Use of the 1962 Missal is going to be phased out in the Roman Church. ">Use of the 1962 Missal is going to be phased out in the Roman Church.

So this policy is set - there is no turning back no matter what: damage to the spiritual life of communities and individuals (some of whom have returned to the Church on account of the TLM), harm done to families who have grown up in this rite, the confusion and dislocation of parish life, disruption of whole orders of priests (and their flocks) who were promised a liturgical life according to the old forms, etc., etc.

In the real world, policies are announced and then are implemented according to circumstances. And if circumstances change, the policy is modified or even reversed. This is normal. The reform of the liturgy is not defined dogma, let alone the particular way in the current liturgy was in fact revised. So just as one pope could support the TLM, and the next suppress it, it could very well be that a future pope will support it once again. I'm just afraid in the meantime there will be a lot of unnecessary damage.

In the real world, policies are announced and then are implemented according to circumstances. And if circumstances change, the policy is modified or even reversed. This is normal.

Considering that this was exactly what happened with SP, what is the issue?

Rich,

Following this

in the real world, policies are announced and then are implemented according to circumstances. And if circumstances change, the policy is modified or even reversed.

Pope Francis' claim that the liturgical renewal is irreversible is.... just waiting to be made untrue?

Sorry for the rant, but the gaslighting… It’s like when they said, “no one is being fired from their job for not getting the Covid vaccine. They are choosing to forfeit their employment by not adhering to our protocols, but no one is being forced to get a new job.” It is the same level of absurdity.

Serviam,

I read Animal Farm with a student last academic year. The prescience of Orwell is truly striking.

Schoenbergian,

"Renegade traditionalists" is a charming image.

You're absolutely right about needing to answer the question "How has the Church understood Tradition in other eras?"

The fact that a Pope is a womanizer and the father of many children doesn't mean that he has taught, in his office as Vicar of Christ, error as if it were true, or truth as if it were error, although he certainly has modelled the immoral life.

Let me attempt to get at this question about defining tradition.

Tradition includes the handing on of sound praxis and clear doctrine from one generation to the next, occasionally refining but never contradicting that which has been taught before.

Otherwise you have a Martin Luther situation where he claimed with some veneer of truthfulness that the Roman Church had fallen away from its legitimate tradition, and the Church hierarchy at that time was indeed thoroughly rotten.

As for Luther he is easily in the top 10 of the the most repellent men in history. You have read what he wrote about the Jews? Let alone breaking vows, and leading a nun into sin... He was not a good man.

For the Church hierarchy when has it not been throughly rotten? The first collegial act was to run away and hide, and St. Peter denied Christ as soon as he was left to his own devises. Things have not got any better as St. Thomas of Canterbury, St John Fisher etc. will be able to tell you.

We are told in scripture "by their fruits you will know them" So if you have no vocations, a lack of Faith, Catholic schools that are in name only. It is rather obvious who we are to ignore.

The inevitable problem with claiming fidelity to Tradition is that the interpretation of said tradition is up to individuals; and which individuals?

Most people seeking the traditional liturgy are not interested in their own interpretations of the faith. Quite the opposite! They are seeking to anchor themselves in what was always (and formally) taught by the magisterium and the doctors of the church! It is not very difficult to figure out whether or not you are on the right track when you have formal teaching documents and catechism, and a historical liturgy that is all very well documented. Those are standards that exist outside of the individual as a neutral, third-party benchmark.

Who are the only people who read the catechism of the council of Trent? Trad priests and trad families. Same for the Baltimore catechism. Who know the liturgy forwards and backwards? Trads. Who can actually explain, cogently, many of the more difficult and subtle doctrines of the faith? Trads. Who has belief in the real presence and acts like it? Trads.

It is those of the nūCherch™️ who are doing the reinterpreting…

How do you square the changing of the death penalty, for instance, when it was always accepted in ages past as licit in extraordinary circumstances? Excuse me but who is making up their own rules here? Same for liturgy. Same for adherence to tenants of the moral life (let’s not even get into the recent gaffe by the pontifical academy for life!).

At least trads are attempting to live according to the wholeness of the faith as they understand it. While there are plenty of people in novus ordo land who try and do the same (I count myself among them) the percentage is certainly muuuuuuch lower. Many people are open about how they don’t believe what the church actually teaches.

