The distinguished German author Martin Mosebach, whose amazing books I do not tire of recommending, has a piece at First Things about the Motu Proprio Traditionis custodes (TC).
Mosebach begins from the premise that “papal authority is unraveling as never before” and the Church has “advanced to an ungovernable stage”.
This seems hardly to be disputed, given what Rome did to the Catholics in China, the “gay” mafia running things, bankrupt dioceses, “synodal” (walking together) paths that lead to the cliff’s edge, openly homosexualist Jesuits are applauded by the hierarchy even as hundreds of faithful priests are being cancelled by chanceries for speaking up, and bishops willingly give Communion to people like Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi.
The cherry on top is a war on the Traditional Roman Rite whose participants are young and committed and rapidly growing in numbers at a time when a demographic sinkhole is opening up beneath the rest of the Church.
But, who am I to judge?
Mosebach: “The vehemence of the motu proprio’s language suggests that this directive has come too late.”
He makes a point which I have underscored here since the extruding of TC. There is no comparison between the 1980’s, when to obtain the TLM people had to go cap in hand and tug their forelock and Catholic news media were limited to gawdawful diocesan newspapers and the increasingly dissident Fishwrap (aka National Schismatic Reporter), Today, people have massive, rapid access to information. They can network quickly. Bishops have nearly completely squandered their moral capital, and many younger Catholic have been able to experience the TLM in a peaceful, stable way.
And they want it.
And the bishops are going to… what? Say, “You can’t have it!”?
No…. Not that. It’ll more along the lines of “If you want your Latin Mass, you can keep your Latin Mass.”
Pace one of the greatest public liars in modern history.
Mosebach:
Perhaps the Mass is not what most concerns the pope. Francis appears to sympathize with the “hermeneutic of rupture”—that theological school that asserts that with the Second Vatican Council the Church broke with her tradition. If that is true, then indeed every celebration of the traditional liturgy must be prevented. For as long as the old Latin Mass is celebrated in any garage, the memory of the previous two thousand years will not have been extinguished.
This memory, however, cannot be rooted out by the blunt exercise of papal legal positivism. It will return again and again, and will be the criterion by which the Church of the future will have to measure itself.
Not too long ago Peter Kwasniewski and I spent the better part of a morning together at breakfast and discussion after my early Mass.
At the time, a couple months before TC was extruded, I raised my concern that a new argument was developing on the papalotrous, sycophantic left. I was catching a patchwork of theological, ecclesiological attacks on the Traditional Roman Rite (far more extensive than just the Mass). The ecclesiological line ran something like this:
Vatican II must be the lens through which ALL OF TRADITION is to be read. Vatican II, that is the Spirit of Vatican II, and not necessarily the texts, provides the way to reinterpret the entirety of Tradition, back to Apostolic times, and then provides the normative framework for how to apply Tradition to our needs in an ongoing way. Therefore, the TLM must be repressed because it is contrary to the ecclesiology of the Spirit of Vatican II.
Pay attention.
This is the Rahnerian “hermeneutic of rupture” school hopped up on too much sugar and cartoons. Anyone can see through this B as in B, S as in S. What this line of thought does is allow the total jettisoning of the Church’s teachings, rooted in the Regula Fidei and natural law, about faith and morals. It creates an ever shifting set of lenses. I am reminded of Card. Kasper’s puerile attempt to argue away the Lord’s prohibition of adultery by saying that, in Christ’s time, what Christ said about adultery was right, but each subsequent age has to reevaluate what Christ said in light of its own circumstances. So, contradicting what Christ said then is not to say that Christ was wrong, but rather that we have to reinterpret the inner meaning of his historically conditioned words.
That’s what we are up against… again. Perpetually.
Papal legal positivism fueled by Rahnerian modernism, in theology slowly replacing philosophy with politics, as Thomas Heinrich Stark pointed out in his hard, but dead-on-target explanation in 2018.
It’s the “lived experience” approach that twisted two Synods (walking together) on the Family.
Mosebach concludes:
Perhaps the Mass is not what most concerns the pope. Francis appears to sympathize with the “hermeneutic of rupture”—that theological school that asserts that with the Second Vatican Council the Church broke with her tradition. If that is true, then indeed every celebration of the traditional liturgy must be prevented. For as long as the old Latin Mass is celebrated in any garage, the memory of the previous two thousand years will not have been extinguished.
This memory, however, cannot be rooted out by the blunt exercise of papal legal positivism. It will return again and again, and will be the criterion by which the Church of the future will have to measure itself.
Regarding his point about “memory”. That’s important for Mosebach. I recall a passage in The Heresy of Formlessness: The Roman Liturgy and Its Enemy, where describes the resentment a rock probably feels if it is shifted from its perennial, traditional, place. It might require centuries for the rock to settle down.
THAT’s how important our sacred liturgical worship is! Even the details are important, not “superfluous” as my friend Fr. Jackson put it.
