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.

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.

1: Anthony Vincent
2: Claire Angelica
(With two known only to our Lord in between)

I have indeed been very blessed.

Nihil,

Did you also see actual fear "normside" and self-righteous entitlement "tradside"?

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?"

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.

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.

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.

I see that I originally intended for the article to be highlighted but of course it got sucked into the conversation.

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.

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.

@Salieri, that was the former code... not that it applied to some diocese.

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.

"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

Gamba,

I don't think you've adequately assessed the actions being described as martyrdom.

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.

As someone else put it, forcing people out of the church and into a school gym is a sure way to promote unity!

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?

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.

@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.

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.

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.

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.

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.