Summorum was not exactly a policy change like TC is. The 1984 indult did not address the question of abrogation. It tolerated the TLM, more generously than TC does, while sidestepping the question later confided by JPII to the cardinals. BXVI did change the policy, if you will, by acknowledging the juridical status for the first time, but building on the "legitimate aspirations" of those who love the TLM. TC just destroys all of what his predecessors built up.

the recent gaffe by the pontifical academy for life

Very kind of you to call it a "gaffe."

Trads don’t have to distance themselves from the pope. He is already running away from tradition at break neck speed.

Please elaborate.

My point was that the current policy has been declared to be irreversible, which contradicts the principle I've laid out and which you seem to agree with. And in the face of the the very things the Holy Father says he wants to avoid - more disunity and contention - the policy evidently will not be reversed.

This simply highlights the inconsistency of the entire enterprise. On the one hand (A), the pope has to suppress the TLM on account of the bad attitude of traditionalists (though why the negative attitudes of some must mean the suppression of something good from those who do not share that attitude is never explained), while on the other (B), the TLM must be suppressed because this is what Vatican II demands.

If it's a policy (A), then it can be reversed by a future pope (and seems singularly ineffective anyway), while if it's a matter of obeying a Council (B), then it contradicts what previous popes have laid down.

A future Pope could promulgate a liturgical reform of his own which further modifies the 2011 Missal, perhaps (and hopefully) in a more solemn direction. However, the 1970 reforms will not simply be rolled back wholesale as many traditionalists seem to hope.

When the 1970 Missal was promulgated, the much-disliked Holy Week reforms were "reversed" in some cases; however, the Church did not simply return to the liturgy of 1954.

"Renegade traditionalists" is a charming image.

I think that Michael Voris leading his own McCarthy-esque movement to root out "homosexuals", Peter Kwasniewski screaming about "Masonic" influences in the Crystal Cathedral with absolutely no evidence, and the variety of priests who use their EF pulpit to talk smack about Church hierarchy all count, and these are not condemned but rather cheered on. They are the public face of the movement, whether you like it or not.

The Pope is NOT the Master of Tradition; Tradition IS the Master of the Pope. And the inversion of this concept has been the bane of Western Liturgy since the 19th century, if not before.

So, again, who is to make that determination? The bishops? The Magisterium? Ecumenical councils? The CDF? Or some grumpy American rad-trad with a blog?

@Schönbergian

Maybe someone like Pope Benedict can make that determination, since, he, as head of the CDF, said that the liturgical reform of Abp Bugnini is "an artificial construct" that represents a break in the centuries-long process of organic development of the liturgy.

Does that make me a rad-trad if I agree? : )

Furthermore, Fr. Charles Murr, a life-long friend of Eduard Cardinal Gagnon, has just written a first-hand account claiming that Cardinals Staffa, Oddi, Gagnon, AND InterPol all had definitive proof and believed that Abp Bugnini was a Freemason, which at the time was an excommunicable offense.

Does it make me a rad-trad to believe that these charges, and the Bugnini Reform itself, need to be investigated since, I'm sure you will agree, it would not bode well for the future of the Pauline Missal if it's proven that its chief author was an excommunicated Freemason? : )

There's only one problem: we have heard much more about it, thanks to Fr. Murr's book.

Let's review what we know: Fr. Murr, in his first-hand account, states that when Cardinal Staffa (head of the Apostolic Signutura) and Oddi (future head of the Congregation for Clergy), brought Interpol's definitive conclusion that Bugnini was indeed a Freemason to Pope Paul VI, Paul ordered an investigation of everyone working in the Vatican to find out how widespread this problem was (we will leave aside the not-minor problem that Cardinal Baggio (head of the Congregation of Bishops from 1972-1984) was also named a Freemason by these two cardinals).

That investigation ordered by Pope Paul was carried out by the future Cardinal Eduard Gagnon and took three years to complete.

So, in the light of everything the Church has lived through these past 50 years, wouldn't you agree that the Vatican should release the Gagnon Report to Catholics and the world to judge whether it's a "conspiracy theory" or whether it's true?

If it's true, I have one last question for you: if the chief architect of what Ratzinger called "an artificial construct" which is a "break in the centuries-long organic development of the liturgy" is a Freemason, is that relevant to you, or would your reaction be, "Let's move on; nothing to see here?" Just curious.