Change the entire rite of Mass and suddenly impose it? It hasn’t really worked, has it. Look around.
Seek to repress the rite of Mass in use, mainly, since before the time of Gregory the Great? Suppress the rite that did work in favor of the one that didn’t?
Not likely.
Loading ...
I think Moseback is on to something, and you will find others confirming it. There was an 8/2 item in U of Notre Dame’s “Church Life Journal” making essentially the same point.
So here’s what occurs to me: isn’t it risky to force people to accept this linkage, namely, that if you accept the validity of Vatican II, you must embrace the 1970 Missal and cast away the TLM? That road goes both ways: if you are convinced the 1970 Missal is flawed, then if you toss it out, out must go the Council. Whoops!
I hold to the view that one can embrace Vatican II and yet think the 1970 Missal was a misfire. There certainly were lots of misfires in the wake of the council; this was denied for awhile, but now no one really tries to pretend otherwise. It would seem to be obvious that sustaining the legitimacy of an ecumenical council is vastly more important than shoring up a particular edition of the Missal. And it strikes me as curious that you have progressives now arguing the exact same thing as certain traditionalist groups: the 1970 Mass and Vatican II are inextricably linked.
But perhaps I am quaintly out of step. Nevertheless, it seems awfully risky. It seems entirely possible, come another 20 years, that someone higher up will try to de-link the Missal and the Council, but it will be too late.
I do agree now that there are not two forms of the same rite. It is more like two different religions. But if the modernists could just leave the true ‘Latin Rite’ alone and get along with their ‘spirit of vatican 2 rite’, we could most likely go along side by side. We have the Maronite Rite and Byzantine Rite and so on. And why aren’t they being pounced upon?
Great Article, I agree wholeheartedly. Sadly I think some Bishops have looked at the financials. A friends parish in upstate New York listed donations from the new Mass at $3. per person. TLM at $10 to $20 per person. But hey, if that keeps the TLM going why not?
The “ecclesiological line” elucidated seems like yet another authoritarian twist on the thought of the Blessed Joachim of Fiore – to quote Edmund Gardner’s summary in his 1910 Catholic Encyclopedia, “the Kingdom of the Holy Spirit, a new dispensation of universal love, which will proceed from the Gospel of Christ, but transcend the letter of it, and in which there will be no need for disciplinary institutions”, except, decidedly skipping that part about “no need for disciplinary institutions”.
As far as this Catholic can see, the fruit of VII was and is very bad, because look how we are treated from the men who revere it. I refuse at this point to pretend this is not the case any longer. They forced this issue, Catholics who attend the TLM did not force the issue. Catholics who attend the TLM mind their own darn business. Nobody was criticizing VII, because nobody cares. This is all nonsense, really. Does anybody honestly believe Francis was wringing his hands in the Vatican over how Catholics attending the TLM felt or thought about VII? People, please. He had a solution and needed a problem, and the questionnaire found the problem so he could apply the solution. Some bishops (wonder who) complained about uppity Catholic attitudes and, voila, the TLM must go. This was in the works in 2013, but Francis’s colon forced the issue that he needed to address at some point and solve, sorry for the bad imagery. Time’s a wastin’, better get it done.
He did. Mission accomplished.
But he rails against what he can’t get rid of. Mr. Mosebach is entirely correct. It is not just mere Catholics who want the proper worship of God, it is GOD who wants the proper worship due Him. Francis can no more eliminate the TLM than he can leave a dent on the moon by throwing rocks. Catholics who attend the TLM would probably far rather have Mass in a field or stinky old garage, than the Novus Ordo at this point. I know there are reverent NO Masses and faithful priests who offer it, but even at it’s best it is no comparison to the TLM. He has hardened a lot of hearts with his latest. It is impossible to imagine what could ever reconcile this division that Rome has brought about.
@Ave Maria: They haven’t been pounced upon yet.
So yesterday I came across Shaun Blanchard’s piece for Notre Dame’s Church Life Journal. It kindled impotent rage in me, and while written from a decidedly appreciative point of view, I could scarcely argue with its premises.
Yes, this is about way more than “mere” liturgy. This is about showing who’s in charge. It’s about asserting and wielding authority. And it’s a long game. A loooong game.
I recently was reminded how governance in China differs from many in the Western world: politicians worry about term limits and elections here, while the CCP is in it for the long haul, dynasty-style, and plans ahead in terms of generations to come. I think the Church is more Chinese than we can admit here. Despite the limited parentheses created by electing elderly Pontiffs, the apparatus in charge is looking ahead decades and centuries at a time.
The Holy Father admitted years ago that he’d probably be the one to “split the Church”. And he probably feels that he has no choice but to assert the reality of schism and embrace a purity of doctrine that admits no accretions, legacies, or beloved but unpopular customs.
It seems weird that synodality should be embraced at the same time that supreme power is consolidated in the person of the Bishop of Rome. It seems weird that the Holy Father should assert that he alone is the interpreter of Sacred Tradition, when this has always been based on the consensus of the whole College of Bishops and not a discordant fraction of them, however large and vocal.
