I don’t know. The outside group which was already using that gym need a new home. The school can’t use it at all.

The altar looks nice, but the sanctuary is smaller than what was available at Holy Trinity, Gainesville, even though that this style of church is architecturally unsound in the end. This reinforces the role of pews, taking away basically every inch which you could have given over to walking around, and in the US, our choice of solid pews means that they visually take up the entire space. Compare this to much of Europe (like in France) where either wood-and-straw chairs are used, or the pews have a wooden beam for the seat that is not attached to the beam used for the back (there’s a gap between the two pieces in other words).

They now have to offer more TLMs, which is deceiving, because it’s not really more availability. It’s just that they divided a community and now can’t fit everyone in the gym. The priests now have more work to do on Sundays. These people aren’t welcome in their parishes.

Many people affected in Arlington don’t have any TLM now. He did cancel some entirely. Others (including some of the ones who lost the TLM) have donated up to thousands of dollars to building and restoring churches, and they only donated having become TLM parishioners. They’d have gone elsewhere earlier without the TLM.

So yes, we should do the best we can do, but giving the bishop an earful is appropriate and necessary.

If the bishops want money and peace, kicking people out of their parishes isn’t the way forward. I also don’t know how Bishop Burbidge entirely lost the plot here; September 8 is the day that the father of Fr Vander Woude, pastor of Holy Trinity, died in a septic tank saving Father’s youngest brother (who has Down syndrome) from drowning himself. What is wrong with the bishop who kicks his parishioners out on said anniversary?

And yeah, I’ll be demanding for my birthright to which I have “rightful aspirations,” particularly when actual heretics and criminals go entirely unbothered or only very minimally so. I note with some disdain that Jacques Gaillot was translated from the see of Évreux to a titular see, having dissented from Ordinatio sacerdotalis, and while he retreated a little bit, he otherwise is free to do what he likes. The major dissenting theologians lost the mandatum, but were not laicized after a heresy tribunal.

Diocese of Arlington (Virginia) that was given a gym for its TLM---so instead of two months of complaining, they rebuilt the gym as a proper church.

Meanwhile some proper churches will doubtlessly be closed. SMH

There is a way to obey the letter of the law - a Novus Ordo mass in Latin said ad orientem with all the propers and ordinaries in chant.

The Vatican has said that ad orientem celebration is consistent with the GIRM. Sacrosanctam Concilium states that steps are to be taken so that the people can say or sing those parts of the mass in Latin which pertain to them and that chant is to be preserved. The code of canon law states that the mass is to be said in Latin or an approved translation. Such a mass would be entirely in keeping with the law and would be consistent with the Novus Ordo as being the unique expression of the Latin Rite.

Chaswjd,

So... why is the celebration of the Mass in the manner you describe, following the law and everything, so vanishingly rare?

While I understand that there are reasons to be attached to the 1962 Missal, is it a huge of a betrayal of core principles to have a Novus Ordo Mass, ad orientem, in Latin with chanted ordinary and proper?

To these groups, yes, at least their loudest advocates. Unfortunately, they stand to take everything else reverent down with them.

I don’t think that a Latin Mass is necessarily mandated. That said, I don’t know of any bishop who has forbidden a Novus Ordo Latin Mass. I know some have forbidden ad orientem celebrations of the mass. I believe to be in excess of the ordinary’s authority as well as unwise. But the route for correcting that is an appeal to Rome.

@ MatthewRoth

Part of the problem is people view going to a NO mass in Latin is a betrayal of a principle. While we may debate the wisdom of any particular change in the mass following Vatican II, it remains that the church has the power to alter its rites.

Chas,

The Church has some limited power to alter Her rites.

I'm increasingly puzzled by those who say, effectively, at one and the same time that there's no difference between the TLM and the Ordo of Paul VI, and that it is absolutely wrong to choose the TLM because it amounts to a repudiation of the Ordo of Paul VI.

The Ordo of Paul VI, in Latin, isn't a concession: it's normative.

clearly the Church does have the power to alter whatever it wants in the liturgy.

Really? To what “magisterium” are you referring that owns such a power? Please be exhaustive and precise in your definition... I am curious to know.

Maybe you should all refer yourselves to Can. 838 before assuming the Church cannot licitly regulate its own liturgy.

I shouldn't have to explain this to Roman Catholics, though.

clearly the Church does have the power to alter whatever it wants in the liturgy.

Maybe you should all refer yourselves to Can. 838 before assuming the Church cannot licitly regulate its own liturgy.

Even the Council Fathers at Vatican II insisted that there were parts of the liturgy which are NOT subject to change. I'm not proposing some hermetically sealed box, but neither can you (rightly, anyway) assert that absolutely anything can be changed.


What I received also I handed on, as St. Paul says somewhere.

If anyone preach a gospel other than ...... says St. Paul, too.

I have kept the faith... says St.Paul, too.

there are no similar restrictions on the use of the Missal of St. Paul VI in Latin.

excepting, of course, the fact that you can no longer order the missal of Paul VI in Latin… details.