BTW, Fr. Murr's new book is a great read. It's funny, sad, shocking, thought-provoking and very touching. I highly recommend it.

If it's true, I have one last question for you: if the chief architect of what Ratzinger called "an artificial construct" which is a "break in the centuries-long organic development of the liturgy" is a Freemason, is that relevant to you, or would your reaction be, "Let's move on; nothing to see here?"

I think the Freemasons are irrelevant to the Church in 2022 and the Missal should be judged on its own merits.

To turn it around, the deficiencies in the Missal are still deficiencies even if Bugnini were the holiest Catholic in the Vatican in that era.

That investigation ordered by Pope Paul was carried out by the future Cardinal Eduard Gagnon and took three years to complete.

And nobody was ever excommunicated...so either the Church is taking part in a Dan Brown-level conspiracy, or the reports are wrong. (Not to mention that Interpol caring one iota about the Masons is absurd.)

Aren't you being a bit too dismissive? The events under discussion happened in the 1960s and 1970s, not "today", and even the 20th century shows a track record of militancy against Catholics in certain parts of freemasonry, as Sandra Miesel mentioned here:

The only incident listed in the 20th century in that article (the Vatican Bank scandal) was related to a rogue lodge that had no connections to worldwide Masons and acted of its own accord. While Freemasons might superficially stand for values incompatible with the Church, the idea that they possess any real power or influence, or are part of a larger conspiracy, is not borne out by the evidence.

The 1970 Mass has to be suppressed or severely limited. First of all, it's not a problem. It, not the TLM, is the novelty, even though you don't have much room to criticize its doctrinal soundness and whatever Cardinal Meyer requested that trads affirm in order to receive the indult under the terms of Quattuor abhinc annos, without making any further statements on what certain important figures believed when they decided to cut this or that text.

Second of all, the liberals will never be content to do their own thing while letting trads do theirs. They scream and undermine every change made by right-leaning bishops, even ones who leave liberal pastors and parishes alone. Every major archdiocese, and many smaller dioceses, has a liberal parish in the city core; many suburban parishes are home to this nonsense on a smaller scale (maybe it's just one retired priest or some members of the parish). They didn't want the 2011 translation, and they wanted to keep using it. Fr Pfleger still does. For them, you have to be entirely on board with the revolution, which is decided on the terms of the most left-wing, like with all revolutions. The minute that you decide for yourself to not go along with the latest move, you're cast aside as insufficiently revolutionary, and everything that you do to moderate between the two camps (calling them "sides" is unfair, for at the end of the day, we should turn neither to the right nor to the left) will be undermined, with wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Is it realistic? Not on a compressed timeline. But the pope must address it, probably after having called an ecumenical council, which will also have to address Francis in particular on top of the chaos caused since 1965.

Regarding Freemasons, Xavier Bertrand was an initiated member. He may have technically stopped paying dues (I don't remember) but it caused enough waves that he dissociated himself from the Grand Orient for political reasons, though he didn't get much in return; Hauts-de-France, the regional council of which he is president, leans left and populist right. Bertrand depends explicitly on the non-Catholic centrist right to win; outside of the region, especially in the west (which is the traditional "catho" stronghold outside of parts of Paris and especially Versailles), Bertrand has no chance, and even non-Catholics are suspicious of him as a Freemason.

Y’all getting caught in the weeds.

A good tree does not bear bad fruit and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Don’t be deceived by what appear to be green leaves. It’s the fruit that matters. You can’t reduce it to masonry, who is and who isn’t. If you wander in the weeds you will be covered with burrs and chiggers.

Don’t forget “angels of light”, and “an angel that preaches another gospel.” It really is very quite simple. If you get caught in the weeds, even if you are good fruit, you are still going into the fire.

Shun those who speak eloquently only to defend or prolong what is false and at the same time suspend the truth. A good tree is a good tree, and a bad tree is a bad tree. Words make no difference.

“He (Satan) will succeed infiltrating the top of the Church. Also for the Church, a time of her greatest trials will come. Cardinals will oppose Cardinals, bishops will oppose bishops and Satan will march himself amidst their ranks, and in Rome, there will be changes. What is rotten will fall, and what will fall will never rise again.”

Our Lady of Fatima

(...excerpt from the third secret that Our Lady asked to be revealed in the year 1960)

Don’t. Get. Stuck. In the WEEDS!

