Responsa ad Dubia concerning Traditionis Custodes
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,448
    As I have pointed out, the 1962 Missal was formally amended, and therefore the 1962 books were abrogated and replaced by the 1967 publications, even though the changes were not consolidated in a single editio typica. The 1967 thus became the sole embodiment 0f the Tridentine Rite in England until Advent 1973. Other countries had different dates, and the concession to aged priests to continue with the old rite was explicitly for the 1967 version.
    It was explicitly the 1967 rite which was authorised by Paul VI in the famed 'Agatha Christi indult' (actually by Bugnini under delegated authority).
    Whether the subsequent Quattuor abhinc annos revoked that, I cannot say; the situation is a mess.
    Thanked by 2CharlesW tomjaw
  • SSPX in schism
    TLM abrogated

    or... not!

    Sure, some people want both of these to be true, but since neither one is, can we take these canards out to the rubbish heap?
  • francis
    Posts: 10,768
    I will second CGZ

    SSPX has never been in schism
    The TLM has never been abrogated and CANNOT EVER be so. Schismatics will try to convince you otherwise
  • I almost was going to read through the thread but of course I should have known what to expect from MarkB and others, and stopped reading early on after contemporaryworship92 accused tomjaw of "intellectual dishonesty"...

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

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

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

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

    This is the best bet for our spiritual and mental health for the time being. My apologies for the "outburst" - please let's pray for each other and only engage in conversation those who will actually hear the truth; no need to waste our precious time for prayer, family, and work engagements on destructive topics such as this. (Last few days of Advent would be great for focusing on this...take heed o self...)
  • People need to stop engaging the truly intellectually dishonest and giving MarkB and others an audience for their absurd and Church-destroying pope/Vat-2 worshiping.

    If this is the level of discussion we're stooping to now, it may be time for a forum-wide moratorium on this topic.
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,764
    @Schönbergian
    The level of discussion, hmmm
    Considering that we have people saying the Pope can do anything, behave like a despot, and we have to follow his every whim. When...
    1. Only Janus could follow every whim of the present incumbent.
    2. Papal authority is limited and not absolute and is clearly explained in Vatican I

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

    N.B. We did have a forum wide moratorium, the last discussion on this topic also started creating more hot air than light was closed down!
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,965
    Considering that we have people saying the Pope can do anything, behave like a despot, and we have to follow his every whim.


    Unfortunately or fortunately, depending on your viewpoint, he has the power and there are no substantial leaders with the will or the means to oppose him. Despite all the bluster that the TLM can't be suppressed, of course it can in any practical sense. Take away the church buildings, prevent publishers from printing liturgical materials, forbid priests to even say that mass and it will decline substantially. Even if we don't follow his whims, I don't see any practical way around those whims at the moment. We are stuck with him for the time being. The days are long gone when an army can be raised, the Vatican invaded, and popes overthrown. Not that it's a bad idea, just not workable.
    Thanked by 1StimsonInRehab
  • Pope Francis thinks (or at least pretends to think) he is acting in a similar vein to Pius V following the Council of Trent, who got rid of any rite less than 200 years old and merely codified the Roman Rite as it had already existed for centuries; yet he tries to suppress the centuries old Roman Rite while trying to force the 52 year old Novus Ordo on everyone

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

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

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

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

    “The offended will be with us always until the end of time” saith the Lord. I wear my big-boy panties to this forum, and I presume others do too, which is why I engage the way that I do. We all have the choice to disengage or not read various threads (a choice I enacted half way through the long original threads when TC first dropped).
  • MarkB
    Posts: 1,062
    Maybe someone should use a time machine to travel back to 1962 and enlighten the bishops at Vatican II that they didn't have the authority to mandate a revision of the liturgy. Do any of those who throw around Pope Pius V's "Quo Primum" believe that none of the Council fathers were aware of that bull? Clearly, they didn't think it meant that the then-existing liturgy was unreformable because they overwhelmingly mandated that it be reformed.

    Also, from Canon Law:

    Can. 838 — §1. The ordering and guidance of the sacred liturgy depends solely upon the authority of the Church, namely, that of the Apostolic See and, as provided by law, that of the diocesan Bishop.