I feel so oppressed and conflicted right now. My very parents are far from Traditionalists, and I have known many flavors of Catholics in my life. Can I be on the wrong side of history? Of the Deposit of Faith? Am I rigid and unforgiving? Where would I go if the Church jettisoned half of her faithful?
We live in Interesting Times. This is Arianism, 1054, Avignon, all over again. I am only confident in two things: that I worry too much, and that God loves us all, making His triumph inevitable, no matter how murky it seems right now.
This part struck me:
“Indeed, we have to ask ourselves whether the pope had no more urgent task—in the midst of the sex abuse crisis, the Church’s financial scandals, schismatic movements like the German synodal path, and the desperate situation of Chinese Catholics—than to suppress this small, devoted community.”
Haven’t we been asking this since … the inception? There are priorities here, and it would clearly seem that traditional morals, orthodoxy, and even proper use of language are not on the list.
Reversing the simple math highlighted by Messr’s Jones and Sonnier (Index of Leading Catholic Indicators, Springtime of Decay) – which even the most craven CFO would consider – is not on the list.
This is a political revolution, plain and simple, trying to overthrow the Body of Christ that is the Church.
Over and over I see only signs that Pope Leo’s vision of satan being granted 100 years to try to destroy the Church is actually unfolding. 2065 or 2070 will not come soon enough.
Well of course their TC directive has come too late. The whole thing reeks of desperateness, and at the same time speaks volumes of how significant the TLM has grown. Francis and his cronies probably see TC as a “Hail Mary pass”. Deep down they know that their little plan to suppress the TLM is not going to work. At most, it might just act as a short-term speed bump. But in the long term it will be plainly ignored and ultimately seen as a petty attempt of suppression.
“Pope Francis’s prohibition will arouse resistance in those who still have their lives before them and won’t allow their futures to be darkened by obsolete ideologies. It was not good, but it was also not wise, to put papal authority to this test.“
This reminds me of a recent article about Emperor Claudius in which it is stated that he had wanted to introduce 3 new letters into the Latin alphabet during his reign. However, people never really got used to using Claudius’ new letters and they were eventually forgotten.
The author hits it right on the nail with this observation:
“Unlike those (letters) devised by other peoples, however, they didn’t catch on. Ironically, even the sizeable power of the emperor could not guarantee that people change the alphabet. It’s only on border stones and similar imperially mandated inscriptions that we can see evidence of Claudius’s failed innovation. His display of power is also a testimony to the limits of his authority.”
We might as well apply the above statement to Francis and his TC. It’s ironic that such an article comes out just as TC is fresh news.
You can read the article here:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/big-stone-found-rome-gets-090309304.html
@Fr. Martin Fox,
I would tend to agree, when talking about the liturgy only, that yes, one may embrace V-2 without embracing the Novus Ordo, as well as vice versa – one may embrace the TLM or reject the Novus Ordo without rejecting V-2. After all, V-2 wasn’t strictly speaking necessary to mandate a “reform” of the Mass.
However, in the larger picture, taking all things into consideration, it really is impossible to separate V-2 and the Novus Ordo, because not only is the ambiguous (if not outright contradictory) Sacrosanctum Concilium which mandated the reform a part of V-2, but the ambiguity we got in V-2 as a whole is well reflected in the Novus Ordo, although the break with tradition is probably more observable to the average Catholic through the Novus Ordo than it is with V-2 (that is, the average Catholic probably has neither the time, nor the interest, nor the theological training which is necessary to study or parse through so many words/documents). Sure, I think someone could legitimately argue that what we actually got with the Novus Ordo was not envisioned by the Council fathers, nor was everything that was done in the Novus Ordo explicitly called for by SC. Yet there was basically no pushback by the same bishops after 1969.
It seems pretty clear by now (and it was to the early “traditionalists” decades ago) that the main issue is not the liturgy per se. The issue is Vatican II itself and papal authority and its limits. That these are the real issues is proved by all those in favor of TC – they essentially think the argument is over when they appeal to Vatican II or a 1960s-onward pope’s action or will. No discussion (shall I say “dialogue”) is possible between the two “sides” until people accept that it is not objectively wrong to disagree with a pope or even a council (particularly a “pastoral” and not dogmatic one), or even to disobey a pope or reject erroneous parts of a council. Because they’re right – if it IS objectively wrong, then it pretty much IS “end of discussion.”
It really could shake the faith of people to realize all that has gone wrong, and it could shake the faith of more if it were officially recognized by the Church that a council failed or was wrong, especially since so many people have really embraced it not knowing any better. But especially if such was done with true charity, teaching, and evident love of the Church and zeal for souls’ salvation, those whose faith is shaken (and even those who never really had true faith to begin with) would be brought back in time by the grace of God if their hearts are truly open.
