DC: to avoid getting mixed up in the discussion
  • amindthatsuits
    Posts: 811
    The bright side to the decision in DC is that Msgr. Pope, a critic of Traditionis Custodes, is the parochial delegate for the Traditionalist faithful.

    And the Franciscan Monastery is gorgeous.

    Here's the downside. I am by vocation a teacher and I have been particularly touched by my involvement with the students who put together the Mass at St. Anthony of Padua. (They are also the backbone of some Saturday days of recollection led by Msgr. Wadsworth at St. Thomas Apostle.) I will find out who the author is in due course. From what he writes, he is one of the servers, and I don't know them that well. They are all fine people.

    https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2022/07/persecution-in-dc-one-young-catholics.html
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • amindthatsuits
    Posts: 811
    What pains me about all this is exactly the ripping of people away from their contexts: St. Mary Mother of God is one of the oldest "indult" parishes, I don't know how St. Francis de Sales parish got its community, and I know the guys who assemble the Mass at St. Anthony for their reasons. Those communities cannot be replaced or reconstituted willy-nilly.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,431
    I hadn't heard of this happening at St. Anthony's! I used to live across the street from that church and it was sleepy and not a destination.

    I think Msgr. Pope will be an enormous help in the transition. He has so much zeal and energy and just a huge heart. And the Franciscan place is a 10 minute walk from St. Anthony's, 20 from CUA--and on the metro. It's doable.

  • Tom,

    In that article, I found the young man's comment about pablum particularly well crafted: he doesn't want it because he want something more substantial.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 1,767
    I find the curtailing of baptisms according to the old rite to be particularly shocking. This is almost always done in private with a few family members and is distinct from public corporate worship the vast majority of the time. I’ve had my children baptized according to the old rite, and don’t intend to buck the trend when/if #3 rolls along.
  • Serviam,

    May #3 be the first in a long line of new additions to your family. May the all be baptized in the older rite.
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,704
    and if the first and second were not a masculine child, may the third one be.
    Thanked by 1ServiamScores
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 1,767
    1: Anthony Vincent
    2: Claire Angelica
    (With two known only to our Lord in between)

    I have indeed been very blessed.
  • NihilNominisNihilNominis
    Posts: 802
    My understanding is that the ample main chapel at the Franciscan Monastery is not the designated location, but rather a much smaller venue within the complex. Can anyone confirm?

    Merely relative generosity within a context of punitive, arbitrary, and unnecessary restrictions is not generosity. Perceiving it as generosity is arguably akin to Stockholm syndrome.

    As someone who, for years, has worked on the frontlines to foster mutual understanding between trads and normies in parish contexts, and has witnessed over the years on both sides so much thawing, mutual enrichment, and breaking down barriers, I saw firsthand how much of the actual work of integration this one little document seems to have undone overnight. All the suspicion, fear was back tradside. Normside, all the sense of self-righteous entitlement to condemn the local trad crowd as disloyal, extreme, schismatic, etc was given fresh impetus. Wagons circled. And those of us like me who preached a paix liturgique avec detente et rapprochement left looking like shills with our trousers down.
  • Nihil,

    Did you also see actual fear "normside" and self-righteous entitlement "tradside"?
    Thanked by 1NihilNominis
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 1,767
    He works in a hybrid parish, so I expect his remark is not hyperbole.
    Thanked by 2tomjaw NihilNominis
  • Serviam,

    I didn't suppose he intended it to be hyperbole. What I meant is "Do you see the behaviors across the spectrum, or is one behavior specifically linked to one position?"
    Thanked by 1NihilNominis
  • NihilNominisNihilNominis
    Posts: 802
    Chris,

    Yes, I certainly did! I could less rhetorically simply have said, “emotions on both sides became more fraught, and divisions and divisiveness grew deeper.”

    Serviam,

    Yes, though to be clear the parish you are referring to was my last one.
  • I like the way you put it first time, but I'm glad, too, that I understood you to mean what you said the second time.
  • amindthatsuits
    Posts: 811
    NihilNominis: the side chapel thing was so far as I know part of the fevered speculation.