The overblown hysteria (people being "kicked out" of churches) is not helpful and further indicative of the attitudes which Pope Francis drew attention to.

Normally, you'd get punched in the face if you said this to any other grieving person, but because it's about ecclesiastical politics, and people whom you don't especially like, this is OK. It's exactly what happened, however: they got kicked out of the churches, and some of these people in Arlington, to name one sad case, have donated thousands and thousands to renovating their churches under the assumption that the TLM would be offered in these buildings.

There are a lot of things which I'd hope that I shouldn't have to explain to Catholics, but the hostility to the ancient form of the rite, an attitude condemned by the Council of Trent, the very same basis for which the Secretariat of State refused to abolish it at the request of Bugnini himself, is among them, yet this hatred underlies every single reason put forward. Nota bene: Cardinal Gregory and Bishop Burbidge both underlined the loyalty and piety of the people expelled from their churches, so it's clearly not about bad behavior, and these reactions are pretty much the same the world over (I've read dozens of these letters in the last year and some months). Francis hardly mentions it at all. It is purely about the liturgical rites for these bishops.

Chaswjd, people shouldn't be allowed to prefer the new missal at all costs, particularly since that comes with the hatred condemned by the Fathers of Trent. Again, the obedience to the letter can come only if the Ordinary allows it. Most have not, or they make you go out of your way to prove your obedience. Insisting that your way forward is the only way, when it's as threatened or more than just carrying on, is very obnoxious, and to a fault.

So this Canon law you appeal to, it comes from the Apostles or Christ Himself right?

We're not Protestants, so I don't understand this line of reasoning.

Normally, you'd get punched in the face if you said this to any other grieving person, but because it's about ecclesiastical politics, and people whom you don't especially like, this is OK. It's exactly what happened, however: they got kicked out of the churches, and some of these people in Arlington, to name one sad case, have donated thousands and thousands to renovating their churches under the assumption that the TLM would be offered in these buildings.

Under instruction from the Supreme Pontiff, one form of the Roman Rite will no longer be offered at these parishes. Nobody is being kicked out, they are choosing to go elsewhere for a liturgy that they prefer.

Schoenbergian,

Serious question, not snark: Do you agree with the Cardinal Abp of Chicago that he didn't ban the traditional form of the Mass and the Sacraments, but, rather, that the priests freely chose not to offer them?

Chas,

2. Be obedient to the law and have a Latin NO mass with Gregorian ordinary and propers.

If the law-enforcer actually allowed such a thing....... you might have a stronger case. Cardinal Sarah argued reasonably and passionately that priests should celebrate Mass ad orientem, and the consequence was that some bishops and priests (including, nearly, the Holy Father himself) banned the practice. The law and common sense are on the Cardinal's side, but ... de jure and de facto sometimes don't exactly coincide.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/archdiocese-of-chicago-claims-institute-of-christ-the-king-chose-to-stop-offering-sacraments/

There is much in this report, some of it more germane to the question you ask than other parts of it.

This article may be even more relevant: https://wherepeteris.com/followers-of-the-imagisterium/

Many of these Catholics seem to believe that there is an objective standard against which the teachings of the papal Magisterium and the official Church must be weighed. Whether it’s questioning the doctrinal soundness of parts of Amoris Laetitia or the orthodoxy of the change to the Catechism’s official teaching on the death penalty, they seem to think they have an obligation to review and (if necessary) critique official Church teachings against this standard.
(...)
Catholics who adhere to the imagisterium claim they are weighing novel teachings from the Vatican against Church Tradition or the “perennial magisterium,” or that they are attempting to reconcile the official teaching with “doctrinal orthodoxy.” Among the adherents to the imagisterial approach are journalists, canon lawyers, prominent theologians, priests, bishops, and at least one cardinal. The problem with this is that it has absolutely no basis in what the Church teaches about the Magisterium, and threatens to divide the Church.
(...)
Some theologians openly advocate dissent on the grounds that, “assent must be withheld when the teaching in question openly conflicts with the public dogma or definitive doctrine of the Church.” During this papacy, this concept has been applied to both Amoris Laetitia and the death penalty. On the surface, it seems reasonable. After all, it can certainly be jarring for one’s airtight understanding of a particular doctrine to be blown apart by a new magisterial development. A problem with this assertion is that it doesn’t have a basis in Catholic doctrine. Another problem is that it holds an individual’s subjective judgement over authoritative Church teaching. What many of these Catholic critics hold to be an objective, authoritative standard is simply a product of their imaginations.

Errr... How can the Church be divided we have communities that believe in the real presence and we have non Catholic communities that do not. We can find plenty of other teachings that are not held by people hiding in buildings that have signs proclaiming they are Catholics. How can they be Catholic if they do not believe what is necessary to be Catholic?

We in the western world suffer from a heresy that we think are better those those that came before us, we are supposedly more kind and wise. This is mistaken, we can only see further because we are standing on the shoulders of giants.

