Serious question on living peaceably with your Ordinary

amindthatsuits

I am going to here restrict myself to things that that have happened, not speculation about things that are still developing in the matter of the Tridentine Rite in particular dioceses.

We have all seen what happens when a Bishop submits what he thinks is an appropriate accommodation for approval in Rome--Rome takes the opportunity to shut everything down completely--so practically speaking, peace with your Bishop is what you get. I myself am the kind of person who thinks should should carry the day, but it doesn't. You can lay out all the arguments you want, but you can't argue with the reality. And no Catholic "should" place his desires and judgment above that of the Church.

It certainly makes sense for me for Bishops to show they have given due consideration to the Holy Father's concerns. Thus, Bishops who only affirmed TLMs that were well-established and attended and suppressed ones that weren't seem wise to me.

When St. John Cantius announced its revised schedule, I think most of us respected their situation and the hard work that they have done. If you haven't been there, it is not in a great neighborhood and the word "outpost" comes to mind. I saw some comments somewhere about how the Canons had "caved" because their Latin Masses on First Sundays are all the Mass of St. Paul VI. Of course, there is the ideal, which is that those who would like to attend the TLM may do so freely. But I am not sure I understand saying "all or nothing" to a Bishop when we all know that the option, if Rome gets involved, is "nothing." Myself, I think the loss of the Triduum is greater, and having a TLM all but one Sunday seems fine.

And yet I know some think this is a big deal.

The Mass of Paul VI in Latin is beautiful. I went to one for 15 years or more. All the music is the same. As I said, I get the feeling of loss for the Triduum, but for one Sunday a month? I don't get it.

Thoughts?

Peace,

Kenneth

trentonjconn

What's upsetting is that, with the Chicago situation, the clear aim is to force those who exclusively attend the TLM to attend the Novus Ordo every here and there. And force is the appropriate word here. It seems to me that the Cardinal is strategically shutting down access to the Latin Mass with the goal of forcing those naughty trads to come to heel and attend the N.O. at least every so often. Obviously that's all speculation and I make no claims on the truth of my hypothesizing, but it seems to me to be a rather scheming and un-Christian strategy. It feels like the compulsory liturgical attendance imposed on the English after the break with Rome.

MatthewRoth

It's also difficult, because it's the NO on the bishops' terms, whereas most people had gotten used to the idea that such might be the case, and if so, they wouldn't take away the TLM. Now they want to do that, and while the aesthetics aren't the only reason to prefer the TLM (exclusively in my case), nor is properly orienting the liturgy merely aesthetic, it remains the case that the "well-done NO" is a fantasy.

Thus, Bishops who only affirmed TLMs that were well-established and attended and suppressed ones that weren't seem wise to me.

except that this just isn't remotely what happened. They've suppressed longstanding Masses, well-attended ones, poorly-attended ones, and everything in between. Yet they won't suppress poorly-attended NO Masses, lest normie people get upset.

And indeed, one Sunday a month plus the major holy days is a big deal particularly with families who have a routine and for pastors trying to, you know, get the people into that rhythm. It's spiteful and cruel to force people to go to the NO in order to break their spirit and eventually make them only go to the NO or, alternatively, force them into the arms of the SSPX, all of which is enough to send a bishop to hell, by the way, since the cruelty is the point. The pope's comments in his apostolic letter were deeply disingenuous or at least an open admission that he's listening to Cupich about things in the US and not anyone else who might contradict his general attitude towards trads and the traditional rite.

amindthatsuits

Please note, I did not say all bishops. I said that there were Bishops who had suppressed TLMs that had not really taken root, and those Bishops were wise, given the reality of what awaits in Rome. Moreover, most bishops have still not taken any action at all. You paint with too broad a brush, I think.

But that is not what I asked--you get to it in the second part. I myself have difficulty saying that a bishop who is not cruel but is stuck between some pretty strong forces is probably not going to hell for his choice. That is mighty presumptuous. Assuming the Holy Father is cruel---the case can be made easily from a wide range of actions he has taken--that does not mean that the Bishop has endless freedom of action.

It is hard to see how the Mass's being in a different rite really upsets things. That's my question: why? What matters is the Words of Institution and the validity of the rite. I'm happy at whatever Mass I end up at. And if the choice is to have TLMs on most Sundays or none, why deliberately choose "none"?

Peace.

Kenneth

Here is a good summary of what bishops have done. It's very different than what you seem to have focused on:

https://onepeterfive.com/traditionis-custodes-one-year-later/

a_f_hawkins

People need to take on board what BXVI said about priests refusing to celebrate in the NO. Which I will quote in German, because it may be less ambiguous than the English translation.

Um die volle communio zu leben, können die Priester, die den Gemeinschaften des alten Usus zugehören, selbstverständlich die Zelebration nach den neuen liturgischen Büchern im Prinzip nicht ausschließen.

https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/letters/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070707_lettera-vescovi.html

MatthewRoth

Oh, I don't know. They ask questions of Rome, thinking that they need to be obedient, even though Rome is going to act anyway, and they then seek to blame Rome, knowing full well that they could have let things continue; in other words, if Rome is going to intervene anyway, why go through the motions of saying "Well, I had to ask Rome, and I received this reply; it's out of my hands"? It wasn't entirely out of your hands…

Also, I didn't say anything about which bishops would go to hell for their cruelty, only that such cruelty suffices; it is a stark contrast to more traditionally-inclined bishops who generally leave the leftists alone, at least until it becomes intolerable. (The lay trustees in St Louis come to mind, as does Mgr Aupetit attempting to shut down the problematic parish in Paris at the same time that he cracked down on trads.) Just about every diocese, or at least the major archdioceses, has at least one parish known as the "liberal parish" that, for what it is worth, has very limited expressions of communion with the whole diocese, because they're so far gone, and I don't really see the problem with trad priests who quietly avoid concelebration, even if I think once a year at the chrism Mass is the way to go (for now), because they almost all have holy orders from bishops consecrated, if not ordained priest, with the new pontifical, never mind the form used for their own orders…

And again, the point about "suppressing TLMs that hadn't taken root" is beside the point. What does that mean, praytell, when we have gone to something worse than the 1984 and 1988 indults? What does that mean if you don't get a replacement, never mind one at a convenient time, at a convenient parish or church, on a regular basis? And what does it mean when the whole point of Summorum Pontificum was that the bishops weren't being generous (and are not being generous now) and don't want to give people what they want, all while refusing to crack down on abuse and to cut out Masses said for only a handful of people? In other words, I understand that it's "hierarchy, not hypocrisy," which amplifies the cruelty. It's time to clean house in the West and in the US especially as the institutional church crumbles along with society, so if a pastor wants one of two Sunday Masses to be a TLM and to say it during the week, letting him do that should be on the table.