    § 2. It is for the Apostolic See to order the sacred liturgy of the universal Church, publish liturgical books, recognise adaptations approved by the Episcopal Conference according to the norm of law, and exercise vigilance that liturgical regulations are observed faithfully everywhere.


    Oh, is quoting Canon Law intellectually dishonest?

    A refutation of the absolutist and ahistorical interpretation of "Quo Primum" is here:
    https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/pius-vs-1570-bull-4343

    This is the way it is:

    1. The Church had the authority to reform and replace the Missal of 1962, which Vatican II mandated be done and which the Holy See subsequently completed by the end of the decade.
    2. The Holy See has the authority to restrict the use of the Missal of 1962 and the authority to completely prohibit its lawful use in the Roman Church.
    3. The Holy See has the authority to require liturgical unity in the Roman Church by mandating the celebration of post-conciliar liturgical rites as the Roman Church's unique lex orandi.
    4. The Holy See has embarked on a program and trajectory to accomplish and enforce both #2 and #3 as a way of solidifying the Church's commitment to and reception of Vatican II's liturgical reforms.

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

    And even if one accepts that the council fathers had the right to replace it outright, one may rightly wonder whether or not doing so was prudent, or if doing so has borne fruit. To these questions, I would answer in the negative, but that's me. It seems the height of hubris to take an ancient rite—with roots in the apostles themselves—and scrap it, based on modern ideals. That is earthly, rather than eternal, thinking.
  • I find myself rather surprised, too, at the suppression of the other sacraments, which, up until this point, really haven't been in the line of fire. Why should Rome despise having our children baptized according to the old rite, for instance?

    While we live and operate in the novus ordo world, I've had both of my children baptized according to the old rite as it is more beautiful, contains more prayers, and crucially: minor exorcisms. I find myself now greatly anxious about what will happen when my next child is born. Will I be able to find a priest who will do what our ancestors have always done?

    Similarly, the supposed "abrogation" of the solemn pontifical mass is odd to me. Prima facia, it isn't, considering the rest of TC and the responses to these dubia. But considering TC mentions bishops having the right to regulate liturgy within their dioceses, and considering they are living apostles themselves, it is odd that such a prohibition would be forced on them, too, especially when you consider that there are only a handful of them around the world that even bother anyway. I suppose this strikes to the heart of Rome's fears, as those who do (Burke, Schneider, etc.) tend to get a lot of publicity for doing so, and have garnered loyal followings. I eagerly await to see how they will handle this particular mandatum.
    Thanked by 2tomjaw CCooze
  • The target there was almost certainly Confirmations and ordinations. I suspect the pontifical mass itself was just collateral damage.
  • KARU27
    Posts: 184
    @ MarkB

    Wreckovation. Usually used about the architectural changes post-1965, but I think that word applies to all the changes after 1965. Liturgy, buildings, theology. They were all wreckovated. I'm no theologian, but I'm also not an idiot.
    I can attend TLM and realize - this is not the same liturgy or even the same beliefs that I learned in RCIA and that are promoted in every regular parish.
    At this point Pope Francis has to hide the fact that they are in fact two different rites, two different belief systems. He thinks he can legislate the critics away, but he can't. With the Internet people can easily communicate and ask questions about the manifest differences between the Catholic Church as is existed before 1965 and the post-modern Church as it exists post-1965.
    Thanked by 1ServiamScores
  • As for moratoriums on threads, all I will offer is that I find it disappointing that this forum is relatively quick to shut discussions down; more so than any other forum I frequent, right down to even editing jokes out of threads that do not attack anyone. (Lighten up)


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

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

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

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

    The point is - there is no beef with people on this forum. We take issue with ideas. Thankfully the Mystical Body isn't an Idea. It's a Person.
  • As regards baptism, already happened to me, Serviam. My wife and I welcomed our firstborn (Arthur) on All Saints. Like many of my friends who attend the OF but have traditional leanings, we sought to have him baptized in the old rite. A good, holy priest friend asked the bishop, who promptly told us this was not to be allowed. We had to baptise him in the new rite. As an entry into Catholic parenthood, it felt like a profound betrayal to be prohibited from having my first son baptized in the way that most of our forefathers were baptized.