    What I will say is that if the Traditionalists had been in anyway belligerent or disobedient, they would have gotten another Delegate and the side chapel. I honestly believe this order was dictated from afar and His Eminence would have preferred nothing. That’s been his modus operandi as I understand it.

    So he gave us Msgr Pope, who by all accounts is wonderful, and a committee of priests who are I think all Trad to set up the new Mass at the Monastery. That was because of the wise, non-bellicose guidance from the priests. I sat next to one at a dinner last weekend and he certainly didn’t breathe a word of complaint about the facilities.

    Kathy, your description of St Anthony is accurate and one wonders how it will fare now. There was a bit of undergraduate squabbling before the Mass ended up there. It was never going to be on campus under the previous Campus Ministry occupants, and it was a good choice. What’s to become of the actual parish now is a question: said undergrads left me locked out when they changed the time on something and I went to the regular 12:00 pm Mass. it was not crowded.

    Peace. Kenneth



    Thanked by 1NihilNominis
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,704
    I don't know, he's gone out of his way to do something, and he even invited them to the synodal session, only to maintain his draft from March.

    He seems content enough with Rome, if that's the implication, because he's going to close down two, if not three parishes, that, if the TLM were left in place, would survive, all while denying these people the other sacraments and the stability of a parish community.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • amindthatsuits
    Posts: 811
    MatthewRoth I didn't say I thought it was optimal. I said if he had not received outside pressure, he would probably have delayed forever.

    If you read my note again, I most emphatically feel it could have been much worse, so the listening sessions most emphatically served a purpose. He even said beforehand that the Pope's will was paramount, but the sessions still served a purpose.

    Yes, the loss of the parish community is very difficult.

    Kenneth
  • Excuse me for thinking this way, but there's been a fair bit of misdirection in other fields recently, so "wise as serpents and innocent as doves" is goal:

    Now that 2 TLM parishes have been closed, someone [not sure who] will be able to claim that the closure of two TLM parishes shows there's not really any need for the TLM.
  • amindthatsuits
    Posts: 811
    Oh, always assume something worse can happen.

    To make sure that it doesn't, everyone from all three parishes in DC must--as they can--make the Mass at the Franciscan Monastery a "success." There are people, of course, who are kind of pouting and talking about attending the FSSP parish near Baltimore. If the DC Mass "flops," worse things could happen.

    The organization of the Mass is in very good hands (not mine). They don't need any more cooks. But there need to be people in the pews and otherwise engaged in "full, conscious, and active participation" (phrase not mine).

    Kenneth
    Thanked by 1ServiamScores
  • amindthatsuits
    Posts: 811
    I see that I originally intended for the article to be highlighted but of course it got sucked into the conversation.
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,101
    But it (the D.C. TLM) shouldn't be too much of a success, either, because that could make things worse, too.
  • amindthatsuits
    Posts: 811
    I see that I originally intended for the article to be highlighted but of course it got sucked into the conversation.

    Salieri--can you explain? we're not going back into parishes any time soon.
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,101
    If too many people go to the TLM at the Monastery rather than the Novus Ordo at a parish church, the Archdiocese could easily stamp it out completely, and could do so easily, especially by preying upon people's scruples, because the Sunday obligation is to be fulfilled by attending Mass in a parish church: the Monastery is not a parish church, therefore those attending the TLM there do not fulfill their Sunday obligation. Or so the Archdiocese could claim.

    See Chonak's correction below.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,921
    Sorry, Salieri, that is not correct: the Sunday obligation specified in the Code of Canon Law does not require that one attend Mass at a parish church, so no one can frighten people with worries on that account.

    Can. 1248 §1. A person who assists at a Mass celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the feast day itself or in the evening of the preceding day satisfies the obligation of participating in the Mass.
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,101
    I was unaware of that, thank you for the correction.

    But I still don't trust Gregory (or any bishop) farther than I could throw him. And for that reason, I am concerned that if the TLM is too much of a success it could be taken away completely.
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,353
    @Salieri, that was the former code... not that it applied to some diocese.
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,704
    Kenneth: Obviously, I disagree; the synodal sessions may have only reinforced for the cardinal, thankfully, that these people aren't to be punished, at least not explicitly. But if he himself didn't ultimately want this, he would have listened. Nothing changed, as I said, from the March draft to the July instructions issued last week. Why did he ban ad orientem? Is Rome telling him to do that? Is he lacking in all moral agency? Did we forget that he cancelled the pontifical Mass last August 14 with no warning at great cost to the people coming for that Mass?

