical" of the Pope's Mass in the Sistine Chapel.

    I'm surprised that you didn't comment negatively that there was no tabernacle visible. The fact that the Pope sat in front of what looks like a "high altar" doesn't strike me as "strange." Just because there is no crucifix on the "portable altar", that's what I call it, doesn't take away that there is a very large crucifix that everyone can see on the "high altar" flanked on either side by three large candles.

    Is there a rubric or other requirement that three candles be placed on the "portable altar" or even a crucifix? In my parish, our pastor has a crucifix on the "portable altar" and as far as I know, that's not a requirement but his choice. We do have three candles instead of two, again I don't think its a requirement.

    The Pope's mass was celebrated in Italian, that makes sense to me, since Italian is the language of the people. The choir members were wearing masks (oh my!), and still they sounded very good. The mass was concelebrated, how wonderful! An ancient gesture of anointing oil on the "breast" of the babies, isn't that beautiful?
    Thanked by 2Salieri a_f_hawkins
  • trentonjconn
    Posts: 605
    The absence of a crucifix which faces the priest symbolically diminishes the sacrificial nature of the sacrifice being offered and turns it into a conversation/narrative over the altar aimed at the people instead of God. It is concerning to see this anywhere, let alone in the highest places.

    Likewise, sitting in front of the high altar and facing the people over the table altar communicates a similar understanding of the Mass.

    Cathedrals in general, and one would think especially the Vatican which is the seat of the universal Church, have the duty to celebrate Mass at the highest level of perfection and solemnity, mirroring the liturgical praxis they wish to see in their lands of influence. That Rome is celebrating casually, without chant, entirely in the vernacular, and while jettisoning the propers, sends yet another concerning message.

    One would think, if the narrative of TC leading to a more traditional celebration of the NO were true, that Rome would be celebrating with far more chant and Latin, and with ad Deum posture. This is not what we see, which means that narrative (which is embraced as fact by some on this thread) cannot be taken seriously.

    That Rome cracks down brutally on tradition, and then follows up with a display of entirely typical mainstream N.O. mediocrity, does not send a reconciliatory message to those with traditional sympathies.
    Thanked by 3Salieri dad29 tomjaw
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,177
    (Don9of11:) I think you've missed my point: I specifically was not trying to be critical, but simply relate what actually took place regarding certain usages, such as the traditional altar arrangement, the use of Latin & chant, etc., that became hallmarks of the Ratzinger-Marini "Reform of the Reform" praxis and aesthetic, and their absence from the Pope's Mass yesterday, and a return to practices from the days of Paul VI and JP2 (I just thank God that there weren't any topless native ladies dancing about).

    If you read my comment from yesterday about the 'trajectory' leading up to TC, including the purge of the Ratzingerians and their replacement with followers of the Bologna School (i.e. "Hermeneutic of Rupture"), you would know that my point is that I do think that those who are now cheering TC and saying that we can now get back on track with the "Reform of the Reform" since the Usus Antiquior is no longer able to distract people, will have another think coming in a few months when (in line with TC and the Responsa that TLM practices shouldn't insert themselves into the N.O.) the Vatican puts an official end to any thoughts of Reform of the Reform.

    This isn't a criticism of Bergoglio, per se, but a criticism of the, I believe, erroneous idea that Reform of the Reform is a valid option in this pontificate. T.C. and its aftermath isn't just the end of the "Rite of Pius V", it's also an end to the "Rite of Michael Napier" (aka the "Brompton Use") or the "Rite of Richard Schuler" which some people keep pointing to as the "way the N.O. should be".

    If yesterday's Papal Mass is a clue as to the future direction that Rome wants the N.O. to take (which I think it is), then a heck of a lot of us who have put our N.O. eggs in the Benedict-Marini-RotR basket, will be paddle-less up a certain creek.
    ----
    TL;DR: Reform of the Reform is D.O.A.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • CatherineS
    Posts: 690
    I think this is now glaringly clear, too. (@Salieri)
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,965

    Cathedrals in general, and one would think especially the Vatican which is the seat of the universal Church, have the duty to celebrate Mass at the highest level of perfection and solemnity, mirroring the liturgical praxis they wish to see in their lands of influence.