    We were married at a Tridentine Missa Cantata in July of 2020, and it is also deeply unsettling to think that, had we met a year later than we did, we would have been prohibited from marrying in such a way.
    Thanked by 2ServiamScores KARU27
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,448
    Stimson - thankyou, from one who would be happy to never attend a pre-1969 Mass again.
    The measures taken by CDWDS seem to me inept, but I am trying to discern the reasoning. As far as ordinary parishes go, there has been occasionally a problem with new pastors arriving and, for example, turning over the principal Sunday Mass to the EF within a few weeks of arrival against the wishes of, apparently, a vast majority of his flock. The prohibition on advertising an EF Mass seems intended to discourage this, since heretofore there has been no measure, short of dismissal, that the bishop could deploy to stop the Pastor. OTOH bination would surely help the pastor support both ?/styles/tastes/factions/? (can't find a neutral word! sorry).
    In a large parish I prefer the Oratorian approach of offering OF in both English and Latin, and an EF, on most days of the week, including Sundays and Solemnities. Unfortunately this seems to annoy CDWDS, and I do not understand that.
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,059
    A note: the response to the dubia indicates that a 1962 Mass can't be included in the *Mass schedule* for a parish that has been approved as a hosting place, not necessarily that it cannot be published at all. The tenor of that prohibition appears to be about reducing the likelihood of promotion as such, not mere information. But including the information in another part of said parish's bulletin and online site would not necessarily defy the prohibition, so long as it in good faith was designed more as facilitative communication than promotion.
  • there has been occasionally a problem with new pastors arriving and, for example, turning over the principal Sunday Mass to the EF within a few weeks of arrival against the wishes of, apparently, a vast majority of his flock


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

    n a large parish I prefer the Oratorian approach


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

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


    Here's hoping that's the case. It's a matter which seems quite unclear upon the first read, and frankly, coming from a niche of the Church where it's been claimed that checkerboard floor tiling is a sign of Masonic influence (no joke), it can be easy to see how that niche can read into things.
  • Drake
    Posts: 221
    There was an old joke that went something like this:

    Executives of a popcorn manufacturer one day approached the Vatican with a proposal to change the words of the Our Father from "Give us this day our daily bread" to "Give us this day our daily popcorn." After meeting with considerable resistance, the manufacturer offered a large sum of money as a donation if but this one word would be changed (perhaps I should say reformed). After hearing how large the sum was, the pope said, "Well, there goes our contract with Wonder Bread!"


    So, if I understand the other side's position, that the Holy See has, in fact, the absolute, unlimited authority to do whatsoever it wants to the Roman Rite, all historical precedent notwithstanding, we must accept the possibility that some present or future pope could mandate that "Give us this day our daily popcorn" should become the sole lex orandi of the Roman Rite and abrogate "Give us this day our daily bread." Were this to happen, we all would be obliged to accept it.

    In such a scenario, one could envision that, one day, the Congregation for Divine Worship could come out with accommodations wherein some of us could still say "Give us this day our daily bread" (you know, for the sake of nostalgia) as long as we also say "Give us this day our daily popcorn" at least from time to time ... provided, of course, that we do not say both "Give us this day our daily popcorn" and "Give us this day our daily bread" within a 24 hour period.

    If any of us were to object that "popcorn" modifies or obscures the theological meaning of the lex credendi, we would be the schismatics and should be forbidden from saying "Give us this day our daily bread."

    Do I understand the position correctly, or does that position hold that there are, in fact, limits to what the Holy See can and cannot do to the Roman Rite? If there are limits, what are they?
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,965
    I would think anything by Mozart in E-flat would be more masonic than checkerboard floor tiles. Never heard about the floor tiles before.
    Thanked by 1StimsonInRehab
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,965
    There are limits to papal authority but in practice, he can do pretty much what the bishops allow him to get away with. In reality, westerners have vested too much in that office and it seems to me, did not foresee the limits to which abuses of authority could go. The absolute power has corrupted. In the east, we tar and feather our nutcases and ride them out of town on a rail.
  • some present or future pope could mandate that "Give us this day our daily popcorn" should become the sole lex orandi of the Roman Rite and abrogate "Give us this day our daily bread." Were this to happen, we all would be obliged to accept it.