Also, Flanders focuses on the US, because like most American neo-trads (compared to the people who grew up with the indult or indeed were around before Ecclesia Dei adflicta), he is either monolingual or has tunnel vision. The situation is much more overtly hostile in France, despite and therefore because of the fact that the SSPX is a non-negligable presence and there are lots of FSSP and ICRSP priests, plus the IBP seminary and the trad monasteries. The pope has intervened to remove a conservative bishop in Puerto Rico. A priest got suspended for trying to replace the now-banned TLM with a Latin NO in Costa Rica. The heir apparent, the dauphin if you will, is Cardinal Tagle; the Philippines, as a loyal colonial subject of the US, inherited the worst of our liturgical praxis. It's just that Cardinal Tagle's charisma charms people such that his liturgical style is ignored (I cannot wait for the day where the words "liturgical style" are ignored, but I'll be an old man before that happens.)

Nah, i won't take it on board. One, I'm not a priest. Two, you can't actually be forced to concelebrate, though as I said elsewhere, canon law — not just canonical games, but the text of the CIC itself — doesn't matter when the bishop doesn't care about the law. Three, so what? That text was written when the pope wasn't actively trying to get people out of the church, and I refer you to my point above re: the exclusion of the new rite. Not even the FSSP, whose priests are now known for not concelebrating, excludes bishops ordained or consecrated (or both) with the new pontifical, which confirms that they believe that it is valid, licit, and indeed confers sacramental grace.

MarkB

This one-year anniversary analysis of the impact and implementation of TC written for The Pillar is worthwhile reading.
https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/traditionis-custodes-1-year-on

I agree with the assessment of Fr. Anthony Ruff, quoted in the article:

"Traditionis custodes helpfully reinforced that the Second Vatican Council intended the previous liturgy to be entirely replaced by a reformed one. At best, those of a traditional mindset will gradually see that their future is in the Vatican II liturgy, and the entire Church will benefit from their contributions to it,” he told The Pillar.

“Alas, some voices are sowing division by tendentiously claiming that the reformed liturgy is not as traditional or Catholic as the old one (it is), or is not faithful to [Vatican II’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy] Sacrosanctum concilium (it is).”

“It’s perhaps understandable, given the strong feelings out there, that not all bishops are implementing Traditionis custodes yet. Doing so more fully will not be easy – patience and sensitivity will be needed while we make steady progress.”

The article also provides remarks from notable people opposed to TC, namely Joseph Shaw and Gregory DiPippo. The article is a well-balanced presentation of the various reactions to TC over the past year.

I would submit that the best way to make peace with an ordinary who is implementing TC is to first make peace with TC itself and with Sacrosanctum Concilium, and the liturgical trajectory they have established for the Roman Rite. Then you'll see that the ordinary is doing what he's supposed to do, which necessitates eliminating the use of the 1962 Missal in territorial parishes, at a minimum.

Anyone who cannot make peace with TC and Sacrosanctum Concilium is going to have a difficult time in the Roman Catholic Church. It's not merely this or that local ordinary; it's the liturgical trajectory of the Roman Catholic Church.

Chris Garton-Zavesky

Mark,

One can not make peace with TC until/unless it makes peace with itself.

ntnch1776

I live for part of the year in the Archdiocese of Chicago and attend EF Mass daily at St. John Cantius when I'm there. On first Sundays (and Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost), I drive a longer distance to attend an EF Mass in a neighboring diocese because the rupture between EF and OF is obvious and disturbs my prayer life. In other words, and in response to your point about validity, Kenneth, while the intrinsic value of the Mass remains infinite whatever its form, the extrinsic values are different.

For example (these are just examples relevant to Sunday Masses; the differences in weekday Masses are far greater):

Even at St. John Cantius, the weekly 11:00 Sunday OF Latin Mass uses Eucharistic Prayer II. And because the EP is said aloud, someone attending the Mass cannot mentally pray the Canon instead, as he could with the offertory prayers, which are almost completely different. (I'm told that on first Sundays, at the time the EF Mass is otherwise sung, the Roman Canon is used.)

Although Gregorian chant might be sung for the propers, the propers are assigned to different days in the two forms. So, if someone is attending OF one Sunday per month, he will hear some propers twice and some not at all because the distribution of propers is not aligned.

In the OF, bows are substituted for genuflections, except at the entrance and exit of the ministers from the sanctuary.

Although St. John Cantius continues to offer all Masses ad orientem, Cardinal Cupich has purported to prohibit the ad orientem posture at other churches. In my view, this is a serious and distracting difference, even with the most reverent celebrant.

I could go on with other differences.

With respect to the "most or none" question, that is not the choice a bishop has, as is obvious from the very fact that some bishops have dispensed with the disciplinary restrictions of TC and permit all Masses to continue. I do not know whether Rome has tried to intervene in those dioceses, but my impression has been that implementation of TC is based on the whim of the bishop, who could use Rome as a scapegoat if there is pushback. I think that is what happened in Savannah, which is, as far as I know, the only U.S. diocese to have said publicly that it consulted with Rome on whether to permit Masses in specific churches. It is not clear that such consultation is required by TC. (See this Pillar article for more information on this: https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/vatican-permission-still-unclear)

Sacrosanctum concilium did not call for a wholesale rejection of the content of the 1962 Missal (as we have seen in many areas) but a very modest reform. There is ample documentation of the unnecessary and unwanted changes in the orations alone (not to mention the eucharistic prayers, calendar, distribution of propers, orientation, music, etc.). Matthew Hazell has written extensively on this subject: https://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/search/label/Matthew Hazell#.YtmqZ3bMJPY.

tomjaw

Anyone who thinks this is about heading to a sole Roman Rite, following SC is sadly mistaken... These people hate Latin, and they hate tradition, and they appear close to saying a new church began with Vatican II that supercedes what went on before.

If what went on for most of Church history is defective or not complete it calls into question the whole idea of a One True Church!

TC is a last gasp of a dying regime, I can safely ignore it. The SSPX is just up the road, a few more years hiding in the catacombs certainly appeals as an option.

As for Vatican II it demands nothing of me either, we now know for certain that the N.O. Mass was not called for by the council, and the N.O. Mass does a poor job of implementing the ideas of SC.

Anyone who cannot make peace with TC and Sacrosanctum Concilium is going to have a difficult time in the Roman Catholic Church.

The same writer of TC, is the same as who gave the SSPX faculties, so we can have the TLM and still be part of the Roman Catholic Church.

MatthewRoth

While there are people whom I respect among writers of PrayTell, including a contributor here, nevertheless, Fr Ruff does not do his cause any favors by "sowing division." That is, the trads have the receipts when it comes to the liturgical reform, and it's simply just true that the new liturgy is less traditional. The old lectionary? Virtually entirely destroyed even with tripling the number of readings due to a three-year cycle, which of course has no precedent. The old orations? Heavily edited, moved around, often deleted, even though the 2002 missal in particular has a greatly expanded corpus of orations. One point which I hammer home quite often is that until 1965, only holy orders were conferred within Mass (or, in the case of the Byzantine rite, baptism sort of starts before, then continues after the entrance, and is done before the epistle), yet the opposite is normative today.