I am going to assume Francis and a pretty large band of bishops will be trying to make TC “come to life” (i.e. cause executions, metaphorically, on TLM communities), over the next 2 or 3 years, however long Francis has left. (He could have many years, but…probably not.)
Then along comes another pope, who – even if he is a Francis sympathizer to some degree or other (because most cardinals are, at this point) – probably has more of his head screwed on straight-er. He sees that TC was hopelessly inept and could not actually do what Francis hoped. He seeks for a “way out” of the mess. In particular, he sees the stupidity of saying the Church cannot tolerate TLM.
I have a proposal: Let him declare the missal of 1962 represents a different RITE than that of the missal of 1970. He consecrates and appoints an archbishop to be the “patriarch” or “Eparch” of a city, that is the new seat of that Rite. (Econe, Switzerland? Nah, a little too blatant. Somewhere else. I know: Campos, Brazil! It’s even Southern Hemisphere – a (tiny) sop to Francis-lovers.)
Does this throw a bit of egg on the face of Paul VI and those who insisted that the NO mass was “just a reform” of the old mass? Sure it does – a little. Why should he care? He was a young teenager playing soccer when Vatican II was held, and he holds no emotional attachment to Paul VI as a reformer. He views the NO as standing on its own two feet, (and he also feels free to finally, after 50 years of stupid nonsense of pretending “nothing is wrong” in order to buttress the claim of the NO being “just a reform”, gets serious about fixing the abuse and correcting the worst errors.) If the NO stands on its own legs, (is its own Rite) nobody has to spend all that hot air defending its difference from TLM.
Does this disturb anything fundamental and essential in the Church? Not at all. The Church has had plenty of other rites around; having another one doesn’t hurt at all.
What does this gain the TLM movement? This: (1) popes cannot suppress other rites merely because they are different from the rite that Rome celebrates. Their authority doesn’t extend that far. (2) An eparchy selects its own bishops for within its own territory – not Rome. This guarantees that Rome cannot drive it into the ground from the top down.
What does this gain the pope? Well, if he selects the right bishop to appoint as patriarch, no schism. At least, not for many decades. And at this point, Rome has had a lot of experience NOT forcing other Rites back into schism. Give the whole problem 30 years to simmer down, and 30 years for TLM lovers to stop being defensive about it, and by that point nobody left in Rome will care any more whether the TLM people still have their own mass. How many people in Rome care that the Ruthenian Rite people have their own mass? Will everyone leave NO for the TLM? Not if the new pope gets busy fixing the NO the way it should be. If he is seen making a difference, and DOES make a difference, the “drain” away to TLM will never be more than the rate it was under Summorum. Which was large in terms of the tiny size of TLM, but very small in terms of the 1 billion NO people.
If Rome wants the problem to go away, Rome can kick the problem out of Rome by making true de jure what is about 2/3 true de facto: it’s a different rite. As I understand it, the Ambrosian Rite is also pretty similar to the TLM. That didn’t prevent them from being “different rites.” In reality, I think the distinction between different rites and different uses within the same rite is one of an after the fact attempt to DESCRIBE differences: there is no per se principle of the matter that anyone can point to that isn’t, practically, “but we’ve done it this (our) way for so long…” being considered adequate. There is no fundamental principle of the matter, it’s based on historical fact and usage. Well, after 50 years (which is, admittedly, a pretty small period), it is clear that without an active suppression, neither of these two masses is going to die out.
The Bishops who have written negatively about the TLM in their Dioceses have had FOURTEEN YEARS to correct anything that was wrong with those communities of priests and faithful. If they were fulfilling their obligations as bishops responsibly, this situation would not have come about. They would have been well within their rights to ask those concerned to obey the 1962 GIRM or leave their Diocese.
There have been problems in some places that offer the TLM e.g. demanding that the congregation do not make the responses in a low Mass, encouraging those who could read and had missals to say the Rosary quietly to themselves during Mass instead of following the prayers of the Mass, continuing to have the Confiteor before Holy Communion recited which was removed in the 1962 Missal, refusing to have Mary, Mother of the Church in the Litany of Loretto because it was included by Pope Paul VI. If those Communities had obeyed been obedient to Pope Benedict VI by strictly observing the 1962 Missal as he ruled, the Diocesan Bishops would have had nothing about which to complain.
The Bishops who have written negatively about the TLM in their Dioceses have had FOURTEEN YEARS to correct anything that was wrong with those communities of priests and faithful. If they were fulfilling their obligations as bishops responsibly, this situation would not have come about. They would have been well within their rights to ask those concerned to obey the 1962 GIRM or leave their Diocese.
There have been problems in some places that offer the TLM e.g. demanding that the congregation do not make the responses in a low Mass, encouraging those who could read and had missals to say the Rosary quietly to themselves during Mass instead of following the prayers of the Mass, continuing to have the Confiteor before Holy Communion recited which was removed in the 1962 Missal, refusing to have Mary, Mother of the Church in the Litany of Loretto because it was included by Pope Paul VI. If those Communities had obeyed been obedient to Pope Benedict VI by strictly observing the 1962 Missal as he ruled, the Diocesan Bishops would have had nothing about which to complain.