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

    Perhaps more subtle than 'popcorn', but the gauntlet has been thrown. (And the bishops let him get away with it.)
  • It is with uncomfortable irony I relate to you the fact that PF did indeed change the wording of the Pater Noster in Italian this last year...


    The French version was changed as well.

    Ora
    Thanked by 2StimsonInRehab Drake
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 1,259
    The Reform of the Reform movement could actually result in something if the EF is suppressed (as appears likely) and if the trads are willing to work to beautify the OF.
    What a novel idea!

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

    You do realize that the trads have been working tirelessly to beautify and make-reverent the NO for decades?
  • if the trads are willing to work to beautify the OF.


    Anyone who has been paying attention to Pope Francis and his cohort knows that beautifying the OF is exactly what they have no interest in doing. It's a separate rite, the unique form of the lex orandi (and all the rest), not a form in need of beautification.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,448
    [TRANSCRIPT] Archbishop Roche • “The Church has given us the celebration of the Mass in two forms. The Ordinary Form is the Mass that was developed under blessed Pope Paul VI in the 1960s; that is the Ordinary Form. That is the form that every Catholic Christian should hold as being part of their Catholic life. The Extraordinary Form is another expression, which is older than the ’69 Missal, and is a valid expression of the Church’s liturgy. I think what both have to learn from each other is, on the one hand, the wide application of the Scriptures (which is available in the Novus Ordo Missae), and on the other hand a real sense of reverence and worship…”

    https://www.ccwatershed.org/2021/12/18/archbishop-roche-what-the-ordinary-form-has-to-learn-from-the-extraordinary-form/
  • Anyone who has been paying attention to Pope Francis and his cohort knows that beautifying the OF is exactly what they have no interest in doing.
    Considering the banality (and often outright profanation) that happens at masses in Rome and other important metropolises, I don’t get that impression either. If anyone can have a beautiful mass, it’s a bishop: they typically have the best churches, biggest budgets, and leeway to do whatever they want and yet… so many cathedrals have ugly liturgies. Do bishops wear the finest vestments either? (Answer: no.) Our bishop frequently dawns HoH’s finest drab attire, while the traditional priests in our diocese ask to borrow the beautiful vestments from the diocesan museum made a century ago by hand from real gold thread.

    Assuming they were saved, many dioceses have the most beautiful vestments, chalices, monstrances, and other accoutrements stored away in dusty cupboards are put in glass cases never to be used again. Even major places were devotion is still very active don't use the finery of their treasuries. In Lourdes (and Fatima) they have monstrances that are 5 feet tall, made of solid gold (women mailed in their wedding bands as a sacrifice to have them smelted down [it was all the gold they had] in honor of Our Lady) and covered in enamels and pink diamonds and they haven’t been used in ages. Instead they use some thing made of brass with a thin guilt coating that is essentially just a giant luna. All the while, the beautiful gifts from grateful pilgrim spanning to centuries sit locked in cabinets up the hill.
  • It makes me sad to see traditionalists segregating themselves off into ghettos. The Church will be better off when you regularly interact with every other type of Catholic, and I think that both sides would benefit from this.


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • I cannot be silent about the disproportionate fruit I have experienced working in these normal, diocesan, TLM communities.

    Accept this offering from ours as a fervent prayer for peace and justice.
  • Drake
    Posts: 221
    @NihilNominis, that is a beautiful arrangement of Rorate Caeli!
    Thanked by 1NihilNominis
  • MarkB
    Posts: 1,062
    Anyone who has been paying attention to Pope Francis and his cohort knows that beautifying the OF is exactly what they have no interest in doing. It's a separate rite, the unique form of the lex orandi (and all the rest), not a form in need of beautification.


    Straw man fallacy.