    It's not about "pouting," good grief, man. These people have lost their parishes. One woman, at least, is losing their parishes on top of their husband. It's perfectly fine for people to say, "We're going to go to Baltimore to have the entire traditional rite available." Some people were making great sacrifices to go to DC for that, but now that's been ripped away; why divide their loyalties and have a divided rhythm for their children if they're only getting the Mass on Sundays and nothing more?

    I can think of priests of or working in that diocese who have lost everything or nearly everything that they have worked on in their priesthood, staying in DC and in active, full-time ministry at great cost. I hope that at least some of them leave the diocese or take early retirement from ministry.

    @tomjaw: the 1917 code already removed (or made permanent and universal) the obligation to assist at one's parish church on Sundays and holy days in canon 1249 of that code: "Legi de audiendo Sacro satisfacit qui Missae adest quocunque catholico ritu celebretur, sub dio aut in quacunque ecclesia vel oratorio publico aut semi-publico et in privatis coemeteriorum aediculis de quibus in can. 1190, non vero in aliis oratoriis privatis, nisi hoc privilegium a Sede Apostolica concessum fuerit.

    Chris, to be fair to His Eminence, St Mary, Mother of God, St Francis de Sales, and St Anthony of Padua in DC and St Francis de Sales in Benedict, MD have not been closed yet, but the pastors or the people have been clear in the case of SMMOG and SFDS in DC that they depend on the TLM community to survive. It's not at all clear that SMMOG will be able to survive on a Latin NO, even if ad orientem is permitted.
    Thanked by 2tomjaw rich_enough
  • Chris_McAvoyChris_McAvoy
    Posts: 385
    The great chastisement arrives. I remember well many of the great men, women, families who sacrificed much for the traditional orthodox roman catholic faith in Washington, DC. This is a spiritual battle being waged to the death. Only with such tragic crisis will men awaken to take hold of their arms and fight for the faith. The age of martyrdom returns.
  • Richard MixRichard Mix
    Posts: 2,536
    Calling to wage war to the death is not usual conduct for Martyrs. "Hang Mike… hey wait a minute; where did you say we're going?"
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,934
    "I address a pressing call to the Earth! I call the true disciples of the Living God who reigns in Heaven! I call the true imitators of the Christ made man, the Only and True Savior of men! I call men, my true devout ones, those who have given themselves to me so that I may lead them to my Son, those that, in other words, I carry in my arms, those who have lived of my spirit! It is time they come out and come forth to enlighten the earth! Go, and show yourselves as my beloved children! I am with you and in you as long as your faith is the light which enlightens you in these days of sorrow. May your zeal make you famished for the Glory and Honor of Jesus-Christ. Fight, children of Light, you the few in numbers who see, for behold the time of times, the end of ends."

    Our Lady of La Salette
  • GambaGamba
    Posts: 464
    Shuffling parishes around >> Martyrdom??
  • Gamba,

    I don't think you've adequately assessed the actions being described as martyrdom.
  • MarkB
    Posts: 839
    The other shoe dropped in Arlington today.
  • I'm not sure whether to be pleased that 8 of 21 sites will keep the Mass or pleased that 3 requested the dispensation and 8 received it.

    What I know of Bishop Burbidge (which is, admittedly, not volumes) suggests that he's trying to walk a fine line, knowing this pontificate can't last for ever. He says he's convened a group of people, pastors even, of parishes which offer the TLM. (That's more than HH did, from what I can tell).

    Praying for Bishop Burbidge.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • Now I've read the policy more fully.