I agree with TonyO that the best long term answer may be to formally declare the V2 Latin Rite as a ‘different’ Rite and appoint an Archbishop (Cardinal ?) To be in charge of and organise the Churches of that Rite and give him supervision of orders such as FSSP and ICKSP. That was I think the solution that Archbishop Lefebvre was aiming for before Econe he wanted Tridentine Bishops in order to protect the Tridentine Mass.
I know Father Z did an article some while ago explaining that there would be problems for Diocesan Clergy if the Tridentine Rite was formally severed from the V2 Rite since they would need to be formally ‘bi-ritual’ in order to say the Tridentine Mass but following TC I think a formal division between the Rites is now the best way to resolve matters
The point about it not being the 80’s and having information needs to really be amplified. Even what we have now compared to 2007 is enormous.
Having started a TLM society in region Australia (That has been mentioned on this esteemed blog) we scratched around on eBay for bits and pieces to have the required items for Mass and other liturgical functions (You should’ve seen the candle stick set I just missed out on for $25!)
Now there are actual manufacturers for these items. Need to learn the responses for low Mass? Jump on YouTube. Starting a choir and need resources? No problem!
We’re now organised, diplomatic, self-funded and do, in 95% of the time, get the pastoral care and request we are entitled to.
My new mantra is be be ‘battle ready’ whenever the occasion arises. Fear of covid related disallowance of association has me on guard.
Learn and teach your sons the responses and responsibilities for Low and sung/solemn Mass, get all the family involved in the choir. Encourage those with skill to upkeep the church and grounds. My wife and daughters are learning embroidery for vestments. And for goodness sake, make sure there tea and coffee etc for afterwards!
I pray for the soldiers of the past of the 70’s – 2000’s. Without them we wouldn’t be in the advantaged position we now find ourselves in.
Cheers to them.
Marty
[You have made excellent points here. Now is NOT the same as the 70’s and 80’s or even the 90’s. Social media, video, lots of resources, people making cards, vestments, publishing books, hundreds of more TLMs and priests saying them. And, yes, let us remember those who were in the trenches in those tough days. I was one of them, btw. So I know from experience how much they deserve our gratitude.]
@NeilAddison
“… the best long term answer may be to formally declare the V2 Latin Rite as a ‘different’ Rite…”
“… they would need to be formally ‘bi-ritual’ in order to say the Tridentine Mass but following TC I think a formal division between the Rites is now the best way to resolve matters…”
No, please no. Never.
If it is a different rite, then it will be impossible for an ordinary priest to use the 1962 Missal. If now I have to ask authorization from my bishop (and for many that is already a problem), then the probability of being bi-ritual is close to null.
@Father Reader: if it becomes impossible for a priest to use the 1962 missal officially, then it will definitely be possible in the catacombs. Where there’s a will there’s a way.
Reply to FrReader I don’t see it will be any more difficult to get a Bishops authorisation to be bi-ritual than the TC requirement to get authorisation from a Bishop and the Vatican.
Frankly I preferred the situation under Summorum Pontificum but I don’t see that being restored so it’s a question of what’s the next best option
I don’t think this concept of the TLM and NO being different rites is going to fly. The Eastern rites developed over centuries as a result of the split of East and West and the poor communication between the two. Here we have the case of an existing rite being “reformed” as a result of a Vatican Council and a subsequent creation from scratch of an order of mass loosely based on the existing order. The central part of the Mass the Roman Can0n was retained although somewhat mangled in places and hardly ever used but it is there.
As for the suppression of the Eastern rites I don’t see that happening. The Eastern rites have seen this before and what happened before would happen again, a wholesale move to the Eastern Orthodox. The fact that they are not being suppressed indicates to me that it is not the presence of another liturgy that is the problem for the Vatican, it is the implied repudiation of Vatican 2 and the hermeneutic of rupture that is threatened by the growth of the TLM.
Wasn’t there a time when Latin was the “Language” of the Church? Imagine Mass being said all over the world in one voice. A single voice crying out to heaven. Everyone would know, at least, the Latin of the Mass. No matter where you went on the planet, you would understand the Mass. That would be quite powerful to have today. Maybe too powerful.
When I was a kid, a slang phrase ‘Is the Pope Catholic?” was often used the way many kids today use, “Duh!” Today, there would be people who actually had to wonder what the answer to that question even is. If “By their fruits you will know them” then I’m not really sure myself….
TonyO seems to harbor a few misconceptions.
Firstly, of all the “Rites” in the Catholic Church, the Roman Pontiff has supreme jurisdiction over them. While in practice, it would cause enormous PR problems for the Pope to mess with an Eastern Rite, on paper he has all the power to do so. Ask any Eastern Catholic if they are “under” him or “in communion” with him. Furthermore, Eastern patriarchs have done controversial things to their Rites and there’s no shortage of examples in recent times. Look up the “Teal Terror” Byzantine reform.