    Have a gander at all the traditional Latin chanted parts of the Mass ordinary in this order of worship from the opening Mass for the Synod on Synodality, celebrated in Rome in October, merely two months ago:
    https://www.vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/libretti/2021/20211010-libretto-apertura-sinodo.pdf

    In this recent instance, Rome (under Pope Francis) set an admirable example of adhering to Vatican II's liturgical mandate that the people know how to sing the Mass Ordinary in Latin even when other parts of the Mass are in the vernacular. Puts many American bishops and parishes to shame for being so far behind.
    Thanked by 2Don9of11 OraLabora
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,764
    Straw man fallacy.
    Have a gander at all the traditional Latin chanted parts of the Mass ordinary in this order of worship from


    Congratulations you have found the needle in a haystack... Although it must be said that the quality of the Liturgy has been poor in Rome for many, many years. Westminster Cathedral has been asked to help them a few times, but good liturgy does not seem part of the culture.
    Thanked by 1KARU27
  • Mark,

    While there are isolated instances of beauty, those don't negate either the words of His Holiness or the actions of his cohort. Even before there was a Pope Francis, the ideas which motivate him have been in evidence everywhere for (at least) 50 years.

    Now, if His Holiness and his henchmen began to insist (and achieve results) that Eucharistic Prayers for Mass with Children should be used sparingly, or that no one could be denied Holy Communion for wishing to receive kneeling, on the tongue, or that intercessions couldn't be social-justice sermons, or that felt banners and guitars and girl altar boys and (all the rest) couldn't be used.... then I might believe that their goals included the beautification of the OF.
    Thanked by 1CCooze
  • IdeK
    Posts: 87
    Excuse my ignorance, but what exactly is a felt banner ? We have a lot of beautiful ancient parish banners in rural France and I would really like them to get out of the sacristies and be put to use in processions and such.

    (I don't see how a girl altar server is a real problem, even though I would gladly be rid of guitar as it is usually played at mass and of a good part of French hymns).
  • @Drake Thank you!! Give my friend Michael some extra pocket change if you like it ;-) It's available here:

    Rorate Caeli JMT

    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • Chaswjd
    Posts: 266
    Of course, the dirty little secret in all of this is that much of what traditionalists hate about the NO is merely optional. And much of what the modernists hate about the EF consists of permitted options in the NO.

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

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

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

    Tapestries and fine embroidery are usually works of art. What I'm describing is, instead, not a work of art in the proper sense. I'll see if I can get some good pictures for you (although the more enterprising around here will be able to beat me to it).

    Girl altar boys are problematic for many reasons, but the most obvious is that they've never been used in the past, being implemented out of some misguided sense of social justice: "Girls are just as good as boys"; "Anything you can do, I can do better"; "We need to end all discrimination against women"; "this is the age of the laity".

    Chas,

    I think you'll find that most traditionally-minded Catholics don't dislike options because they're optional. On this one question, they dislike options becoming obligatory. Concelebration is OPTIONAL in the OF, but Pope Francis has just made (or tried to make) Concelebration a litmus test for accepting Vatican II. (This is, quite simply, preposterous, unless we're finally getting to the point of getting an answer to the question, "What does it mean, 'accept the Council'").
    Thanked by 1CCooze
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,198
    For IdeK, here is a link to images of felt banners in church. Many of them appear to have been made as art projects by groups of schoolchildren.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,198
    A note: the response to the dubia indicates that a 1962 Mass can't be included in the *Mass schedule* for a parish that has been approved as a hosting place, not necessarily that it cannot be published at all. The tenor of that prohibition appears to be about reducing the likelihood of promotion as such, not mere information. But including the information in another part of said parish's bulletin and online site would not necessarily defy the prohibition, so long as it in good faith was designed more as facilitative communication than promotion.


    A: "How can I find out when the Latin Mass is at St. Ipsidip's?"
    B: "Read the bulletin."
    A: "I've got it here, but there's nothing about a Latin Mass in the schedule."
    B: "Well, it's not in the schedule. You have to read the inside of the bulletin to find it. There's a note on the fourth page. See? We're being helpful!"

    I believe the term for this is "passive-aggressive".
    Thanked by 3CHGiffen tomjaw KARU27
  • Claire Asquith has an amusing anecdote in the beginning of her book on Shakespeare's Catholicism. The theatre she described, in Moscow, held a play which managed to pass the censors, but clearly attacked Soviet governing practices. Maybe we should do as that enterprising playwright did, or as a priest did, recently, according to Fr. John Zuhlsdorf: there will not be a scheduled TLM at 2:30, but between 2:29 and 2:31, there will a meeting of exiles from the Roman Empire.... or something like that.
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,059
    Chonak: it certainly could be that, but won't necessarily be that. I was attempting a more critical reading of the requirement than many commentators undertook at first blush. I was not trying to "promote" the requirement, just clarify its scope of meaning.
  • @chonak, I wish I had taken a picture a few weeks ago when I was in a traditionalist church that had felt banners, made by the children, in Latin. I couldn't stop chuckling to myself.