    One would think that bishops, cardinals, and popes would be selected based on their highest levels of perfection and solemnity. Sadly, not even close. You let the Vandals take over the city, and you get what the Vandals are capable of, and it isn't pretty.
    Thanked by 3trentonjconn tomjaw dad29
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,445
    When the Pope celebrates Baptisms in the context of Mass, that Mass should be celebrated mainly in the vernacular, for obvious pastoral reasons. If you want to see Francis celebrating mainly in Latin, look at Epiphany. Gregorian Offertory, Communion, and Ordinary, orations and EP1 in Latin ... https://www.vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/libretti/2022/20220106-libretto-epifania.pdf
    and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWsyXmpXfUs
    Thanked by 1Don9of11
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    Hawkins,

    I can see some use of the vernacular at a baptism, but since the baby doesn't understand Italian yet, and the devil who is being cast out through the exorcisms does understand Latin.... the relevant parts should be in Latin.

    Since the vernacular Mass is the stable, unique form of the Roman Rite, we all understand what's going on because we've attended Mass regularly and it happens the same way every week.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • MarkB
    Posts: 1,060
    Rather than start a new thread -- and I notice that this thread is being passively suppressed by not returning it to the top of the discussions page when there are new posts -- here is a link to a very worthwhile article posted on the Rorate Caeli website:

    https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2022/01/the-radical-claim-and-fatal-flaw-of-tc.html

    The article is very long and dense, and requires attentive reading. It's very good. I hope people don't miss it on account of this thread not being returned to the top.

    I agree with the author's analysis until the end where he claims his analysis supports the conclusion of rupture between preconciliar and postconciliar missals and bodies of doctrine. I think he's made an unwarranted leap by making such a claim, at least unwarranted on the basis of his article's analysis. I'm aware that other authors have made similar claims for other reasons.

    I would counter that the author's analysis supports a conclusion that conciliar liturgical reform mandated and produced a revision of – not a rupture with – the preconciliar liturgical rites that entails the eventual replacement of the unreformed rites with the reformed rites, and that’s what TC is codifying. What the author interprets as “rupture”, I consider to be more of a shift in emphasis in ecclesiology and liturgical rubrics and praxis, all of which are consistent and compatible with prior liturgical tradition, not a rupture with it.
    Thanked by 3a_f_hawkins Don9of11 Elmar
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,177
    Of course, I notice that the Introit on Epiphany was replaced by Adeste Fideles. Also, that Francis is incensing the Crucifix at the back of the apse in St. Peter's---I don't recall this being a custom before---A sign of things to come?

    Let's wait for Candlemas and see what happens then.

    I understand the reason for using vernacular, and have nothing against it in principle; but I can't believe that the Papal Mass seen on the Feast of the Baptism is not signalling a paradigm shift in liturgical practice in the Vatican.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,445
    CG-Z, the parents and godparents of the babies do need the strengthening for the task they are assuming. In accordance with the clear command of the Council of Trent they, and the rest of the congregation, should receive instruction on the texts of the prayers, as well as the sacramental strengthening of Communion. I take the view that it is better to have the variable texts once in the vernacular "lest the hungry sheep look up and are not fed", the alternative of stopping to explain as the Mass proceeds would be generally unwelcome IMHO.
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    Hawkins,

    I'm not opposed to the Council of Trent, nor am I desirious that the faithful should be ignorant of the text of the prayers.