Secondly, the situation you describe developing is not of “Rites” but of “Churches”. These two terms have been classically ambiguous as ecclesiology develops, but canonically they are two distinct things. The Ambrosian, Mozarabic, Dominican, Divine Worship, etc., “Rites” are all part of the “Latin Church”. There is no “Mozarabic Church” bishop. Even though there are separate Ordinariate bishops and jurisdictions, they are still Latin Church! (It gets pretty tangled!)
As we approach closer to an Arian/Avignon type situation in the Latin Church, it is not unthinkable that a “Traditionalist Church” arises with overlapping jurisdictions and distinct clergy including ordinaries. But this will not be in Communion with Rome. No Vatican II bishop would countenance a parallel Church like that. Benedict’s effort was valiant in keeping unity throughout the Latin Church. It was, unfortunately, a mere parenthesis in history.
In this year of St Joseph, can Joseph’s name be inserted into the Roman Canon of the TLM? this is one example of mutual enrichment…
[Ummmm… it IS in the Roman Canon, thanks to John XXIII.]
Pingback: VVEDNESDAY EDITION – Big Pulpit
The Church was founded by Christ on His New and Eternal Covenant ratified in His Own Blood shed on the Cross. Isn’t a hermeneutic of rupture somewhat suggestive of a divorce, and that Christ’s New Covenant is something less than eternal?
Pingback: Canon212 Update: Francis Beefs Up His Catholic Act – The Stumbling Block
A few observations which might be germane:
1.) A “Uniate Latin Church”seems to have first been proposed by proto-traditionalist Evelyn Waugh in 1963… Waugh’s suggestion was that it would retain the use of the liturgical books from the reign of Blessed Pius IX… alas, a non-starter, then as now…
2.) As many will recall, the two vehicles long-proposed for the accommodation of the traditional liturgy in the conciliar Church were a “universal indult” -or- an ecclesial entity such as a Personal Prelature or Apostolic Administration (there was much debate over the relative merits and liabilities of each). Although one was oft-rumored as an arrangement for the potential integration of a (reconciled) SSPX and the other was in fact granted to Campos in 2002, there has been implacable opposition from (at least) the German bishops to any such structure.
3.) Benedict XVI brought both a keen understanding of the challenges of the TLM situation and also a pastoral sense of the needs of the faithful. Even as we hoped for a broader indult – “permission” – Benedict instead declared that there were nearly no juridical restrictions, nor any legitimate reason for any, on the TLM! On 7-7-07 I marveled – and I still do – at how deftly he threaded so many needles with Summorum Pontificum. It really is a remarkable document, along with its accompanying letter, and establishes principles and ideas that will survive its seeming abrogation. Perhaps the most important of each (respectively) are that the the preconciliar liturgy has never been abrogated, and of course the famous “What earlier generations held sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful”. Every argument or discussion against the strict implementation of TC – or simply in defense of our RIGHT to worship as did our parents and grandparents – and as many of us and our families have for the past 10, 20, or even 30 years must be grounded upon these two pillars. Any bishop who attempts to wield TC as a weapon to suppress even a single TLM should respectfully be asked to explain his decision in the light of those two statements.
I believe our goal should be nothing less that the withdrawal of TC and a return to Summorum Pontificum – in this papacy or the next!
So many great and well-considered comments here!
TonyO: yours is, as always, spot-on, but when you say: “Why should he care? He was a young teenager playing soccer when Vatican II was held…”
are you referring to Francis? He was in his mid-20s at that stage, and had been in the Jesuit novitiate since the 1950s, and was ordained in late 1969, so presumably his ordination, and first, Masses were still in the traditional Rite – albeit probably all in the vernacular by then.
Speculation is that Cardinal Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli, the future Pope John XXIII, was actively campaigning to replace Pope Pius XII in the late 1950s. One of the campaign pledges was to convoke an ecumenical council which was a prevalent desire of the progressives within the Chruch. When Cardinal Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli became Pope, he announced the future Council on January 25, 1959. He read the letter concerning the Third Secret of Fatima several months later, on August 17, 1959. He opted not to release the Secret – as our Lady desired.
He likely refused to release the Secret because it countered his private pledges to his benefactors and the very public announcement of the Vatican II Council. Certain modernist prelates aided Roncalli’s decision. I believe one of his councils was a Jesuit who did not believe in miracles as traditionally understood by the Chruch. The various events over the decades point to this as the motive not to release the Secret.
Suppose the Third Secret of Fatima, via the words of our Lady, speaks of a Council and its disastrous results for the Church? In that case, we could acknowledge that the Ecumenical Council itself was not of God, just as the “Spirit of Vatican II” is not. Consider: Would it shock us today to discover that the still hidden words of our Lady contained a stark warning? Indeed, the Spirit of Vatican II is already widely acknowledged as bad fruit, but what tree produced it if not that Ecumenical Council?