So when someone who claims to be a member of the Church says that the Church was wrong for 500 or even 1,500 years we can be certain they are wrong. If the Church was wrong for most of it's history we have no guarantee it can ever be right. If on the other hand we are members of the One True Church, it can't be wrong. Those that believe that what the Church has taught definitively was wrong put themselves out side the Church.

If the new Liturgy is an improvement we will see this in it's fruits, If it is barren the bible tells us repeatedly what will happen.

We obey the pope, until he does something we don't like. Then we question his authority. Catholics have really boxed themselves in on the authority of the pope. Could we say we might have been better off if there had been no Vatican I. That's "one" not "two."

We obey the pope, until he does something we don't like. Then we question his authority.

WRONG!

We obey the pope until he rejects and reverses Catholic tradition and Dogma. Then we employ the Aquinas/Bellarmine rule. We NEVER question his authority... only the bishops can do that.

The celebration of a particular rite of liturgy is not dogma.

Firstly, I have no authority to define anything. The Church has already done this. I support what Holy Mother Church has already given to us, what SHE has already defined. (Are you familiar with the Aquinas/Bellarmarine option which the Church itself has defined and upholds? The church tells us how to discern those who come forward as shepherds in wolf’s attire, and Jesus warned us in the Gospels that it would be coming to us.)

Otherwise, off the top of my head I will offer this... if you really were serious, I could dig in and unravel irrefutable arguments... but here is not the place.

I am worried by the Blessed Virgin’s messages to Lucy of Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the suicide of altering the Faith in her liturgy...”
...Pius XII Devant L’Histoire

“If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catho- lic Church customarily used in the solemn administration of the sac- raments may be despised, or may be freely omitted by the ministers without sin, or may be changed into other new rites by any church pastor whomsoever, let him be anathema.”
...Council of Trent, Sess. VII, Can. XIII
Pope Paul III, 3 March 1547 (D.S. 1613)

“... ‘recalling it (the liturgy) to greater simplicity of rites, by ex- pressing it in the vernacular language or by uttering it in a loud voice’ as if the present order of the liturgy received and approved by the Church, had emanated in some part from the forgetfulness of the principles by which it should be regulated ... (is) rash, offensive to pious ears, insulting to the Church, favourable to the charges of here- tics”.
...Auctorem Fidei [33]
Pope Pius VI, 28 August 1794 (D.S. 2633)

We need to obey ALL of our ordinaries... not just the ones from our recent past. Dogma does not get redefined... it only gets reconfirmed, crystallized and made clearer... otherwise, be careful about which slope you may be sliding down upon (into the jaws of ravening wolves).

The ICKSP refused, as is its right; as a consequence, it chose to no longer offer public Masses. Cardinal Cupich did not shut them down.

The ICKSP did not "choose" to no longer offer public masses - they were forced to do so by the Cardinal, since to do otherwise was to go against the constitutions of their order (which was approved by the Church).

If a bishop orders an enclosed order of nuns to go out and teach, and they refuse, resulting in the bishop asking them to leave the diocese, the order has not "chosen" to leave - they were forced to do so by the bishop. In this case it is accurate to say they were "shut down" by the bishop (even though it was done indirectly).

Speaking of canon law, canons 578 and 586 make it clear that a bishop is bound to preserve "the whole patrimony of an institute . . . This patrimony is comprised of the intentions of the founders, of all that the competent ecclesiastical authority has approved concerning the nature, purpose, spirit and character of the institute, and of its sound traditions." And "each institute has its own discipline in the Church and can preserve whole and entire [its] patrimony . . . Local Ordinaries have the responsibility of preserving and safeguarding this autonomy."

So if Cardinal Cupich wants simply to remove the ICKSP from the archdiocese, that's his prerogative, though it's generally understood that he needs a just reason. But to ask them to go against the "patrimony of the institute" which was founded to celebrate the older form of the Mass and sacraments, is, on the face of it at least, a violation of the above canons. He's simply shutting them down by other means.

Speaking of canon law, canons 578 and 586 make it clear that a bishop is bound to preserve "the whole patrimony of an institute . . . This patrimony is comprised of the intentions of the founders, of all that the competent ecclesiastical authority has approved concerning the nature, purpose, spirit and character of the institute, and of its sound traditions." And "each institute has its own discipline in the Church and can preserve whole and entire [its] patrimony . . . Local Ordinaries have the responsibility of preserving and safeguarding this autonomy."

Which is why I wouldn't agree with Cupich's decision in this case.

WPI is run by a mendacious liar who has apparently gotten over his shock that people more inclined to his views are not all that serious about abortion and are in fact rather in favor of the previous precedent. He also refuses to dissociate himself from them and interacts favorably, even when these people have said that they no longer contribute to WPI and that their views have jeopardized communion with the church, all while condemning trads and appointing himself an arbiter of orthodoxy.

You might not like Peter K or agree with him, but that doesn't mean running off to WPI.

Ad hominem fallacy. Address what is brought up instead of making unrelated personal attacks on the author. I don't know or care if Mike Lewis is who you say he is, and it has no bearing on whether what he says here is correct or not.