    Increasingly I'm of the opinion that being Catholic and being faithful (or loyal) to the Holy Father, His Holiness Pope Francis is more and more oxymoronic for bishops. One can't have pastoral solicitude for that which one intends to exterminate. I'm just a poor layman, but even I can't make sense of this policy of being a guardian of tradition by exterminating it.
  • TCJ
    Posts: 832
    As someone else put it, forcing people out of the church and into a school gym is a sure way to promote unity!
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 1,767
    We can sign concordances with the Lutherans to talk about how we share common beliefs, but not with the people who adhere to tradition! Ironic, eh?
    Thanked by 1LauraKaz
  • MarkB
    Posts: 839
    Nobody is being forced out of a parish nor forced to go anywhere for Mass. Nobody is being denied Mass. Mass will continue to be celebrated in the Novus Ordo in every parish where TLMs will be discontinued, in many cases at exactly the same times as the TLMs they are replacing. People are choosing to leave their parish communities for ad-hoc, non-parish TLMs. Nobody has a right to the TLM except those religious institutes whose constitutions expressly provide for that.

    The hyperbolic and loaded language on some trad websites: "massacre, segregation, cruelty, slap in the face, hypocrisy," shows that indeed some trad communities have become enclaves of resistance to church unity and refusal to accept the reformed liturgy. They don't want unity with other Catholics, nor do they want to worship with other Catholics if it means worshipping in the Novus Ordo Mass; they want the TLM, and I believe some will prefer a schismatic TLM to a Novus Ordo Mass in union with the local ordinary if it comes to that.

    I think it will come to that. It was clear as day a year ago when this began what was going to happen. Use of the 1962 Missal is going to be phased out in the Roman Church. As Pope Francis has remarked, "The liturgical reform is irreversible." That doesn't mean the current Novus Ordo will never be further revised, but it does mean that the Church is on a liturgical trajectory that will leave the preconciliar liturgical rites behind.

    For a productive discussion rather than harping about bishops doing precisely what they should be doing, what does it mean for trads to accept Vatican II and the postconciliar liturgical reform? Does it mean that trads accept that other Catholics accept the liturgical reform but they themselves don't have to? Or does it mean that trads must eventually accept that the post-Vatican II reformed liturgy is the normative liturgical expression in the Roman Rite, and they themselves must eventually worship exclusively using the postconciliar rites?
    Thanked by 1Elmar
  • Schönbergian
    Posts: 1,032
    As evidenced by much of the discourse in trad circles, it seems that acceptance of Vatican II isn't even a prerequisite for some.
    Thanked by 1Elmar
  • Use of the 1962 Missal is going to be phased out in the Roman Church. As Pope Francis has remarked, "The liturgical reform is irreversible." That doesn't mean the current Novus Ordo will never be further revised, but it does mean that the Church is on a liturgical trajectory that will leave the preconciliar liturgical rites behind.



    Guardians of tradition leave it behind? How does that make any sense? Tradition is being promoted assiduously by being "phased out"? Again, in what way does it make any rational sense?


    For a productive discussion rather than harping about bishops doing precisely what they should be doing, what does it mean for trads to accept Vatican II and the postconciliar liturgical reform? Does it mean that trads accept that other Catholics accept the liturgical reform but they themselves don't have to? Or does it mean that trads must eventually accept that the post-Vatican II reformed liturgy is the normative liturgical expression in the Roman Rite, and they themselves must eventually worship exclusively using the postconciliar rites?


    As soon as someone can define, with propositions unarguably consistent with what the Church has always taught, instead of insinuations and appeals to the fruit of the tree what the Vatican Council taught which must be accepted by those who (ostensibly) reject both Vatican II and liturgical reform, the claim can be evaluated. In the interim, I deny that there is such teaching.
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,704
    Mark, with all due respect, you've got your head in the sand, or else you're choosing to be mean.

    Yes, some people are hyperbolic, but it cuts both ways, and I'm choosing to refrain from tone-policing grieving people, which would be cruel and remarked as such in any other context.

    People are choosing to leave, because the bishop only left them with one option if they want the TLM. He didn't have to do this. He didn't have to write to Rome. He wanted to do so, for whatever reason, whether his naivety coloring his obedience or his desire to stamp out the TLM.