    Mark,

    A shift in emphasis can mean many things. If ecclesiology wanders away from a definition of the Church toward a definition of the People of God, it's entirely possible that the most important elements are dropped. If praxis wanders away from reverent reception of Holy Communion or from the need to be in the state of grace in order to be able to receive Holy Communion, instead proclaiming "ALL are welcome" or (worse yet) "It's not a prize for the perfect, but food for the journey"... something beyond emphasis has changed.
    Thanked by 3StimsonInRehab tomjaw CharlesW
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,965
    and I notice that this thread is being passively suppressed by not returning it to the top of the discussions page when there are new posts


    Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Probably a Jesuit.
    Thanked by 4tomjaw francis StimsonInRehab Elmar
  • trentonjconn
    Posts: 605
    "What the author interprets as 'rupture', I consider to be more of a shift in emphasis in ecclesiology and liturgical rubrics and praxis, all of which are consistent and compatible with prior liturgical tradition, not a rupture with it."

    As I've asserted elsewhere previously, if any saint, pope, or bishop from before the 20th century was suddenly plopped down into the Novus Ordo (be that celebrating it or simply witnessing it), they would without a doubt think they had encountered some sort of heretical/protestant/proto-protestant rite. I don't know what this could indicate other than rupture. Aggressive, radical departure from and rejection of previous tradition is itself rupture. I don't understand how the last 100 years of Church history can be looked at without it being painfully obvious that the latter half of the 20th century is an obvious departure from the former half.
    Thanked by 6tomjaw CharlesW Lars mmeladirectress StimsonInRehab dad29
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,762
    @Salieri
    We have had a whole series of Popes (from Pius X), that instead of being custodians of the Liturgy, have become tinkerers, revisers, editors, and inadvertent inventors of 'liturgy'.

    If the the Liturgy is the plaything of the Pope, his example matters. If he is not doing it the way he has legislated, it weakens the power of said legislation.

    So if we look at the diocese of Rome we can see how seriously the Pope, takes the Liturgy. It has been very poor for a very long time.

    We now have a choice,
    1. If the Pope can treat the Liturgy as his personal toy, he is responsible for all the poor practices. If he wants to improve the Liturgy Rome must become a centre of excellence. Papal Masses should always be a good example.

    2. The Popes become custodians of the Liturgy as with the Faith and pass it on unchanged.
    Thanked by 2CharlesW CHGiffen
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,445
    tomjaw: The 20th century Popes were trying to implement what the Council of Trent had called for - general participation in communion (from the elements consecrated at the Mass they attended), and instruction of the congregation in the texts spoken at that Mass.
    Instruction during Mass was a solemn duty laid on those who had a cure of souls. Having people disposed for communion is not something that can be so easily arranged. I don't know what happened after the Council, but these things had been forgotten by the time of Pius X. [Trent session XXII, ch 6 & ch 8].
    Reformers not adhering to their instructions happened after Trent as well as after VII, it seems.
    Thanked by 2StimsonInRehab Elmar
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    Tom,

    While it's true that popes from Pius X have made slight modifications to the liturgy, it's not fair to treat all modifications equally. As to the question about how the pope celebrates Mass, your point is perfectly valid, but I've not seen enough papal liturgies before 1978 to know whether they have treated it as their "personal toy".
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,965
    Given that the Protestants at the time of Trent believed that the participation of the congregation was essential for the consecration of the elements, I can see why congregational involvement came to be minimized in importance. With Benediction, which many Orthodox consider idolatry, the purpose was to counter the Protestant argument that there was nothing there but bread. If you go back to the time of Trent and review what the Protestants were teaching, the over-reactions by the council and even Pius V, become quite clear and understandable. Does that mean we must react so strongly to Protestants today, many of whom don't even believe what their founders taught? No, I don't think so.
    Thanked by 2MarkS Elmar
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,445
    But Charles the Council of Trent did call for participation in both the Mass of the Catechumens, by attending to the texts, and in the Mass of the Faithful, by receiving Communion. And for clergy to facilitate participation, if not by using the vernacular then by commentary. The view current in some trad circles that Mass is a purely clerical activity is, frankly, on the verge of heretical.
    Thanked by 3CharlesW Liam Elmar
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,965
    I agree the Trads, in order to separate themselves from, prove themselves superior to, or who knows why, the Novus Ordo, have sometimes gone to real extremes to prove a point. A point that never needed proving in the first place.