Plus, he talks about "patience and sensitivity…" which has been sorely lacking; even if bishops are patient, it's only to implement the cruelest measures possible. "We hear you, we understand, we don't care." The only other professions like this are judges and perhaps various state bureaucrats (cf. the poor fellow in Indiana who can't take the bar exam as his fingerprints are missing a ridge.)

It is also worth noting just how much contempt people have for the old rite, so, my comment about "hierarchy, not hypocrisy" aside, it is clear to me that these things actually do go both ways, it's proof that they desperately seek a hermeneutic of rupture without any attempt to make it work (that is, the rupture is good)

amindthatsuits

Let's assume for a moment the Holy Father was genuous rather than ingenuous (as I said, he's provided a lot of fodder on that point.) I do think having a disobedient spirit is a problem; any feeling that "I am a better Catholic." A famous (and excellent) Traditionalist priest has a YouTube where he talks about how that is often not true. If I remember his point, parents who are ostentatiously disrespectful of authority should not be surprised when their children are in turn.

A bishop looking at a parish where problems were brewing might well want to take action to make it clear that obedience is required.

Separate point: I think it is very wrong to assume that a Bishop knew how Rome was going to react. Now we know. If a Bishop was very obedient by choice, he might well think he could get a favorable response. So far as I know, the one this last week was the first where a Bishop established a plan to implement TC and then submitted it, which is what TC clearly favors but doesn't require explicitly. I am sure that many Bishops who were wondering how to proceed took note of the result and will emulate instead those who have just made a decision and not talked about it since.

I myself am going on vacation in such a diocese and will be singing quite contentedly with the Traditionalist community that the bishop left in place.

Kenneth

MatthewRoth

How is it wrong to assume that? Where has Rome actually been generous towards trads since TC came out? The pope is clear; he wants the trad liturgy gone. There was no reason to write to Rome because either Rome would ignore you, or they’d get rid of the TLM themselves, and from their perspective, it’s better to let the bishop implement things, especially since the people see right through the “Well Rome made me do it” excuse, no matter what the bishop actually thinks of the situation. Indeed if an unenthused bishop didn’t want this solution, even if he thought it unlikely, then he should simply not write to Rome, just in case.

Yes, and the solution is to punish the disobedient children, lest the obedient ones become restless. In fact, the problem with pushing out the former Ecclesia Dei groups (especially the ICRSP) is that they have a fair bit of control over their faithful, and the priests aren’t responsible for them once their ministry is taken away.

rich_enough

According to Fr. Ruff

the Second Vatican Council intended the previous liturgy to be entirely replaced by a reformed one

After all these years I'm still trying to find where a document of Vatican II says this. (In fact, it's hard to deny that the newer Mass is further from what the Council Fathers wanted than the 1962 missal - see for example, this article from a non-trad site.)

I would submit that the best way to make peace with an ordinary who is implementing TC is to first make peace with TC itself and with Sacrosanctum Concilium, and the liturgical trajectory they have established for the Roman Rite. Then you'll see that the ordinary is doing what he's supposed to do, which necessitates eliminating the use of the 1962 Missal in territorial parishes, at a minimum.

Since the first assertion is simply not the case, there is little basis for what you say here.

It strikes me a strange that the establishing of the newer form of the Mass necessitates the elimination of the older form, as if the older was somehow a threat (or how would you describe it?), esp. when it's attended by a vanishingly small number of the faithful.

Finally, it's puzzling that Rome would approve groups whose constitutions dedicate themselves to the celebration of the older rite if the rite was meant to be eliminated from the beginning. Entire generations of Catholics have been formed in the older rite; some celebrations have been going on for 30 years or more. They are now to be eliminated altogether in some places without redress - in some cases these are the most fervent communities in the diocese, with growing young families, etc. I think this is what was meant by "cruel" in the comments above.

MatthewRoth

Age isn't the only thing, and fervor is often, but not always represented in numerical strength relative to everyone else. My current parish community has had a Sunday/holy day TLM, plus a week day here and there for years. We're going on three years with almost-daily (we don't have Mass on most Saturdays at this point), and the pastor says the NO in English by episcopal order. No one has really grown up exclusively trad unless they came from elsewhere. I didn't even do so! Yet to suppress it would have been cruel, and it would have probably caused the death of the parish, even though we're not as old as some of the communities existing from or before 1988. There are loads of low Masses said in far-flung places for small communities. Those people are deeply pious, struggling in dioceses with liberal bishops and countries or territories with liberal politicians who now overtly hate the church. Taking away the TLM is taking away one of their strongest expressions of faith and something foundational to it.

a_f_hawkins

Unfortunately in liturgy wars as in most wars we get caught up in competing falsehoods. It is obviously untrue that the 1969 Missal is what SC ordered, contra Fr Ruff. It is in my mind clearly untrue that 1962 was never abrogated, contra Papa Ratzinger. The 1965 decree Nuper edita instructione promulgated revised rubrics, which were duly published in an editio typica, see also - https://hughsk.vivaldi.net/2021/11/09/50-years-ago-clarifying-the-agatha-christie-indult/

tomjaw

@a_f_hawkins
Fr. Ruff is entitled to an opinion, and can be wrong... When Papa Ratzinger states we have two forms of the same Rite, this is somewhat more than an opinion. When Francis claims we have two Rites, and one needs to be suppressed to save (for a couple more years) the more modern one, this also is more than an opinion. In both these cases the Pope could be wrong, as he has not spoken infallibly.

We have had too many cases where liturgy has been changed by Papal Fiat, where what was forbidden was later mandated. Laws are ignored, and lies are being told as if they are true. This draws the whole legislature into disrepute, this will need to be sorted out by a future Pope.

I have the following questions...
Q. Does the Pope have the power to write a new Liturgy?
Q. Does the Pope have the power to suppress the ancient Roman Rite?
Q. Does the Pope have the duty to not only pass on the Faith unchanged, but also as the Eastern Rites claim the Liturgy?
Q. Is the Liturgy the personal plaything of the Pope and his cronies?
Q. Would a future Pope be wrong to state that various 20th century Popes did not have the power to change the Liturgy to suit various whims?

MatthewRoth

t is in my mind clearly untrue that 1962 was never abrogated, contra Papa Ratzinger.

Then with all due respect, what are we even doing here if "numquam abrogatam" is a lie, or at the very least a mistaken assertion? In any case, Cardinal Stickler also held this position, as did many clergy who continued to use the traditional missal, so if it wasn't abrogated, they didn't do a very good job at communicating this!

With respect to Dom Hugh's article, this argument for 1965 is silly on its face because one, the pope specifies "1970" even if he uses a weird circumlocution elsewhere, and it's profoundly, deeply irritating in a way that I can't even begin to express, because I don't want 1965, and it has virtually no benefit other than not being the 1969 missal. It wouldn't be the solution, as you would have the exact same problem, with all of the problems: vernacular propers, Latin orations and Canon, which led to the all-vernacular liturgy in short order, but with the revised Holy Week, emendations made piecemeal via to the lectionary, and the frankly ridiculous set of revised rubrics. Not even the monasteries in France asked for 1965: they asked for 1962, with modifications which happen to resemble some of the 1965 changes, and I happily note that Le Barroux has reverted to Latin readings (on this their patronal day!). I hope that the Congregation of Solesmes does soon as well.