    Nobody has a right to the TLM? Well, I'll be. That's not what JPII said, and it's not what BXVI said. Now, Francis may say something different, but I have nothing polite to say about the fact that three generations of Catholics have grown up or discovered with some variation of "rightful aspirations" to "some previous liturgical and disciplinary forms of the Latin tradition" to which we have become attached; we were promised that the pope's will would be the "necessary measures to guarantee respect" to " facilitate [our] ecclesial communion." (John Paul II, Ecclesia Dei adflicta, 5) This was an evolution from Quattuor abhinc annos (which was nevertheless less strict than TC, since the bishop got the last word on the churches to be used): "This concession, indicative of the common Father's solicitude for all his children, must be used in such a way as not to prejudice the faithful observance of the liturgical reform in the life of the respective ecclesial communities." Nevertheless, the pope actually expressed genuine care for his flock of which he is the shepherd and ruler.

    Benedict's words to the bishops in 2007 are worth citing at length.

    mmediately after the Second Vatican Council it was presumed that requests for the use of the 1962 Missal would be limited to the older generation which had grown up with it, but in the meantime it has clearly been demonstrated that young persons too have discovered this liturgical form, felt its attraction and found in it a form of encounter with the Mystery of the Most Holy Eucharist, particularly suited to them. Thus the need has arisen for a clearer juridical regulation which had not been foreseen at the time of the 1988 Motu Proprio. The present Norms are also meant to free Bishops from constantly having to evaluate anew how they are to respond to various situations.

    In the second place, the fear was expressed in discussions about the awaited Motu Proprio, that the possibility of a wider use of the 1962 Missal would lead to disarray or even divisions within parish communities. This fear also strikes me as quite unfounded. The use of the old Missal presupposes a certain degree of liturgical formation and some knowledge of the Latin language; neither of these is found very often. Already from these concrete presuppositions, it is clearly seen that the new Missal will certainly remain the ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, not only on account of the juridical norms, but also because of the actual situation of the communities of the faithful.


    It is clear that BXVI was happy with people who found the traditional liturgy despite not having grown up with it. It is our birthright just as much as it is that of those baptized before the revision of the ritual. TC is bad policy. Now we have to constantly evaluate and reevaluate the pastoral care of the faithful, all while waiting on Rome to make a decision. The pacification largely achieved through the generosity of the previous motu proprio has been undone.

    The vast majority are not asking for the NOM to be suppressed, and they all accept priests ordained in the new rite, bishops consecrated in the new rite, and chrism made in the new rite. They are therefore not schismatic at all. They just want the TLM for their Mass, the Rituale Romanum for their sacraments and sacramentals, the Breviarium Romanum for their psalms, and the traditional expressions of doctrine for their catechesis. Why is that too much?
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,353
    @MarkB
    We have mentioned this before but the N.O Mass is not what Vatican II called for, just because the latest Pope says this does not make it true. We know it is not what was called for because those that were involved in Vatican II have said so.

    I notice that some places besides prohibiting the TLM to the SSPX, are also prohibiting the N.O. Mass in Latin and ad orientem... How do you square that circle?

    I know things are different over the pond, but here in England the church is dying. We have just closed our seminary, because we have no vocations (even though our parish has just had a former member ordained for the SSPX). We now have 2 seminaries in England, and they are not bursting at the seams, it will not be long until we have more young men in formation for the FSSP, SSPX etc. than we have in our diocesan seminaries!

    Here in my diocese at least 1/3 of our priests are nearing retirement, they have no replacement. Soon in many places the N.O. Mass will be extinct.

    Next week I will be travelling through France, for every 8 priests that retire they have one ordination. In many places you cannot hear Mass in French because they have no priests.
    Over 30 years ago when I stayed in France it was one priest for 6 parishes, it is now more like 12 parishes with one priest! It is only going to get worse.

    I will then stay in Switzerland. In the area my wife is from, it is one priest for 10 parishes, and the churches are empty... well apart from those run by the FSSP, they are packed. The local bishop knows that the N.O. Mass does not attract the young people, and is happy for us to have Mass in our local chapel... The other local bishop retired and is now living with the local SSPX (with the permission of Pope Francis) His replacement likes wearing tight T-shirts, but has continued to support the FSSP apostolates. In Switzerland the church is effectively close to extinction... If it wasn't for the Church tax it would have closed years ago.

    It is all very well expecting the traditionalists to save the N.O. Mass but the tree that brings no fruits has a destiny described in scripture. Watering the fig tree would never bring any fruit.