    Just because the Council of Trent said something, doesn't mean it was followed, Same situation exists today with Vatican II documents.
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    Charles,

    To answer your question about Protestants and our reaction to them,.... are they less wrong than they were then?

    To put the question a little differently, more broadly: when His Holiness attempts to quash the traditional Roman Rite, is he behaving more like a Protestant or more like a good Catholic ought to behave?
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,965
    Chris, I have given up trying to explain Pope Francis to anyone. I don't understand the man and he seems to work at cross-purposes to even himself.

    I was told this by a priest, and can't verify what he said. But he told me one of the the pope's superiors said of his last post, that it would take 20 years to straighten out the mess he left behind.

    Are Protestants less wrong? No, but clearly they don't hold as closely to the doctrines taught by their founders.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    Would you say, from your Eastern perspective, that Pope Francis' approach in TC is consistent with being a guardian of tradition, in any previously accepted meaning of these words?
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • MarkB
    Posts: 1,060
    Why is it called the "traditional Roman Rite"?

    Why not the obsolete Roman Rite? Or the unreformed Roman Rite? Or the previous Roman Rite? Or the superseded Roman Rite? Or the replaced Roman Rite?

    The Novus Ordo is the Roman Rite in the latest development of the liturgical tradition. That makes it part of the tradition. To contrast the "traditional Roman Rite" with the (no modifier) "Novus Ordo" is implicitly to communicate that the Novus Ordo does not participate in the Roman Rite's liturgical tradition.

    Why is it said that Pope Francis is attempting to "quash the traditional Roman Rite"?

    Why is he not instead codifying that the previous, unreformed Roman Rite is no longer the Roman Church's normative expression of prayer, and why is he not instead simply decreeing that eventually the previous, unreformed Roman Rite will be completely phased out of use in favor of the reformed Roman Rite that has superseded it?

    To be a guardian of tradition, then, is to be a guardian of what the Church has decreed and implemented in developing and advancing the liturgical tradition from what it was in 1962.

    Why should the traditionalists dictate the perspective and the language?
    Thanked by 2contemporaryworship92 Don9of11
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    Mark,

    The rite in question isn't obsolete, or unreformed, or previous, or superseded or replaced. Maybe that's why it's not called any of those things.

    It is in continuous use by priests who have the Holy Father's express permission to use it.

    I avoid using the expression "Novus Ordo" because of what it (advertently or inadvertently) conveys. That's a discussion for a different thread. Relevant here is that "Novus" is, in fact, a modifier.

    The Missal of Paul VI doesn't participate in the liturgical tradition in a way which is in continuation and development of previous forms. That's not my opinion. Fr. Gelineau, S.J., Fr Bouyer (also S.J, I think) and His Holiness Pope Francis all seem to think such a thing, and two of them have said so bluntly. In fact, it's precisely that it doesn't participate in that liturgical tradition BUT INTENTIONALLY DEPARTS FROM IT that makes it so dear to the most militant promoters of it. It borrowed some elements from previous iterations of the Roman Rite, and borrowed stuff from non-Roman rites. If the idea that it isn't part of the liturgical tradition is problematic for you, you've got much bigger problems to solve than a few annoying traditionalists: the problem is in your own camp.

    It is said that Pope Francis is trying to quash the old rite because.... he is. Any other reading, one which excludes this factual statement, is an attempt to present reality as other than it is. He may be acting in what he sees as the good of the Church, but that doesn't change the fact that he plans the extinction, eradication or elimination of the Roman Rite.