Speculation is that Cardinal Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli, the future Pope John XXIII, was actively campaigning to replace Pope Pius XII in the late 1950s. One of the campaign pledges was to convoke an ecumenical council which was a prevalent desire of the progressives within the Chruch. When Cardinal Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli became Pope, he announced the future Council on January 25, 1959. He read the letter concerning the Third Secret of Fatima several months later, on August 17, 1959. He opted not to release the Secret – as our Lady desired.
He likely refused to release the Secret because it countered his private pledges to his benefactors and the very public announcement of the Vatican II Council. Certain modernist prelates aided Roncalli’s decision. I believe one of his councils was a Jesuit who did not believe in miracles as traditionally understood by the Chruch. The various events over the decades point to this as the motive not to release the Secret.
Suppose the Third Secret of Fatima, via the words of our Lady, speaks of a Council and its disastrous results for the Church? In that case, we could acknowledge that the Ecumenical Council itself was not of God, just as the “Spirit of Vatican II” is not. Consider: Would it shock us today to discover that the still hidden words of our Lady contained a stark warning? Indeed, the Spirit of Vatican II is already widely acknowledged as bad fruit, but what tree produced it if not that Ecumenical Council?
In other news, kudos to the Archbishop of San Francisco for actually scheduling a brand new regular TLM in his cathedral….post-TC! His reasoning was that the faithful had asked him for one. To other ordinaries out there reading this, take note and consider doing the same if your flock ask for a new permanent TLM. May “brick-by-brick” continue.
https://www.thecatholictelegraph.com/latin-mass-san-francisco/76486
I’ve read more analysis in the last few weeks than I have for a very long time and more than anything else the impression I’m coming away with is “if only Vatican II were implemented by the right people.” Isn’t that the way socialists talk about communism as the body count rises? So much of the mainstream commentary appears removed from anything being real and it’s bothering me, as if the Faith is a video game with do overs and endless respawns. Maybe we became complacent because of Summorum Pontificum and a pope who genuinely appeared to care about the salvation of souls. I know I did.
It’s bothering me because of my perception of our bishops over the years, there’s not really a lot of spiritual urgency is there? For instance it’s difficult to believe souls hang in the balance when watching a USCCB meeting.
It’s hard to believe when the professionals only get any fire in their eyes for the annual stewardship appeal. It’s even more hard to believe when every bit of sin and filth (not my word btw) is welcomed into the Church either as a positive good or a tolerated opinion but the religious practices and aspirations of a numerically insignificant minority that I have watched being demonized, vilified and scorned for decades must be crushed at all costs and damn them for having the gall to exist in the first place. I’ve never realized we were so dangerously powerful to warrant such vehement fury.
boredoftheworld, the TLM is “dangerously powerful” in fact. To those who actually do recognize what it is and to Whom it is oriented, it is a very large impediment for what they would like, a church devoid of the proper worship of the Triune God.
“In Traditionis Custodes, Pope Francis has given a command [more specifically: Jorge Bergoglio, wielding the FrancisPrinzip, issued an anti-Christian diktat]. He does this at a time when papal authority is unraveling as never before. The Church has long since advanced to an ungovernable stage.”
Catholics have a Sunday obligation to attend Holy Mass. The current Leftist pagan regime squatting in the Chair of St. Peter furiously barks: “You will now fulfill this obligation by attending the Bugnini Ritual.”
Non possumus. In plain English: Repent you perverted, idol-worshipping, Peronist thugs.
“One could conclude that here we find a fixed, insuperable limit to the authority of a pope. Tradition stands above the pope.”
Resistance to human tyranny is obedience to God.
boredoftheworld wrote: “”…if only Vatican II were implemented by the right people.” Isn’t that the way socialists talk about communism as the body count rises?”
Yes. In the Soviet Union there were peasants, tormented by local commissars, who were convinced that “if only Stalin knew than things would be corrected and those commissars jailed.” Some wrote letters to Stalin, that did not end well for those peasants.
Meanwhile, a “Twitter priest” (one “FrHilderbrand”) recently hissed: “Only Rome gets to bind the conscience.”
This craven individual, who apparently salivates at the sight of totalitarianism, is reminded that:
1. Rome is a city, not the Church founded by Jesus Christ.
2. Attempting to revive Imperial Rome is Fascism.
3. Fascism did not end well for fascists. Soldiers, sailors and airmen from the U.S., Britain, Free France, Free Poland, Brazil, Morocco and other countries liberated Rome and were warmly welcomed by Pope Pius XII and the Roman people.
4. Human beings are made with Free Will. The choice to love God or reject God is an act of free will.
Now therefore fear the Lord, and serve him in sincerity and in faithfulness; put away the gods which your fathers served in Mesopotamia and in Egypt, and serve the Lord. And if you be unwilling to serve the Lord, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in Mesopotamia and Egypt, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell; but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.