FRUIT!... my dears! (You will not survive wandering in the weeds.)

Truth about chiggers...

https://buroaklandtrust.org/chiggers-are-the-worst/

Here’s my point in all of this. Chiggers are the worst. They are miniscule little creeps that sneak onto our bodies to suck out our skin cells and cause severe itchiness in embarrassing places. They lurk about in tall grass, just waiting to crawl rapidly onto and up our legs as we walk by. We can’t avoid them (other than by avoiding areas with tall grass, which is, of course, ridiculous), so the best we can do is to wear insect repellent and maybe futilely rub ourselves with a towel when we get back home. I’m an ecologist with a special affinity for insects and other small creatures, but chiggers are a step too far, even for me. I hate them.

Feel free to contact me about the spiritual parallel.

Julie, well, correct. This was the whole point of Ecclesia Dei adflicta and even Summorum Pontificum, though that was also about "interior reconciliation at the heart of the church," taking into account that non-Lefebrvists and people born after 1988, or who were in diapers at the time, had never been really attracted to the SSPX or to the movement (if we can call it one), just the traditional liturgy.

Wait...wait.....

If the Bishop of Arlington has pushed the Traditional Latin Mass and all those who love this timeless form of worship to the peripheries..... shouldn't that mean that in short order we'll be reading some motu proprio or Apostolic Constitution or Airplane Press Conference about how it's time to welcome these people and accompany them and.... admit them to Holy Communion as they would like to receive and....

Surely, this is a good thing?

CGZ

shouldn't that mean that in short order we'll be reading some motu proprio or Apostolic Constitution or Airplane Press Conference about how it's time to welcome these people and accompany them and.... admit them to Holy Communion as they would like to receive and....

This already occurred in 2017... Beware...

Magnum Principium

https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/magnum-principium-7640

Once the words of consecration have been changed, the reform will definitely be irreversible...

“What is rotten will fall and never rise again”

That said, I take the position that his Masonry is largely irrelevant to the NO.

So if my understanding is correct: you honestly think that someone who is a part of an organization that has formally vowed to bring down the church can literally rewrite the church’s liturgy and there is no reason for concern? There are no grave implications and it’s ‘irrelevant’? I have to admit, that surprises me.

admit them to Holy Communion as they would like to receive and

Why on earth do 'you Americans' make such a fuss about this kind of things?
"I am doing it right, therefore you are doing it wrong"?
Over here in the Netherlands nobody in his right mind would try to prevent others from doing 'wrong' things - all episcopal indults that TC allows for were in force within a week.
"Not in parish churches?" We do not have any others, we are lucky that there still are parish churches at all! - nemo ad impossibile tenetur; there we go.
Not publish in the parish bulletin? "Are there any left?" and if so, "does anyone read them?" - indult. And so on.

Even if anyone thinks by himself 'what the hell are these f*** traditionalist doing' (or vice versa 'those f*** modernists') nobody would think of forbidding others what they think they need to do, as long as they do not interfere with what you are doing yourself.
During the 'suppression' of catholicism, there were more than 100 (house-)churches in Amsterdam. People went around to knock on catholics' doors for lack of church bells. Because processions were forbidden, the pelgrimage to the Eucharistic miracle of Amsterdam took the form of a silent march through the city.

Probably pope Francis expects the Americans to discover this kind of tolerance (between different expressions of catholicism) by themselves, rather than giving...

some motu proprio or Apostolic Constitution or Airplane Press Conference

...about it.

Like the inimitable (and eloquent) Nihil, I know what I’ve seen with my own eyes; I know what liturgies I’ve had to endure, or been blessed to experience. No papal fiat will ever convince me to disbelieve my own eyes. I’ve read the new and old side-by-side. I know enough of what was stripped away to know what I’m missing when I’m deprived. I know enough about how the new came to be to have a healthy (and justified) skepticism. I also know that our ancestors believed (and BEHAVED) in a way that is different to how most modern men behave and believe, and I’m not going to hedge my bets with the people who: build ugly churches, desire ugly and trite music, don’t believe in the real presence, and behave and dress like mass is less important than Sunday morning football games. I’m going to go all in with our ancestors who sacrificed everything to be faithful to god, and who remortgaged their homes to build beautiful churches that we still love to visit centuries later, and who prayed until their beads and missals fell apart.