It's also not clear that there was an editio typica with the rubrics as revised in 1965… The only thing that I can find is that the revised ritus servandus was supposed to be published in anything published after March 1965 (as the Consilium only sent the text to publishers in February) but then the rubrics changed significantly again in the summer of 1967, there were experiments going on anyway, and there's no evidence that Rome actually promulgated an editio typica.

To the questions: Yes, no, yes, no, no.

a_f_hawkins

It is probable that there was no reprint of the Missale Romanum with the 1965 rubrics, however there was an editio typica of the revised rubrics, advertised in Notitiae no.12 Dec 1965
http://www.cultodivino.va/content/cultodivino/it/rivista-notitiae/indici-annate.html
and also the editio typica of the rubrics for concelebration.

MatthewRoth

nevertheless, the commission of cardinals of which Ratzinger was a member and then BXVI as pope reached the same conclusion : numquam abrogatam. Nobody of serious repute has disputed it.

Chris Garton-Zavesky

Matthew,

Could you accept as a friendly amendment "good" in your statement "Nobody of serious goodrepute has disputed it". I don't know if Fr. Martin S.J. has even spoken on the topic, but he is certainly a man of enormous repute!

a_f_hawkins

408 Acta Apostolicae Sedis - Commentarium Officiale
I I I
D E C R E T U M
O r d o Missae, « R i t u s s e r v a n d u s in c e l e b r a t i o n e Missae » et « De d e f e c t i b u s
in c e l e b r a t i o n e Missae o c c u r r e n t i b u s » e d u n t u r .
Nuper edita Instructio ad exsequendam Constitutionem de sacra
Liturgia plures induxit mutationes, diversi sane momenti, praesertim
in Missae celebrationem. Necessarium proinde visum est ut sive Ordo
Missae, sive tractatus qui inscribuntur « Ritus in celebratione Missae
servandus » et <( De defectibus in Missae celebratione occurrentibus »,<br />quique in Missali romano inveniuntur, nova recensione donarentur,
quae praelaudatae Instructionis praeceptis responderet

Sacra Congregatio Rituum 409
Consilium itaque ad exsequendam Constitutionem de sacra Liturgia
deputatum, prae oculis habens generalem rationem instaurationis Mis-
sae, hanc novam recensionem accurate redegit, quam Sacra haec Rituum
Congregatio, utendo facultatibus sibi a Sanctissimo Domino nostro
Paulo Papa VI tributis, probavit atque uti typicam declaravit, man-
dans ut publici iuris fieret, et in novis Missalis romani editionibus
assumeretur, ita ut normae ibi contentae ab omnibus fideliter serventur.
Contrariis quibuslibet minime obstantibus.
Die 27 Ianuarii 1965.
IACOBUS Card. LERCARO Archiepiscopus Bononiensis
Praeses Consilii ad eoa sequendam
Constitutionem de sacra Liturgia
ARCADIUS M. Card. LARRAONA Praefectus
Ferdinandus Antonelli, O.F.M., a Secretis

a_f_hawkins

What, precisely, did this commission of cardinals identify as numquam abrogatum? Do we have an authoritative text?
I can easily believe that the Missal as identified in the Heenan Indult was never abrogated, but, given the 1965 decree I don't see how this can be said of the unamended 1962 text.

MatthewRoth

We don't know, but in any case, I think that a) the burden of proof is quite high and it's on you to prove that the traditional rite was in fact abrogated but that b) it's nonsense of the highest order, particularly when people are legitimately grieving and have been for the past year (frankly, Dom Hugh should learn to read the room), to say that Benedict XVI of all people, who was part of the commission and who was pope, whose papacy was marked by this document which took two years to produce, got its fundamental premise entirely wrong. The reason that it's so offensive is because the 1965 is Dom Hugh's personal project, unacceptable for the reasons that I outlined above, and because numquam abrogatam and Summorum as a whole are (were?) the bedrock of the way (back) into the faith for many, many, many people. All of that has been ripped from under us. Stuff like this from Dom Hugh does not help

ServiamScores

Taking away the TLM is taking away one of their strongest expressions of faith and something foundational to it.

This is precisely why it’s being taken away. They don’t want the formation of the next generation to lean on the old cornerstone. Were the youth of today to cling to the traditional form, those in power would be limited in just how far they could reshape the church in their own image.

a_f_hawkins

1) The rubrics of 1965 appear in editio typica
2) They were decreed - ita ut normae ibi contentae ab omnibus fideliter serventur
3) in accordance with the then current habit of obedience (as was traditional), they were universally adopted.
Of course, in England the Latin Mass Society was founded to ensure that the optional use of the vernacular did not preclude the continued availability of the Mass in Latin. But until 1969 the LMS accepted the successive changes to the rubrics. The LMS split in 1969 over whether they would fight for the retention of the rite as it then was with the rubric changes of 1965 and 1967 (which they got in the form of the Heenan indult) or accept the NO in Latin.
I do not know what happened elsewhere, but until at least 1969 Abp Lefebvre also accepted‡ the rubric changes of 1965 and 1967. I do not doubt that there were people unhappy with the revised rubrics, but they were accepted until the norm of obedience broke down following 1969.
‡ I don't have a reference, but Lefebvre welcomed the 1965 rubrics, which accord with the reforms called for by SC.

Salieri

To a certain extent, I think that there is a certain practicality in using 1962 over 1965 or 1967: I know that the United States bishops issued a revised Missal in 1965 to accord with the rubrical changes (I have two), but I have never seen an actual, printed Missal for '67---in fact, the two '65 Missals that I own have notations and crossings out in MS to accommodate the '67 changes, and in 1968, I believe, Paul VI gave an address where he bemoaned the state of things, and said, "How long will we have to say Mass from mimeographed sheets?", so I wonder if the Italian bishops issued a complete Missal in 1965/7, or if they just left it to individual clergy to figure things out, and what other episcopal conferences did. So, as I said, there could be a certain practicality and pragmatism on the part of Lefebvre and others deciding on 1962 just because the books were more readily available. I personally have no problem with 1965/67 (apart from the Pian Holy Week, of course), and believe that that Missal does, in fact, represent the wishes of S.C. better than the Novus Ordo does, with, of course, the option that the Mass, with the 1965/7 rubrical changes, may always be said entirely in Latin.

rich_enough

.

MarkB

The answer is that the ordinary is not "closing down a community"; he's adhering to universal Church norms that restrict the use of the 1962 Missal to nonparochial churches. The parish community can and should remain intact, but it has to use the postconciliar liturgical rites. It's those who have made the TLM into an idol and who will withdraw from the parish because they refuse to celebrate the postconciliar Mass who will destroy the community due to their refusal to remain and celebrate the new Mass. Why won't they stay in their parishes and use their talents to beautify the celebration of the postconciliar Mass?

The full quote from Cardinal Ratzinger is preceded by these words: "I am of the opinion, to be sure, that the old rite should be granted much more generously to all those who desire it. It’s impossible to see what could be dangerous or unacceptable about that."

TC and its accompanying letter have explained what became dangerous or unacceptable about that in subsequent years: the 1962 Missal and the communities that celebrated it became an expression of rejecting Vatican II and the current pontificate in enough places that Pope Francis decided, upon consultation with bishops from around the world, that it was harming Church unity. Yet that reason of historical accident is secondary to the primary point that it's high time for the Roman Church to fully implement the liturgical reforms (a "general restoration of the liturgy itself") that were mandated by the Second Vatican Council.

By mandating a general restoration of the liturgy itself, Vatican II intended that the liturgy that was authorized and used at that time be revised and replaced with the revised version that would be developed. No need to rehash those arguments that have been addressed in other threads; I'm merely restating the point that justifies the pope decreeing that the liturgical trajectory of the Roman Church after Vatican II is the postconciliar liturgy, with the result that the preconciliar liturgical rites should be phased out. The Roman Church's postconciliar liturgical trajectory also justifies local ordinaries in implementing the pope's decree that the use of the 1962 Missal is to be restricted and eventually eliminated in favor of liturgical unity in the Church by celebrating the postconciliar liturgical rites exclusively.

Andrew_Malton

“Trajectory” is the new “Spirit”, it seems.

Chris Garton-Zavesky

Mark,

Reading your post, I have the distinct impression of being inside an episode of Dr. Who from Sylvester McCoy, or a CNN news report about pretty much anything.

it's high time for the Roman Church to fully implement the liturgical reforms (a "general restoration of the liturgy itself") that were mandated by the Second Vatican Council.

Indeed! On the other hand, what would happen if His Holiness mandated that Latin be taught in all our seminaries, or that the Mass be said in Latin, with some small place made for the vernacular. That would actually implement part of what the Council actually called for, Or, for the wide and generous use of Gregorian Chant. Or that there be NO INNOVATION unless the good of the Church surely and certainly required it? That, too, would implement the Second Vatican Council. When His Holiness (or his henchmen) make a serious effort to bring the current ars celebrandi into conformity with the instructions of the Council, those who currently resist will be more able to believe their sincerity in the claim that the purpose of (whatever new directive) is to fulfill the instructions of the Council. Until then, ....

It's those who have made the TLM into an idol and who will withdraw from the parish because they refuse to celebrate the postconciliar Mass

While there may be a person, somewhere, who is doing what you're describing, the Papal-Approved constitutions of the FSSP and ICKSP provide that they shall celebrate using only the traditional forms. They're not making the TLM some kind of idol: they're following the instructions set down in their constitutions and approved by the Holy Father. If following the Holy Father's instructions is the touchstone, they are doing that by refusing to use the newer forms. Did the Holy Father permit, encourage or mandate idolatry then, or is he doing so now?

on of the liturgy itself, Vatican II intended that the liturgy that was authorized and used at that time be revised and replaced with the revised version that would be developed.

Yes, they did, but they required that NO INNOVATION be made unless it be surely and certainly necessary, and that any innovations which did come into existence must be developments of forms already existing. Removal of the altar rail (to use an architectural example) isn't a development of an existing form, nor is Communion in the Hand (which, surely, can't be mandated), since the only places where Communion in the Hand existed in 1962 were heretical or disobedient.

Concelebration is nowhere mandated in SC, and yet it's a condition of the new time-limited celebret.

I could go on, but I'll stop.

a_f_hawkins

CGZ - concelebration - SC#57 & #58
Note SC#57.2.2

I agree with much of what you say. Both Pope Francis and +Roche have uttered some fine words on liturgy and liturgical formation, but so far no parsnips have been buttered. To be even handed, Pope Benedict and Cdl Sarah also uttered fine words to little effect.

Schönbergian

Indeed! On the other hand, what would happen if His Holiness mandated that Latin be taught in all our seminaries, or that the Mass be said in Latin, with some small place made for the vernacular. That would actually implement part of what the Council actually called for, Or, for the wide and generous use of Gregorian Chant. Or that there be NO INNOVATION unless the good of the Church surely and certainly required it? That, too, would implement the Second Vatican Council. When His Holiness (or his henchmen) make a serious effort to bring the current ars celebrandi into conformity with the instructions of the Council, those who currently resist will be more able to believe their sincerity in the claim that the purpose of (whatever new directive) is to fulfill the instructions of the Council. Until then, ....

I agree with all of the above, but it is disingenuous for traditionalists to believe they are absolved from following the decrees of Vatican II simply because they view the modern papacy as not focusing on certain portions either.

ServiamScores

he's adhering to universal Church norms that restrict the use of the 1962 Missal to nonparochial churches.

Because it makes sooooo much sense to allow it over *here* but not over *there*.

Our ancestors are rolling over in their graves.

ServiamScores

It's those who have made the TLM into an idol and who will withdraw from the parish because they refuse to celebrate the postconciliar Mass who will destroy the community due to their refusal to remain and celebrate the new Mass. Why won't they stay in their parishes and use their talents to beautify the celebration of the postconciliar Mass?

Classic modernist tactic: accuse the victim of exactly what you are doing.

You hear that, O daughter?! It is YOU who are tearing the family apart by fleeing the house where you are being beaten by your father. It’s not HIS fault for beating you; it’s YOUR fault for not wanting to be abused.

It’s also ironic— it’s as if you’re implying that the militant expositors of the virtues of the novus ordo have not done the same thing: ie–made the new mass their idol.

Chris Garton-Zavesky

Hawkins,

57.1 Concelebration whereby the unity of the priesthood is appropriately manifested has remained in use to this day in the Church both in the East and in the West. For this reason it has seemed good to the Council to extend permission for celebration to the following cases

-----This doesn't have a comma between "Concelebration" and "whereby", so a particular kind of concelebration is intended.

------Permission isn't a command.

57.2.1 The regulation, however, of the discipline of concelebration in the diocese pertains to the bishop.

----- This is akin to "Altar girls may be permitted by the local ordinary, but may not be required by him of any individual priest", not in terms of its advisability but in terms of the force of the discipline, which (logically) should reflect doctrine.

57.2. Each priest shall always retain his right to celebrate Mass individually, though not at the same time in the same church as a concelebrated Mass nor on the Thursday of the Lord's Supper.

----- Start with the first part: a priest can't be compelled to concelebrate.
-----The limits to his right to celebrate individually include two things: that there is not already a Mass being concelebrated in the same Church at the same time; that it's not the Thursday of the Lord's Supper. Someone with the Latin in front of him will have to clarify whether this means the Chrism Mass, or Maundy Thursday's evening celebration, complete with the Eucharistic Procession.

Thank you for reminding me that the documents on this point don't require concelebration, except possibly on the Maundy Thursday Mass, and that the term "concelebration" doesn't mean in 1962 what it is taken to mean in later years.

58. A new rite for concelebration is to be drawn up and inserted into the Pontifical and into the Roman Missal.

The new rite can not be compulsory until it is drawn up, so whatever the Council Fathers intended, they called for a new rite to exist (which can't be mandatory, even when drawn up, as per 57.1 and 57.2.1) and until then"concelebration" meant what it had meant previously.

MatthewRoth

@MarkB : The answer is that the ordinary is not "closing down a community…"

Except that he is, because the communities will not survive in the new locations. That's the point, of course. The locations are too far for people; even the mission chapel of St Dominic's is out in the boonies of Maryland. Why couldn't he just have used the canonical solutions such as turning St Mary's into a shrine? Or even move the community to the National Shrine…? How many dioceses in this country claim to have a church which is not a parish like that?

Why won't we beautiful the NOM? Because we can't. We're told that we cannot do certain things, like use the proper liturgical orientation. Or you are limited in the chants… It always comes up that no one really wants you singing Gregorian Graduals and Alleluias except on very special occasions; apparently, my own bishop doesn't mind it, once in a blue moon, which is a relief. Also, frankly, even if I could, does it mean that I'm obliged to participate? I don't want to sing for the NO, I want the TLM, and there's nothing wrong with that, contrary to basically everything you wrote; to tell grieving people otherwise is actually quite rude!

Also, you've bought the lie. The Sant'Anselmo crowd of which Andrea Grillo is the chief spokesman, hates the traditional rite and wanted Summorum gone the day it was announced on July 7, 2007, and Diane Montagna reported last year on the survey from the CDF; suffice it to say that the French episcopal conference report was sent as one, rather than as surveys from individual bishops (except for one wise bishop who saw through the project) in order to paint a more negative or at least tepid picture, because overall, the survey reports were not at all negative.

I second Serviam's comment; the problem with Francis seemingly having a problem that he can't comprehend is because first, he doesn't listen, or if he does, it's to the same small circle, and second, he caused the problems for himself. I think that it's possible to escape this pontificate without falling into calumny or becoming a grifter with a podcast or whatever, but that doesn't negate the expression about broken clocks, which are still right twice a day. Plus, idolatry is a very strong word indeed, and you can't have it both ways. These communities tried to become normal parts of the parishes, but they were not always successful due to episcopal interference. You cannot expect communities forced into this or that parish around the TLM to suddenly survive when their main reason for existing as such is taken away.

I acknowledge that it's "hierarchy, not hypocrisy," but do you not realize the number of people who reject the council and Catholic teaching and who depend on the NO for this revolutionary project is far higher than the number of traditionalists? (At least, I'm told that we're a minority.) You don't, in theory, have to defend orthodoxy and the council with the TLM, though you'll take it from my cold, dead hands. I'm grateful that Francis has finally expressed that the Synodal Way is bad, but it's a bit too late for this if it's not going to be followed up with serious action. Meanwhile, he wants to push people like me out of not only the full, unimpeded communion with the Holy See that is currently enjoyed but out of the life of faith entirely, and I stand by what I said: this is enough to send bishops to hell, and I don't exactly cherish reminding them of this, but if it is necessary, so be it.

Finally, it is absolutely worth rehashing everything, because the entire liturgical reform is based on lies. Almost nothing is a restoration of anything, and if it is, it is so broken from what came before that it is not an improvement on the rite of the Roman curia as it existed until 1962; my favorite example is that the most-cited author of the Liber Hymnarius is Dom Lentini himself. Even in the LH, I think the only way to sing the hymns is to just use the pre-Urban hymns unadulterated as much as possible.

@Salieri, did the US actually publish a missal with the rubrical changes? I have only seen the missal with the indult of 1964, published in November, which is 1962 but with everything in English that was allowed to be in English per the indult, the rest remaining in Latin. The problem with settling on the mid-1960s is, as I said above, the fact that inevitably allowing the vernacular means pressure to not use Latin, even if it's licit. The American missal had no Latin for the parts said in English, and some bishops entirely forbade it.

@a_f_hawkins: CGZ did say mandated. The monks of the French trad monasteries (at least of the Solesmes congregation) concelebrate on important days, which, regardless of my opinions, is done because there is a common accord. The abbot also concelebrates the NO at events like the abbatial blessing in other monasteries like Solesmes, whose new abbot was blessed recently. In fact, canon law makes concelebration an option; now, you can perhaps make a point about not concelebrating as a sign of one's attitude towards the NO, except that almost all of these priests have orders derived from someone consecrated bishop and even ordained priest with the new pontifical. They also use the chrism blessed at the chrism Mass celebrated in the NO.

Chris Garton-Zavesky

Schoenbergian,

As one of our posters has pointed out on occasion, the traditionalists are implementing what the Council actually said, including "full, conscious, actuosa participation" much more effectively than the folks who claim to understand the "spirit" of the Council.

Mark,

I'm rather amused at your argument that the traditionalists are withdrawing, rather than contributing to their parishes. Since they're not allowed in parishes, but only in set-aside oratories, how could they NOT withdraw?

Schönbergian

They may very well be, but they do so in a form that pre-dates Vatican II's reforms. Picking and choosing what is desired from the reforms and documents of the Council makes them no better than the Church figures who pick and choose what they like as well, but from a different angle.

Chris Garton-Zavesky

Schoenbergian,

The Ordo of Paul VI isn't the Mass of Vatican II. (Please read carefully what I'm about to write ).

When the Council Fathers mandated "full, conscious.....", they didn't know what the newly composed rite actually contained, because it didn't exist yet. Their reference point for the participation they called for was most manifestly not a rite which didn't exist yet.

What Pope Paul VI approved and promulgated wasn't (by that very fact) promulgated by the Council, nor can its praxis (1970-2022) be squared with what the Council decreed.

When people insist that traditionalists reject Vatican II, they almost always mean something else which, somehow, they wish to persuade us, is what Vatican two really meant.

Now, there are some questions about how to show continuity between what the Church has always taught and what the bishops approved at the Council, but when it comes to SC, one can accept it (completely, without reservation) and still refuse to celebrate the Ordo of Paul VI, and be morally and intellectually coherent.

MatthewRoth

Sure, there’s a difference. The trads who allegedly who pick and choose with respect to a pastoral council which refused to solemnly define anything so so wanting to actually be Catholic and without causing a rupture with the past. Not so on the other side. The two are not alike.

rich_enough

The answer is that the ordinary is not "closing down a community"; he's adhering to universal Church norms that restrict the use of the 1962 Missal to nonparochial churches. The parish community can and should remain intact, but it has to use the postconciliar liturgical rites.

The community was centered around the TLM, so even if the people there go to their own parishes, the community they formed for the past 25 years is lost.

It's those who have made the TLM into an idol and who will withdraw from the parish because they refuse to celebrate the postconciliar Mass who will destroy the community due to their refusal to remain and celebrate the new Mass.

As we all know, many people have left their parishes out of desperation in the face of liturgical abuses - and their old parishes, far from being destroyed, were in many cases supported by the bishop. And there no need to use the rhetoric of trads making the old mass an "idol" because they (very, very few in my experience) refuse to go to the newer form - one could just as easily claim that other Catholics are making the new Mass an "idol" by refusing to to to the TLM.

More to the point, Archbishop Gregory himself rules out your reasoning (at least as it applies to DC) when he states, "I have discovered that the majority of the faithful who participate in these liturgical celebrations in the Archdiocese of Washington are sincere, faith-filled and well-meaning,” he wrote. “Likewise, the majority of priests who celebrate these liturgies are doing their very best to respond pastorally to the needs of the faithful.”

Once again, if the attitude of people is the issue, deal with the people, not with the good and holy thing that they may be using for bad ends.

Why won't they stay in their parishes and use their talents to beautify the celebration of the postconciliar Mass?

As has been pointed out ad nauseum on this Forum, many of wishing to do this have been rebuffed and driven out of their parishes. Even the decree from +Gregory stipulates that any ad orientem celebration must be approved by the archdiocese, thus demonstrating once again that this is about practices deemed too traditional, not just the TLM.

the 1962 Missal and the communities that celebrated it became an expression of rejecting Vatican II and the current pontificate in enough places that Pope Francis decided, upon consultation with bishops from around the world, that it was harming Church unity.

This is a glaring over-generalization, as the quotation from +Gregory above indicates, not to mention the numerous places where both old and new have co-existed peacefully for years (e.g. St, john Cantius in Chicago).

I also find it disingenuous to say on the one hand that the elimination of the old Mass is necessary because this is what Vatican II demands, and on the other hand, that the old Mass is fine but had to be eliminated because of the attitude of those who are attached to it.

Yet that reason of historical accident is secondary to the primary point that it's high time for the Roman Church to fully implement the liturgical reforms (a "general restoration of the liturgy itself") that were mandated by the Second Vatican Council.

This is strange - what in the world has been stopping the reforms from being implemented? Certainly not the tiny number of malcontents. And from what I've heard hasn't the reform been a resounding, overwhelming success?

By mandating a general restoration of the liturgy itself, Vatican II intended that the liturgy that was authorized and used at that time be revised and replaced with the revised version that would be developed. No need to rehash those arguments

Not asking for a rehashing of these arguments, just a simple citation from the documents of Vatican II.

I'm merely restating the point that justifies the pope decreeing that the liturgical trajectory of the Roman Church after Vatican II is the postconciliar liturgy, with the result that the preconciliar liturgical rites should be phased out. The Roman Church's postconciliar liturgical trajectory also justifies local ordinaries in implementing the pope's decree that the use of the 1962 Missal is to be restricted and eventually eliminated in favor of liturgical unity in the Church by celebrating the postconciliar liturgical rites exclusively.

I get your logic here, it's just that the premises are confused, and the conclusion is being applied in a incoherent and inconsistent way:

(1) Unity does not require uniformity - witness the different rites currently allowed (rite of Zaire, ordinariate, etc,), not to mention the de facto lack of uniformity in the modern
Roman rite. Indeed, an exception to TC has been given to the FSSP by the Holy Father himself.

(2) What about the people who were told that their attachment to the older rite was
good and "rightful"? They are now being told it is harmful (not because of any inherent problem in the rite, but because some people are using it for bad ends? Or it is now harmful in itself? It's not really clear.) What about the orders of priests (with dozens of seminarians) with constitutions approved by Rome? Are they now in opposition to the Council whereas before they were not?

(3) Two previous popes - after wide consultation - came to different conclusions and ruled the opposite. Traditionalists have had bad attitudes for a long time, and Vatican II hasn't changed. Even the episcopal consecrations by +Lefevbre did not lead to a ban on the Latin Mass - just the opposite! So it's difficult to argue that the current policy is the only possible one given the circumstances.

(4) There seems to be a singular lack of, shall we say, pastoral sensitivity in all this. The same prelates who tout accompaniment and bend over backwards to accommodate various groups while ignoring many obvious lapses in discipline (notably concerning the liturgy itself) seem eager to break up communities and waylay the very groups (e.g. young people) who are fervently living their faith.

(5) Finally, the logic really breaks down when you observe that the same prelates who are most energetically restricting the older rite are the same who who have done little or nothing to promote a more worthy celebration of the new (and the opposite is also true, e.g. +Sample in Portland, Oregon). So I have to say that a call for rejuvenation of the Pauline rite rings more than a little hollow. (I don't doubt the sincerity of those calling for this here on the Forum; I'm referring more to its futility in the present circumstances.) This is also borne out by the history of so many on this Forum who heeded the call to beautify the newer rite only to find no support at best and outright rejection at worst.

So what is different now than 25 years ago when I began efforts to improve the music at the Pauline rite? Why would it succeed now when it has failed before? My experience was that real improvement (feeble as it was) happened only after the TLM and those who supported it were themselves given greater support (or at least a freer hand), as they were the ones who worked the hardest to improve the newer rite. Sadly, it appears that this will not be the case moving forward. The very thing that is being claimed to strengthen the newer rite will only serve to weaken it.

francis

As I have said before in another thread, this is beating a dead horse.

Assumptions, opinions, convolutions, extractions ad nauseum brings this 'dialogue' nowhere. The crux of the problem is the 'dialogue'.

After reading this entire thread, I have not seen a single point made that would bring A closer to B or vice versa. Gnuchurch will become more Gnu, and the ancients will continue on it's foundational course come hell and high water (which, by the way is literally coming).

Salieri

Trying to beautify the N.O. is like pushing a pea up a mountain with your nose in a hurricane during an earthquake.

But this reduces the issue to merely one of aesthetics, of whether it is more to the desire of the Council that the processional music on Ordinary Time XV be "Ego autem cum justitia" or "All people that on earth do dwell". The real matter is one of theology, specifically whether or not the theology of the Novus Ordo is or is not in conformity with Catholic teaching regarding the Sacrificial nature of the Mass, as taught by the Council of Trent, and the presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. I will make no judgement on that here, but, based on the lack of belief in the real presence among the faithful (and many clergy), and after reading Desiderio desideravi, where the sacrifice of Christ on Calvary is treated as a mere historical reality without connecting the Mass to it, while repeatedly making the connection between the Mass and the Last Supper (as the Protestants are wont to do), well, all I can say is that the proof of the pudding is in the eating: in my personal opinion, the post-Concilliar reform of the Liturgy has failed because it has not done that which it was supposed to do, but the opposite, and it has not suddenly failed, it has been failing since 1969: it is time to end this experiment (as St. Pio of Pietrelcina called it), and go back to square one. (Unless the true intent of the post-Concilliar reform was to destroy the faith of the people, in which case it is a resounding success: but my own opinion is that the reformers were well intentioned, if naive.) I say this because there seems to be an attempt by some to treat theology/catechesis and liturgy as two separate things, when in fact they are inseparable: lex orandi, lex credendi; it doesn't really matter what the catechism says about the Mass and the Blessed Sacrament if the Mass itself doesn't support that 100%, in the prayers, in the rubrics, in the music, because most Catholics will never open the CCC, but they will go to Mass, and if they do read the Catechism, will what they read there be reinforced by the Mass or not?

I don't like the term "traditionalist" to describe myself, but if I am one, I became one not because I disliked the Novus Ordo, but because I liked it and wanted to study it and liturgical history. If anyone is to blame for my traditionalism it's Joseph Ratzinger, Adrian Fortescue, and Prosper Geuranger.

francis

The real matter is one of theology, specifically whether or not the theology of the Novus Ordo is or is not in conformity with Catholic teaching regarding the Sacrificial nature of the Mass, as taught by the Council of Trent, and the presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament.

Bravo... this is an anti-dialogue that says something true.

The question goes back to the theological foundation irrespective of the trappings of one liturgy to another (to a point).

From the book "Paul VI Beatified?"

CHAPTER VIII
HIS “ECUMENICAL MASS”
The debate is still open as to whether Paul VI had the authority to change the Catholic “Mass” in a way that would make it am- biguous, equivocal and of a Protestant content.
The fact is, Pius V’s “Bull”, “Quo Primum”, still stands with all its weight and authority. I shall stay, here, within the core of the issue. Namely: could Paul VI change the “texts” of the Mass? He certainly could, as a Pope, had disciplinary questions been at issue, but, because of its dogmatic nature, the faithful fulfillment of the Holy Sacrifice” of the Mass, in keeping with the Will of Jesus Christ and in line with the traditional teaching, multi-secular, given to us by the Church, Paul VI could not do it, having no “right” to “change” as much as a hair of the “Depositum Fidei”. Hence Paul VI was free to change some “prayers”, but he could not introduce anything into the Mass that might alter the Catholic
doctrine, and, therefore, the traditional Catholic Faith. Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) had ruled, already:
«The consecratory formula of the “Roman Canon” had been imposed to the Apostles by Christ directly, and handed down by the Apos- tles to their successors».
241
And the Florentine Council (Session of the year 1442), in its “Decree for the Greeks and the Armenians”, had solemnly reiter- ated and confirmed the same dogmatic doctrine of Tradition, as wit- nessed by Innocent III. Thus the “historical fact”, incontrovertible, clearly demonstrates that
«The celebration of the Holy Eucharistic Sacri- fice of the Mass, and, therefore, even the for- mulation of the “consecration”, preceded the appearance of all of the Scriptural texts of the New Testament by at least two decades».
It is consequently censurable that, after the Church had been using for nearly two millennia, continuously (and without a sin- gle dispute), the formula of the pre-conciliar “Roman Canon”, it should be necessary to revise it and modify it, particularly the “for- mula of the Eucharistic Consecration, willed by Christ”... ever since the onset of the Apostolic preaching of the Gospel.
Now, Paul VI, having abolished the Eucharistic consecratory formula of the “Roman Canon” (which, as Innocent III and the Florentine Council had taught, was instituted by Christ and had al- ways been used by the Roman Catholic Church), he replaced it with his own formula (which, therefore, is no longer that institut- ed by Christ), even making it mandatory, as of November 30, 1969, having introduced it in the “Missale Romanum Apostolic Constitution” of April 3, 1969.
And yet, St. Pius V, St. Pius X, Pius XII (the Pope of the “Me- diator Dei”), John XXIII and Paul VI, himself, up until November 30, 1969, had consecrated the Blessed Eucharist with the bi-millen- nial formula of the “Roman Canon”, with assurance, with com- passion, with faith, in the Latin language, with subdued voice, fol- lowing Canon IX of Session XXIII of the Council of Trent.
And thus Paul VI, with his reform of the Mass, disregarded the teaching of the Vatican I Council, which reads, verbatim:
«Nor to the successors of Peter was promised the Holy Spirit in order that that, by means of His revelation, they would manifest a new doc- trine, but on the contrary, in order that through
242
His assistance, they would holily keep and faithfully expound the Revelation, taught through the Apostles, namely, the “Deposit of the Faith.”»1 (Pastor Aeternus July 8, 1870)
Moreover, Paul VI disregarded also Pius IX’s teaching (against the “Declaratio Episcoporum Germaniae” of January- February 1875), which reads as follows:
«... Finally, the opinion that the Pope, by virtue of his infallibility, be supreme sovereign, sup- poses a concept at all erroneous of the dogma of the Papal infallibility. As the (First) Vatican Council, with unambiguous and explicit words, has enunciated, and as it appears in its face from the nature of things, that (infallibility) is restricted to the prerogative of the Papal Supreme Magisterium: that coincides with the domain of the infallible Magisterium of the Church Herself, and it is bound to the doctrine contained in the Scriptures and Tradition, as well as to the (dogmatic) Definitions already pronounced by the ecclesiastical Magisteri- um... Hence, as regards the affaires of the gov- ernment of the Pope, nothing has been changed in an absolute way»2.
In addition: Paul VI, having disregarded the two aforemen- tioned “documents” of the Supreme Magisterium, went as far as tampering with the “Eucharistic Consecratory Formula”, estab- lished by Christ in person, insinuating, almost, to the entire Church, that that formula contained something that needed fixing, violating, in this manner, also Canon VI of the Council of Trent, which sanctioned: etc.,

One can easily read the entire contents on the archive website. Yall don't really need to think about this... its all been thinked through for you to its rational conclusion by those who have/had the authority to do so.

Significant Sidebar - - - One can also read the Third Secret of Fatima (which was supposed to be published in 1960) at the end of that very same book!

MatthewRoth

I’d also observe that while the pope focused only on the Mass in his last document, the bishops apparently do not like the old ritual, and that’s a shame for a number of reasons. It is superior in every way to the new form, particularly for baptism, and now we’re just supposed to say that “It was good enough for The Godfather but not for our own religion,” apparently, which strikes me as bizarre. The same is true for Joyce and Introibo ad altare Dei

No one seems to have mentioned the breviary. But that is also a major point of contention. I note, perhaps even with glee, that Paderborn Cathedral uses the new ceremonies with the music and text all taken from the pre-conciliar antiphonal. I don’t know how often they have all-Latin Vespers, but it’s remarkable that they refuse to change to the Liturgia Horarum, which was impossible anyway since it took thirty years to produce the first part of the antiphonal, which is still not finished. Even if I have to produce scores in Gregorio, at least the 1962 (or earlier) music exists for the commonly-sung offices.

tomjaw

Meanwhile at our social after Mass today... photographs of an apostolic blessing were being distributed. Yes, one of the members of our trad community has been ordained in Econe, and had received a blessing from Francis! Another former server of ours also has been ordained recently for the SSPX (I will tell him also to apply for a blessing!)

N.B. We are a diocesan parish that has daily TLM!

a_f_hawkins

And long may this harmonious relationship with your archbishop continue.

Welcome to the MusicaSacra Forum!

Categories