TonyO: yours is, as always, spot-on, but when you say: “Why should he care? He was a young teenager playing soccer when Vatican II was held…”
jaykay, I was referring to the putative NEXT pope, who (assuming he is elected in a few years at, say, age 73, would have been born in the early 1950’s and a young teenager during VII.
And you are right, I was predicating the idea of “declare separate Rites” on the premise that – at least so far as anyone can foresee right now – there is a very decided pro-left, pro-Francis leaning in the college of cardinals, and no likely prospect that a new pope would simply ditch TC and officially throw it in the trash, where it belongs. Secondly, I was wondering if a pope could put TLM beyond reach of future popes who wanted to kill it, and thought it being a Rite separated from the Rite of the Bishop of Rome might do it.
Firstly, of all the “Rites” in the Catholic Church, the Roman Pontiff has supreme jurisdiction over them. While in practice, it would cause enormous PR problems for the Pope to mess with an Eastern Rite, on paper he has all the power to do so.
Elizium23, I absolutely agree that the pope has FULL primacy in the Church. But there are limits even on this authority. He cannot, for example, declare the First Council of Nicaea heretical: he has not authority over history in that sense. He cannot remove one of the 10 commandments from the Bible. He has not authority over the Bible in that sense. He cannot declare monasticism an error, nor declare celibacy for God’s sake wrong, nor require all men and women to become celibate.
I admit that my assertion about the extent of his authority over the non-Latin Rites is controversial, but I base my thesis on this: popes of old thought they could order the Eastern Rites around, and they found out that, de facto, they cannot. And (it is my sense, from my – admittedly modest – grasp of the history) the reaction of the Church after those attempts was to “inscribe” an “unwritten law” into the heart of the Church, that the Patriarch of the Latin Church doesn’t rule the Eastern Rites qua Patriarch, and the Bishop of Rome’s primacy over the Eastern Church’s Rites extends so far as to conserve their faithfulness, and while that reach notionally can touch nearly any specific rule or practice, conserving a Rite’s faithfulness cannot be accomplished by eradicating it altogether – that would be tantamount to declaring that it was unfaithful from the beginning – which his authority doesn’t stretch to. In terms of WRITTEN law, theoretically the pope has no express limits to how far he might demand changes to the Eastern Rites. In practice, the unwritten rules seem to dictate certain conceptual limits, even if they cannot easily be stated in concrete terms.
This relates to a related but slightly separate point, that we can point to situations in the past where the Pope in fact was not obeyed, that, overall, we have been treating (for many hundreds of years), as “that was a good thing that he was not obeyed.” The difficulty is, how to EXPLAIN that, if the pope has “full primacy” over the Church. My attempt at explanation, which is here, (or rather, to use St. Thomas’s explanation), is that when the pope tries to make a “law” something that CLEARLY fails what it means, at root, to “be law”, because it either is not an “ordinance of reason”, or “is not meant for the common good”, his attempt does not actually produce a law. That’s WHY we don’t think that people’s failure to obey (in these rare cases) is not something to roundly denounce.
I think that Benedict’s Summorum implicitly confirms that a pope cannot denounce a Rite as if it were wrong from the beginning, and can only work to protect it from dangers and disorders that might creep in, not eradicate it.
I might be wrong about this, but there should be SOME good explanation as to why we are glad popes of old were resisted when they tried to do certain things to the other rites.
Secondly, the situation you describe developing is not of “Rites” but of “Churches”. These two terms have been classically ambiguous as ecclesiology develops, but canonically they are two distinct things. The Ambrosian, Mozarabic, Dominican, Divine Worship, etc., “Rites” are all part of the “Latin Church”. There is no “Mozarabic Church” bishop.
Elizium23, you are right that “Rites” and “uses” are separate. The Dominican is a “use” under the Latin Rite. I thought the same was true of the Ambrosian Rite, but I literally could find NO instance of anyone calling it a “use”, they all say “rite”. The Ambrosian Rite is a Rite of archdiocese of Milan and some other areas near Milan, and the bishop of Milan is juridically under the Bishop of Rome as to patriarch and primate. But the patriarchs of eastern rite uniate churches – such as the Maronite or Coptic Church, are not under the bishop of Rome as their patriarch. And the bishop of Rome does not appoint them as bishops, either:
“
”
I had doubts about this, until I read a sample exchange of letters between a newly elected patriarch and Benedict. And that’s on the Vatican’s website, so that’s official.
I admit, I don’t know how, specifically, that plays out in terms of the pope dictating terms to a patriarch regarding the mass of his (the patriarch’s) Rite of mass…but going by history, the pope doesn’t just get “whatever he wants”. There is ancient history about a patriarch having something pretty close to “final say” over the liturgy of his patriarchate, that even the bishop of Rome had trouble dislodging.
Pingback: New Liturgical Movement: Final NLM Roundup of Responses to the Motu Proprio Traditionis Custodes
TonyO: Thanks for your thoughtful comments.