    Pope Benedict predicted we would have a smaller more Faithful Church, in many places this Church will only have the TLM. I am happy we have produced fruit, we have had gained many converts, we have vocations, we have grown while the N.O. Masses have continued to decline. Now the TLM is going to be purged, not to die but to bring forth more fruit. "Unless the grain of wheat dies..."

    N.B. The SSPX is just up the road just in case! So I can continue to reject the Mass that Vatican II did not call for.
  • TCJ
    Posts: 832
    As has been pointed out before, many people who were faithful attendees at the NO were driven from their own parishes because they wanted something as simple as theologically-correct hymns, or a Mass devoid of clownishness or abuses. Those people chose to exit such parishes and go to the TLM because they found a decent liturgy. Many such people would not have gone to a TLM in the first place if their own parishes had not been so awful.

    If the bishops (and pope) truly want people to stay with the NO then they would take actual measures to be sure the NO Mass is said reverently, without [further] innovation, without abuses, with theologically correct sermons, without unnecessary laypeople prancing in the sanctuary. They failed to do that. Many of them make no attempt whatsoever to curb a lot of the nonsense that is going on, and many of them actively encourage it.

    Guess what? People with a sense for the sacred are going to flock to the TLM because of that. Many more people have moved to the TLM in the past two years since in some cases, those were the parishes (or churches) that actually made an attempt to supply the spiritual needs of the faithful during a time when many churches entirely shut down. Around here, the TLM attendance skyrocketed during the Jubilee Year of the Shutdown. People remember who made sacrifices for their spiritual well-being and who didn't. (Most of the parishes in my vicinity are running about 50% attendance compared to two years ago. My own parish (not a TLM) is about 80%. The TLM is about 200%.)

    Trying to force these people to return to the NO by removing what they have found isn't going to work. The TLM might temporarily shrink, but it will pick up and grow again and flourish more than it was before.

    Remember back when Rome tried to stamp out faithful Catholics? It didn't work. It won't work this time either.
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,704
    Besides, even if you curb the abuses which drove us out, the people in the meantime discovered that they'd been hoodwinked, and you can't get all of the good things of the traditional liturgy even if you do the nicest-looking NO with no EMHCs, vested male lectors singing the lections, instituted acolytes serving as a quasi-subdeacon all with the nicest vestments.
    Thanked by 2tomjaw ServiamScores
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,921
    I think one factor is that the faithful who attend TLMs are tired of having bishops and would-be experts tell them complete untruths.
  • NihilNominisNihilNominis
    Posts: 802
    Nobody is being forced out of a parish nor forced to go anywhere for Mass. Nobody is being denied Mass. Mass will continue to be celebrated in the Novus Ordo in every parish where TLMs will be discontinued, in many cases at exactly the same times as the TLMs they are replacing. People are choosing to leave their parish communities for ad-hoc, non-parish TLMs. Nobody has a right to the TLM except those religious institutes whose constitutions expressly provide for that.


    A change was introduced that predictably alters people’s complex calculus in choosing a parish home. Suppress the charismatic stuff at CTK in Ann Arbor (still NO) and make the same argument as to why those people should all stay. Why people parish here or there is not a simple formula. Nor is it obvious what they should do in the wake of such a major change.

    Also, likely those Masses will not be replaced, just dropped. Attendance hardly seems to justify adding Masses in most places.

    The hyperbolic and loaded language on some trad websites: "massacre, segregation, cruelty, slap in the face, hypocrisy," shows that indeed some trad communities have become enclaves of resistance to church unity and refusal to accept the reformed liturgy. They don't want unity with other Catholics, nor do they want to worship with other Catholics if it means worshipping in the Novus Ordo Mass; they want the TLM, and I believe some will prefer a schismatic TLM to a Novus Ordo Mass in union with the local ordinary if it comes to that.


    Some have sacrificed a great deal to remain in communion, suffering much, getting pushed from place to place, having here “no lasting home.” That they continue to suffer in this way is sad to me. But that is often the price of faithfulness. Whereas those who have long since broken communion do not suffer from these decisions, and indeed stand to benefit: their ranks will swell with those less rooted or committed to communion.

    The world is colder and sadder for those of us who would never dream of breaking communion. Whereas those who broke communion are confirmed in the wisdom of their errors.

    I think it will come to that. It was clear as day a year ago when this began what was going to happen. Use of the 1962 Missal is going to be phased out in the Roman Church. As Pope Francis has remarked, "The liturgical reform is irreversible." That doesn't mean the current Novus Ordo will never be further revised, but it does mean that the Church is on a liturgical trajectory that will leave the preconciliar liturgical rites behind.


    Quo Primum made some pretty big claims, and turned out to be quite reversible.

    The postconciliar reform didn’t go as planned. So what? Let’s let life be complex and move forward from here, not keep trying to relive 1968 until we get it right. There are great communities attached to both ritual forms. Water what is good, prune what is bad, and be as gentle as possible.

    For a productive discussion rather than harping about bishops doing precisely what they should be doing, what does it mean for trads to accept Vatican II and the postconciliar liturgical reform? Does it mean that trads accept that other Catholics accept the liturgical reform but they themselves don't have to? Or does it mean that trads must eventually accept that the post-Vatican II reformed liturgy is the normative liturgical expression in the Roman Rite, and they themselves must eventually worship exclusively using the postconciliar rites?


    A mystery to me, since I worship willingly in both, but prefer the old rite. I see how the legitimate old rite has drawn schismatics back into communion and even helped them find a path to religious vocations.
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,101
    What happened after the Council, namely the total replacement of one Liturgical Rite with a completely new one, universally, is something that has never happened in the Church. Not even Pius V in "Quo primum" did what Paul VI did in "Missale Romanum", because the Novus Ordo isn't just a new edition of the same Rite, but a new one. This hasn't happened in the West since Luther and Cranmer promulgated their liturgical books.

    And I find it interesting that the churches of the Anglican Communion, when deciding to change and modernize their liturgical books, only issued the new ones as an option, and retained the old service intact: cf.: Rites I & II of the American BCP of the 1970s or the Alternative Service Book and the 1661 BCP living together harmoniously in the Church of England. This is what Benedict did with Summorum. What Francis is doing is like the Archbishop of Canterbury prohibiting the use of the Prayer Book and mandating the Alternative Service Book (which, IIRC, is now called Common Worship).

    The duplicity and pettiness of the Church's hierarchy today is, frankly, scandalous. I wouldn't mind more Synodality in the Church if it wasn't just an empty phrase to deflect attention away from the over-centralizing and micromanaging of the Vatican apparatchiks. The post-Concilliar Church is, if anything, far from what the Council Fathers wanted: and Janitors of Tradition, the Responses to the Dubious Dubia, and the further castration of the bishops by the Dicastery for Divine Worship, in the name of "unity", which is nothing but lock-step uniformity (remember the old "communist fashion show" commercial for Wendy's?), is showing the rhetoric of the "official" Church of the past 60 years to have been a total and blatant LIE. (Which many have guessed that it was, anyway.)

    Where is this "New Springtime"? I see empty and closing churches; I see priestess parishes; I see all sorts of scandal, debauchery, deviancy, and corruption; I see a tree that is diseased and dying, and the few limbs that are showing new growth are being sawn off, while the gardener is telling us that the dead, leafless limbs are what the tree is supposed to look like. It's disgusting. If the Church survives this pontificate (and the next one, based on the current make-up of the College), it will be the single greatest testament to the indefectibility of the Church in her entire history.
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,704
    There are relatively few parishes of the CofE which don't use Common Worship, but so long as they can find someone, most people are happy to live and let live, especially because these are probably older folks, and keeping the lights on of one more church building is a good goal.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,160
    @MarkB:

    some will prefer a schismatic TLM to a Novus Ordo Mass


    "Schismatic"? Please describe the canonical position of laity attending SSPX Masses under every Pope since John XXII. Be accurate and concise.
  • Mark,

    One more log: how does it make any sense at all to want to do what the Church has done through all of her history, and, in that desire, to be accused of disunity and schism. If the only way to follow a bishop is by throwing away everything the Church has taught and done.... surely this is the work of the Devil himself.