    Traditionalists aren't dictating the perspective and the language. I learned some years ago that I was in possession of the truth when my mind's picture conformed to objective reality. If speaking the truth (or telling the truth) makes one a traditionalist.... I guess I don't have a problem with that.
    Thanked by 4mmeladirectress trentonjconn tomjaw dad29
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,445
    Is there any evidence that any priest had the Holy Father's permission to use the 1962 Missal and rubrics in public between 1974 and 1984? I know there was the "Agatha Christi indult", but that was explicitly for the 1967 version of the rubrics. And I also understand that in fact priests did use the 1962 rubrics, which was illicit. Indeed after the first Sunday in Lent 1965, nowhere in the world was it licit to use the 1962 rubrics, according to the decree Nuper edita Instructione of 27 Jan 1965, as can be verified by consulting AAS 57 (1965) 408-409..
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,965
    Would you say, from your Eastern perspective, that Pope Francis' approach in TC is consistent with being a guardian of tradition, in any previously accepted meaning of these words?


    Any issues Pope Francis has with the Latin mass is the Roman Rite's problem, not ours. Even if we had a dog in the fight we couldn't change anything.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • francis
    Posts: 10,759
    As I've asserted elsewhere previously, if any saint, pope, or bishop from before the 20th century was suddenly plopped down into the Novus Ordo (be that celebrating it or simply witnessing it), they would without a doubt think they had encountered some sort of heretical/protestant/proto-protestant rite. I don't know what this could indicate other than rupture. Aggressive, radical departure from and rejection of previous tradition is itself rupture. I don't understand how the last 100 years of Church history can be looked at without it being painfully obvious that the latter half of the 20th century is an obvious departure from the former half.


    @trentonjconn ...you reminded me of this little piece of writing...

    What if the Pre-Vatican II Popes Were Actually Right?

    The Popes Were Vigilant. The popes were vigilant to protect their Catholic flock from the wolves:

    They Warned About Freemasons. The popes identified Freemasonry as a specific enemy of the Church:

    They Saw the Infiltration. The popes saw the ways in which the enemies of Catholicism had infiltrated the Church to spread their Liberal and Modernist errors:

    They Identified the Fatal Error of Doctrinal Progress. Various popes condemned the notion of doctrinal progress that has been the consistent theme of the progressivist leaders of the Church since Vatican II. Their insistence on the immutability of Catholic Truth was the firm bulwark that was ultimately overcome at Vatican II:

    They Taught that Truth and Error are Incompatible. The popes knew that Catholic Truth is completely incompatible with error and that it is absurd to accept some Catholic teachings and reject others:

    They Condemned Specific Errors. The popes also fought specific errors, and Blessed Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors condemned the following propositions, which we have seen promoted consistently since Vatican II:

    They Saw the End Result. In his letter to bishops regarding the Sillon, St. Pius X pointed to a world that appears to be emerging now:

    They Knew We Must Turn to God. These popes realized that we need to turn to God to overcome these errors:

    They Sought the Blessed Virgin Mary’s Intercession. Finally, the popes consistently emphasized the need to seek the Blessed Virgin Mary’s intercession:


    https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/5790-what-if-the-pre-vatican-ii-popes-were-actually-right
    Thanked by 2KARU27 tomjaw
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    Charles,

    I meant, rather, "based on what most people mean by 'guardians of tradition', does TC qualify, from an Eastern point of view?
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • trentonjconn
    Posts: 605
    "The Novus Ordo is the Roman Rite in the latest development of the liturgical tradition."

    The N.O. is the continuation of liturgical tradition in the same way that a married couple who have civilly divorced and live separately are still married.

    Is it the Mass? Yes. Do the prayers follow the same general order most of the time? Yes. Is it said by a priest? Yes. That's about the extent to which it shares in the liturgical tradition of the Roman Rite.
    Thanked by 3StimsonInRehab tomjaw francis
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,965
    I meant, rather, "based on what most people mean by 'guardians of tradition', does TC qualify, from an Eastern point of view?


    No, I would think not. Personal opinion, only.
    Thanked by 2tomjaw Chris Garton-Zavesky
Add a Comment