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

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

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

    Now, however, that is under threat. If forced to choose one side, I will probably go back to the traditionalists, since the theology and catechesis line up with my own values and faith more accurately. I really think it's a shame that these new papal documents have instigated more antagonism in a situation that was (to my mind) actually calming down and becoming more fruitful over the years.
  • Nihil, I meant no insult. I've just gotten the impression from some that they wouldn't work to improve the OF because they think the OF is wrong. That is all I meant when I said if.
  • Don9of11Don9of11
    Posts: 699
    An OF Mass with Latin was celebrated in my home parish of St. Mary's in Akron, Oh., for almost thirty years (1978-2005). The mass was celebrated on the last Sunday of the month, at one mass only, the 10am, this is the mass the choir sang. There was an entrance and recessional hymn in English that the congregation could sing. The mass settings were sung by the choir (not chanted). Offertory and Communion hymns were typically Latin hymns but not always. The Eucharistic Prayer, prayer 1, was chanted by the priest. The choir with congregation responded accordingly. The Lord's prayer was chanted in Latin.

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

    I'm certain that this same approach could be done today or at the very least something similar. I haven't read or heard that Pope Francis, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, or my local Bishop are opposed to Latin in the OF since it is already permitted. In my current parish we celebrate the OF mass with some Latin, especially during Advent (which our priest options for Ad orientem), and during Lent. Many of our parishioners really appreciate the use of Latin and they've gotten used to it. I think it can be done and done beautifully. It's all in your attitude.
  • Nihil, I meant no insult. I've just gotten the impression from some that they wouldn't work to improve the OF because they think the OF is wrong. That is all I meant when I said if.


    Nathan, I apologize for overreacting. I have removed the "How insulting" line from my response. It was out of character, out of proportion, and more venting my frustration with the whole logic behind this thing than at your comments.

    I'm very sorry. The merriest of Christmases to you and yours.
  • Of course, the dirty little secret in all of this is that much of what traditionalists hate about the NO is merely optional. And much of what the modernists hate about the EF consists of permitted options in the NO.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

    This is why they are now suddenly trying harder than ever to suppress the old rite. As long as it lives, the old Faith lives too, and that is muy problemático for them.
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,228
    quality of the Liturgy has been poor in Rome for many, many years.


    And the quality of the Vatican choirs has been equally bad, with a brief 'good singing' interlude during the reign of B-16.

    Let's not bring up that Pachamama idol placed on the main altar of St Peter's, please.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,448
    I doubt that Papa Ratzinger thinks there are two faiths, I certainly do not. The faith I was taught in Elementary school before 1950 is with me still and nourished by the NO. Of course I understand it more deeply than I did as a nine year old confirmandus, and I knew even then that the nuns were capable of error, and that I had to be prepared to cross-check things. A few years later, one of the monks who taught me remarked that it was impossible to preach without uttering heresy, and explained that whatever you say to a congregation, someone is going to misunderstand. I used to have a text on my office noticeboard
    I know you think you understood what I said.
    What you may not realise is that what you heard is not what I meant.
    I accept that the Irish Jansenisim prevalent in my childhood has been largely displaced in the NO by an opposite set of heresies, but there are always fashionable heresies.
    Thanked by 1Andrew_Malton
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,228
    We have grandchildren who were baptized in the Old Rite, and those who were not.

    By FAR, the Old Rite ceremony is more meaningful, especially if the priest includes the 'cleansing' ritual for the new Mom which recalls the ritual used by the Jews and administered to Mary a/k/a Purification.

    For eliminating that in OF parishes alone, PF should resign.
  • KARU27
    Posts: 184
    Well, whenever he wants, Pope Francis could issue instructions to make the OF more reverent. I wonder why he doesn't.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw