From Vaticannews.va:
Extracted from an interview with Francis by Carlos Herrera on Radio COPE
Q: I don’t know if Pope Francis is a man who likes to bang his fist on the table. Would it be possible that the last blow on the table has been the pontifical document limiting the celebration of the ‘Tridentine Masses’? And I also ask you to explain to my audience what the ‘Tridentine Mass’ is, what is it about the Tridentine Mass that is not mandatory.
FRANCIS: I’m not one to bang on the table, I don’t get it. I’m rather shy. The history of Traditionis custodes is long. When first St. John Paul II—and later Benedict, more clearly with Summorum Pontificum—, gave this possibility of celebrating with the Missal of John XXIII (prior to that of Paul VI, which is post-conciliar) for those who did not feel good with the current liturgy, who had a certain nostalgia… it seemed to me one of the most beautiful and human pastoral things of Benedict XVI, who is a man of exquisite humanity. And so it began. That was the reason. After three years he said that an evaluation had to be made. An evaluation was made, and it seemed that everything was going well. And it was fine. Ten years passed from that evaluation to the present (that is, thirteen years since the promulgation [of Summorum Pontificum]) and last year we saw with those responsible for Worship and for the Doctrine of the Faith that it was appropriate to make another evaluation of all the bishops of the world. And it was done. It lasted the whole year. Then the subject was studied and based on that, the concern that appeared the most was that something that was done to help pastorally those who have lived a previous experience was being transformed into ideology. That is, from a pastoral thing to ideology. So, we had to react with clear norms. Clear norms that put a limit to those who had not lived that experience. Because it seemed to be fashionable in some places that young priests would say, “Oh, no, I want…” and maybe they don’t know Latin, they don’t know what it means. And on the other hand, to support and consolidate Summorum Pontificum. I did more or less the outline, I had it studied and I worked, and I worked a lot, with traditionalist people of good sense. And the result was that pastoral care that must be taken, with some good limits. For example, that the proclamation of the Word be in a language that everyone understands; otherwise it would be like laughing at the Word of God. Little things. But yes, the limit is very clear. After this motu proprio, a priest who wants to celebrate that is not in the same condition as before—that it was for nostalgia, for desire, &c.— and so he has to ask permission from Rome. A kind of permission for bi-ritualism, which is given only by Rome. [Like] a priest who celebrates in the Eastern Rite and the Latin Rite, he is bi-ritual but with the permission of Rome. That is to say, until today, the previous ones continue but a little bit organized. Moreover, asking that there be a priest who is in charge not only of the liturgy but also of the spiritual life of that community. If you read the letter well and read the Decree well, you will see that it is simply a constructive reordering, with pastoral care and avoiding an excess by those who are not…
That’s where that topic ends before a different question.
“who are not….” What?
I’ll begin saying that I sincerely want to believe that Francis believes what he said in that response. I also am pretty sure that a lot of people have lied to him. I think he admits into his circle people who are not well-motivated. Also, there is a lot we don’t know and probably won’t know, for example, what did the result of the survey of bishops really say.
That said…
There are some things in this response that need comment.
I won’t do my usual in-line fisk or “zisk” with emphases and comments. I’ll pull quotes instead.
…for those who did not feel good with the current liturgy, who had a certain nostalgia… it seemed to me one of the most beautiful and human pastoral things of Benedict XVI, who is a man of exquisite humanity.
So, no regard for him now? It can be argued that Summorum was the most important thing that Benedict gave to the Church. But note that issue of nostalgia. More on that later.
Then the subject was studied and based on that, the concern that appeared the most was that something that was done to help pastorally those who have lived a previous experience was being transformed into ideology. That is, from a pastoral thing to ideology. So, we had to react with clear norms. Clear norms that put a limit to those who had not lived that experience.
Firstly, there are a lot of “ideologies” going around in the Church right now which seem pastoral, but are not. They are true ideologies. You can think of one right now without even working. For example, the homosexualist agenda promoted by Jesuit activist James Martin. That’s an ideology. So where are the “clear norms” to deal with that problem? None, you say?
Next, we are simply to accept that Summorum was for those who had “lived a previous experience”. That’s flat out false. That was NOT the intent or target of Summorum. How many times, again, does a falsehood have to be repeated until people just assume it is the truth? The point of Summorum was not to provide for people with “nostalgia” as the falsehood claims. It was intended to provide for anyone who had a desire for the Traditional Latin Mass and sacraments with the older rites. So, if that is the principle behind Traditionis, that Summorum was only for people who were old enough to have known the Roman Rite before the Novus Ordo, then Traditionis is founded on a lie.
“to put a limit to those who had not lived that experience”
My heavens. Think about that. If you didn’t grow up with it, you have no right to it.
Next…
Because it seemed to be fashionable in some places that young priests would say, “Oh, no, I want…” and maybe they don’t know Latin, they don’t know what it means.
Another canard on a couple of levels.
Firstly, the buck stops on the table of the Legislator, whose ultimate responsibility it is for the canons of the law which he authorizes. The Code of Canon Law has a clear norm which states that seminarians are to be very well trained in the Latin language. Period. No maybe, no option, no wiggle room. If Francis is aware of the fact that younger priests don’t know Latin, then when are we going to see action from him either to pull that canon or to enforce it? Francis often remarks about hypocrisy, and rightly so. If, from this point onward, nothing is done about the Latin problem either way, then the fault lies squarely on his shoulders and the endurance of Traditionis becomes an ever deepening blotch on his legacy.
Second, I’ve seen the videos of Francis when he has celebrated Mass in Latin. I’ll just leave that there. I recall, for example, Francis saying Mass with English orations in Madison Square Garden. He didn’t have a clue what he was saying because he doesn’t have English. When I lived in Rome, Card. Bergoglio would stay at our residence. I had numerous meals with him. No English to speak of… or with. BTW… I found him a rather agreeable sort of guy and liked the fact that he sat with us instead of at a table apart, as some cardinals.
Moreover, there are countless priests and bishops in the world who say Masses for ethnic groups in their languages without a deep working knowledge of those languages. Are they to be condemned? I recommend that those Masses be shut down immediately until Father or His Excellency is conversant in, say, Spanish! Otherwise…. hypocrisy?
Lastly, “fashionable”? That’s pretty insulting towards those who have a sincere piety and honest appreciation for the treasure that is the Traditional Rome Rite. In addition, who thinks that it was “fashionable” to start saying the TLM? Doesn’t that imply a widespread popularity and acceptance? And what if there were some priests who celebrated the Traditional Rite because they thought it was “chic”? Does that mean that you have to hammer those who embrace it for deeper motives?
And on the other hand, to support and consolidate Summorum Pontificum.
He issued Traditionis to SUPPORT Summorum…..
As young people put it today… I just can’t…
I did more or less the outline, I had it studied and I worked, and I worked a lot, with traditionalist people of good sense.
This leaves me puzzled. I can’t imagine who those people would be. He worked on this with “traditionalist people of good sense”. Like…. Card. Burke? Eminent canonist who knows well the traditionally inclined? I suspect that, if true, their contribution was to hold him back from issuing something far harsher. That’s what I hear Card. Ladaria did. There is nothing in the restrictions imposed by Traditionis that smacks of “traditionalist people of good sense”.
For example, that the proclamation of the Word be in a language that everyone understands; otherwise it would be like laughing at the Word of God.
This is … I don’t know what this is.
Firstly, using just the example of that video of the Mass in Madison Square Garden, or just pick your papal Mass over the last few decades, papal Masses are marked by a veritable Tower of Babel of languages. Does everybody at these Masses understand all the languages being used?
Next, let’s pretend for a moment that everyone at a Mass understands English or Spanish or the mix of languages being used. Even if they do, what is their level of understanding of the content of the prayers, which deal with deep mysteries hard to explain in any tongue.
On the other hand, if we use our Church’s sacred language – all the great religions of the world have their sacred languages – even if people in the congregation don’t use Latin as their mother tongue, they can at least have the impression that what is being said (which they can follow in their book or aid) is special and not a banality, a commonplace, something “every day” and even a passing convention. And let’s not even get into the uneven quality of the translation being used.
Also, the comment about “everyone understanding” betrays a kind of “didactic” attitude about liturgy rather than a “sacral” attitude.
This is one of the great disadvantages of the Novus Ordo in the way that it is celebrated. It lends itself to an ars celebrandi marked by didacticism. The three year cycle of Gospels for Sundays does this, as does the addition of a reading, versus populum celebration (not really part of the rubrics of the Mass, but the prevailing style), and multiple options for the priest to exit the texts during Mass and add his own remarks.
What is lost in this skewed ars celebrandi is the fact that every word of Holy Mass ought to be sacral and sacrificial. Every word of the liturgical texts is the word of Christ the High Priest raising a sacrifice to God the Father. It is wrong to think of the first part of the Mass, the “Mass of the Catechumens” or the “Liturgy of the Word” as a contrast to the “Liturgy of the Eucharist” as if they didn’t have much to do with each other. They are both sacrificial. In the Liturgy of the Word the readings are being offered to the Father. Think of each word uttered in each reading as the fragrant sacrificial smoke that rises as the incense is consumed with fire. That is the proper attitude we should have for the readings, rather than a didacticism which demands that everyone understand every word in a shallow and immediate way. There is time to “break open” the word and expound on it also in a didactic way: the sermon, classes, talks, etc.
After this motu proprio, a priest who wants to celebrate that is not in the same condition as before—that it was for nostalgia, for desire, &c.— and so he has to ask permission from Rome.
Again, the canard about nostalgia.
Let’s turn the nostalgia sock inside out for a moment. What does nostalgia really mean, anyway? There is the shallow sense of the word – as Francis used it in the interview – and the deeper meaning, found in its roots.
Nostalgia, is, as the Greek indicates, a pain (algea) we feel for our “return home” (nostron): “pain for the return, ache for the homecoming.” It is an essential longing for your true home.
False or shallow nostalgia might be thought of as a desire for some “golden age” that is no more, and probably never was. Sure, it’s a desire for something better, but it could be just a fantasy.
Augustine, drawing on the science of the day, describes the heart as restless because, according to ancient thought, gravity was a tendency within the thing itself which compelled it to go to where it belonged. The object tries to get where it is supposed to be, not in fantasy but in truth. Thus it is with the heart and God. Augustine says, “amor meus, pondus meum… my love is my weight”. 
Anthony Esolen explores this in his book Nostalgia: Going Home in a Homeless World. He focuses on wandering Odysseus trapped on the island of Calypso, longing for his home in Ithaca because it is where he truly belongs, not in the dream world of his enchanting captrix. He is supposed to be there, not where is he. So too a growing number of Catholics, young people mainly, have felt that sort of nostalgia when their restless hearts – longing for more than they have been receiving from the Church in her more or less dumbed down liturgical practice.
They discover something in the Traditional Latin Mass that they truly need, that feels like home, that they ache for when they don’t have it.
And to take that away from them once they have found it?
To prevent those with that unfulfilled ache from finding their place?
This is the definition of cruelty.
A kind of permission for bi-ritualism, which is given only by Rome. [Like] a priest who celebrates in the Eastern Rite and the Latin Rite, he is bi-ritual but with the permission of Rome.
Okay, this says what we have known all along. There is not one Roman Rite, there are two. Summorum was a juridical document which treated the two Rites as if they were one. That was a deft move and it worked well for a while. However, there were some inherent problems in that approach, since it glossed over a reality that needed to be confronted. Finally, after some years, that reality was being confronted (e.g., in the exploration of the pre-55 Triduum, which put a magnifying glass on the whole of the “reform”) and the result was terrifying to the Left and to the discontinuity and rupture camp, who still dominate the seats of power in the Church.
That is to say, until today, the previous ones [priests saying the TLM] continue but a little bit organized. … If you read the letter well and read the Decree well, you will see that it is simply a constructive reordering, with pastoral care and avoiding an excess by those who are not…
George Orwell would admire that.
I predict that Traditionis will only bear the fruit of pain in the short run.
In the long-run I think it will find its place alongside other official documents which have been more or less ignored. It seems to me that this sort of heavy-handed attempt must fail.
The TLM has been growing rapidly and organically in the Church in a time when our shepherds have squandered their moral capital. There is a demographic sink hole opening up under the Church which will leave her severely diminished. Young people are not burdened by the fantasy of the halcyon days of the Spirit of Vatican II.
Furthermore, it is not as if the vast majority of the younger people who desire the Traditional Roman Rite are rejecting Vatican II. That’s simply a lie. They are perfectly content with the good teachings of the Council, which they recognize really was an Ecumenical Council. If they are aware of the controversial aspects of the Council documents, they do not reject the Council as a whole. They simply don’t prostrate themselves and worship Vatican II as if it were the Golden Calf of Sinai.
Neither do they worship the Traditional Roman Rite as some Tradition’s most determined opponents do the Novus Ordo. They are fixated on the Rite of the Novus Ordo rather than on the point of sacred liturgical worship, which is the fulfillment of the virtue of Religion.
The inveterate opponents of the TLM have their Golden Calf.
What was it that Ratzinger wrote about the Golden Calf?
In Spirit of the Liturgy, addressing the problem of immanentism (a manifestation of Modernism), Ratzinger observed that the Hebrews knew that the Calf wasn’t really a god. They wanted the Calf as their god because they didn’t want what the true Most High God was asking of them. The religion of the Calf would be easier.
This is exactly the same trap I think that some people who hate the Traditional Roman Rite fall into: they fear the challenge inherent in the ritual and the texts. They fear the apophatic aspect, the demanding elements of the Traditional Rite. For them, everything has to be instantly and easily apprehended, for example, “in a language that everyone understands”. They want everything to be seen (versus populum) and heard (audible Eucharistic Prayer) and immediately grasped (banal translations, unchallenging music everyone can sing).
Here is the take away: Che Sera, Sera… Whatever Will Be, Will Be.
I don’t think that the Traditional Roman Rite can be controlled or stomped out. It is going to stay and grow. There will be bumps and pain, but it isn’t going away.
What I hope for is an opening of hearts. That’s why I have asked for people to make an informal commitment to pray for those who are in charge of implementing Traditionis custodes. I ask you to become true custodes Traditionis by prayer and by offering mortifications for the warming and opening of the hearts of their bishops.
We have to be patient and prayerful and ready to suffer all manner of mistreatment and indignity. In the end, we will be better off for what we will have endured and generations in the future will be grateful.
Prayerfully and cheerfully persevere, avoiding bitterness and spiritual stinginess. “Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them.”
Remember that we are not made for this world and, in Heaven, we will have only one Rite.
I have turned on the comment moderation queue.
Loading ...
“Supporting” Summorum Pontificum by repealing it in toto? Very interesting approach! Well, he certainly has his narrative, and by golly he’s sticking to it: (1) Quattuor abhinc annos & Summorum Pontificum were aimed at humoring a few old fuddy-duddies, and that was fine; (2) His predecessors were just throwing a bone to a handful of old geezers, but that bone was gradually snatched away by some very nasty, very rigid people hellbent on attacking “the Council” ; (3) Young priests and parishioners who claim to appreciate the TLM are basically “cos-players,” acting out or participating in a self-indulgent fashion statement that they likely don’t even understand.
It’s revisionist, wrongheaded and condescending. Nonetheless, I do detect in his words a desire to downplay or diminish the harshness of Traditionis Custodes. In places where TLM growth is most robust (US, England, France), the overwhelming share of bishops have not aggressively implemented T.C. (though there are some exceptions like McElroy in San Diego). The general non-implementation, though, undermines the narrative that the bishops were begging him to do this on account of widespread division caused by the TLM. With the narrative disintegrating, the Holy Father has essentially two choices: retreat or double-down. In this interview, I’m seeing hints of a retreat. Deo volente…
I think there are two points worth adding here:
1. If Francis is truly concerned about the faithful attending mass in a language they don’t understand, the obvious solution to this problem is just to allow the traditional Roman Rite to be celebrated in the vernacular. Those of us who are traditionally minded may not think this ideal (I certainly don’t), but it would remove one of the obstacles that I find holds back many who are interested in the TLM but can’t quite make the leap.
2. The fact that Francis thinks that TC requires “permission” from Rome to celebrate the old rite shows once again that he is not particularly well informed about the Church’s law. The document says, “Priests ordained after the publication of the present Motu Proprio, who wish to celebrate using the Missale Romanum of 1962, should submit a formal request to the diocesan Bishop who shall consult the Apostolic See before granting this authorization.” So the bishop must consult with Rome, but whether permission is granted would seem to be up to the bishop alone. I see this lack of understanding of the mechanics of Church governance creeping up time and time again in Francis’s pontificate (thinking that publishing private letters in the AAS makes them authoritative, that weird time he seemed to try to invoke infallibility when talking about the reform of the mass).
I also appreciate your anecdotes about dealing with Cardinal Bergoglio. It helps me to see his human face.
First of all, wow. A year is not all that long to assess something like this, in all sincerity, and, be able to receive and then decide on the best course of action or (if) one is even needed.
This doesn’t make sense to me.
Let’s play their game. Isn’t nostalgia for our true Home, our Fatherland in Heaven a good thing? Isn’t desire, an inate sense given to us to seek out our true home, our true rest, in God alone, a good thing? We find this lived out faithfully through the Latin rite! Thr Mass of the Ages. Yes, it is nostalgia. So what!? But define that correctly. It is nostalgia in the true sense of the word. Not some construct of our imagination. No, it is a real lived tradition handed down to us and lived through hundreds of years. God communicated Himself to thousands of Saints and Martyrs, and continues to communicate Himself through the Sacramental life lived from Communion to Communion in the Traditional Latin rite.
Speaking of ideologies. Isn’t it really quite ironic that the reason why this motu proprio has come about seems to be because of a certain ideology that is far more detrimental to the spiritual life than some old lady praying the beads during Holy Mass, making her first Friday devotions or the horror of it all, praying in Latin? Talk about ideologies, how can you fit all of these faithful who assist and are attached to the Latin Mass, into a tiny box, constructed in one’s limited knowledge and imagination, from hearsay, and perhaps a very limited experience, then apply such as unpastoral (at best) sanctions? Because that’s what this is, as if we are a threat, to our own Church. Our own mother.. Our inheritance has been in many ways, stolen from us! No wonder some of my Eastern catholic friends raised the alarm when this came out. And even before come to think of it. This motu proprio has caused a sort of PTSD amongst them as well. They could see the signs. They could see how unjust this is. God knows what He is doing. We only have to stay faithful and trust, but to deny our true home and act as if the desire to worship Almighty God through the Mass of the Ages is somehow wrong or displeasing to God? No, that is not right. That is not an honest and sincere assessment of the real problem at hand. The real problem has not even been addressed by Rome. May God have mercy on us all.
“What is lost in this skewed ars celebrandi is the fact that every word of Holy Mass ought to be sacral and sacrificial. Every word of the liturgical texts is the word of Christ the High Priest raising a sacrifice to God the Father. It is wrong to think of the first part of the Mass, the “Mass of the Catechumens” or the “Liturgy of the Word” as a contrast to the “Liturgy of the Eucharist” as if they didn’t have much to do with each other. They are both sacrificial. ”
Yes! Thank you!
Also, for some reason, I skipped over the part about nostalgia in your post and didn’t see it.. You said it far better than I could even think it let alone say.
What I don’t understand is that this type of nostalgia actually being a good thing is not some difficult to understand or new revelation. Why is it seen as something bad and needing to be corrected?
Maybe this is exactly what we all need. The beauty of the Mass of the Ages coming into the spot light and the hearts of the the faithful (who are unjustly looked upon almost a lepers) and who have been such a light to myself and my family, finally coming out from under a bushel. Something I suspect they are highly uncomfortable with but when forced to fight, have no choice. Their weapons have been tried throughout time and it seems they realize that in the end, no amount of human deliberation will help. Only prayer, fasting, faithfulness to duty and above all, trust in God. He will take care of everything.
@ChiariDiAssissi:
Yes, the disregard for sufficient time also seems to contradict Francis’s strategic criteria too–
time is greater than space (insufficient time given for Bishops)
unity prevails over conflict (insufficient time strains unity)
realities are more important than ideas (the idea of the motu propio does not give Bishops sufficient time to implement. The reality is bi-ritual harmony in most dioceses)
the whole is greater than the part (novus ordo represents part & not the whole)
It was noted in another post that space is actually greater than time due to its 3 dimensions. Clearly, Francis is trying to turn back time in order to get rid of the increasingly substantial space that TLM occupies. This is an exercise in futility.
I’m sorry but I have no interest in reading anything the Bishop of Rome has to say in an interview. I see his actions and that is enough.
How are those clerics who desperately cling to a failed experiment, the Novus Ordo, not suffering from nostalgia for the 60s/70s? The laity literally ran from the church after VII and the implementation of the Novus Ordo, and priests and nuns left in droves. Pope Benedict encourages the church to remember her roots, and the people start to flock back to the Latin Mass. Signs of life, of a new springtime, start to appear, and instead of rejoicing, we have clerics trying to snuff out that new life all for the sake of an ideology that they have concerning the Novus Ordo.
Of course we still don’t know, and I at 83 may never in this life know, exactly what the ‘problem’ is thought to be, or how large it is. But I suspect it is the failure of some traditionalists to show the generosity of spirit that Pope Benedict called for in the letter accompanying SP. Pope Benedict called for openness and generosity from both ‘sides’, and towards the end of the letter wrote this :-
Um die volle communio zu leben, können die Priester, die den Gemeinschaften des alten Usus zugehören, selbstverständlich die Zelebration nach den neuen liturgischen Büchern im Prinzip nicht ausschließen.
Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books.
Obviamente, …; Evidemment, …; Ovviamente …; Obviamente, …;
I was delighted to see some Oratorian parishes were routinely celebrating both forms. I was troubled by there being, as far as I could find, no TLMs at all in our archdiocese. But I was very unhappy that when the Archbishop solved that by giving a church to FSSP, they were reported as celebrating exclusively in the older rite. That is not what Pope Benedict called for.
@thomistking,
TC has enough legal holes to drive a horse-and-cart through. Here’s a canonist’s take on it, one that needs more attention than it’s received. A tradition-friendly bishop can basically ignore it, as it’s currently written:
https://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2021/07/29/the-enormous-loophole-in-traditionis-custodes/
Pope Francis speaks as one on the outside looking in. It is no wonder that it is incomprehensible to him, and that what he says about it makes no sense and why he seems slightly perplexed by how much his motu propio has confused and hurt so many sincere Catholics.
Some things only make sense when you can see them from the inside.
If there is a concern about the faithful not understanding the “readings” at the TLM, the solution is simple. It’s called a missal. It’s such a lame non-issue. People can even read the epistle and gospel before Mass. It’s a tired argument if I ever heard one. Not to mention the point made by Fr. Z about the epistle and gospel being offered to the Father.
Pingback: Zap Big Pulpit – Big Pulpit
I am so outta my league here thinking that I can add anything to the discussion but if the pope has a scintilla of pastoral compassion then why wouldnt he simply write a corrective to the problems he (and all those bishops) see?? Like, list the problems with…you know suggested solution.
As a father (and I am farrrr from perfect) I correct almost everyday (trying) without whomp’n some heads. This guy was obviuosly out to womp some heads.
Fr. Z, Right on! And on on so many levels.
Which is actually kind of the point: the liturgy isn’t just words spoken that have to be “understood”. It is motion, and symbol, and prayer, and silence, and hymn, and so on. Layers upon layers upon layers. The meaning of the gospel has one layer, on top. Then another layer underneath. Then a third layer when you connect it to the collect. Then a fourth layer when it stands counterpoint to the Canon. And so on.
And the person doesn’t just grasp it upon hearing the words, or upon reading the words – like a geometry proof. It is poetry, it needs to be felt in the bones, smelled in the nose, tingling down the spine, tapped by foot. And it needs to be lived, then when we come back to it again in the liturgy, it bears with it a new layer. Until it beats with your heart, and the heart of Jesus, whose very body and blood we receive.
That’s why the intent to make sure the people “can understand the words” is goofy. You cannot just “make up” whole new art forms of that successfully intertwine words, music, smells, motions, silences, nuances, pauses, inside references, extrapolating references, ALL AT ONCE, by simply thinking about them. It’s the work of ages.
One of the most comforting experiences while travelling around the world – obviously when we could do such things – is being able to attend the Usus Antiquior in the sacred language of the Church and know exactly what was going on. Ok the homily, not so much.
Pingback: THVRSDAY EDITION – Big Pulpit
This is a serious question: is there a way to get up a petition for people to sign asking the Vatican to RELEASE the bishop’s responses to the Pope’s request for input?
Not just “summaries about” the responses, or statistics collated from the responses, but the ACTUAL responses. Actual photocopies.
Yes, I realize that perhaps some bishops don’t want their words “in private” publicized. But: did they have an ACTUAL basis for thinking their words were private? After sending them to the Vatican of all places?
Be that as it may, I am OK with saying fine, black out the identifying names, cities, and so on, so that nobody can tell which diocese sent in which response. It’s not perfect, but it would be good enough. Because, here’s the thing: even so, every bishop should be able to pick out his OWN response and see if it was tampered with. And boy, after the 2020 US election, I want people to make sure their “ballots” were not tampered with.
I have no particular reason to think that the Vatican officials who collected the responses did so in a fair and forthright manner in reporting to the pope, or that the pope was accurate in describing their content to us. The time for assuming that it was all fine is long, long past. Accountability.
Is there any way of getting news organizations keyed into this, to hound the Vatican for “transparency” and “model practices”, say, in light of the banking scandals? To insist on making the underlying DATA public? Why shouldn’t the pope release the data – what is he hiding?
[What is being hidden? The truth. There is no way the results will be released. The survey was cover for a predetermined outcome.]
If we have a pastoral concern for those older Catholics brought up with the traditional rite, shouldn’t we be equally concerned about young people more recently brought up on the traditional Mass since SP was issued? SP has been around for 14 years, long enough for it to be the only mass that some young people brought up in traditional families have known.
Without debating the convoluted statements of Francis, I would like to say that as a Traditionalist, you can attend TLM anywhere in the world and (other than the sermon) you will understand EVERYTHING that is prayed.
World Youth Day, 1993. Mass with the Holy Father in over 20 languages. The “veritable Tower of Babel of languages”… no truer words have been spoken. It was ludicrous, but it brought me to the TLM.
If you really want to understand what Pope Francis thinks (because his texts are not always clear about his mens), you should refer to his history in the Buenos Aires Archdiocese.
In Buenos Aires Abp. Bergoglio had lots of trouble with “traditionalist” groups. Plainly, they didn’t like him (and it was probably mutual). He was required to comply with Summorum Pontificum by these groups, so he reluctantly appointed a priest to say Mass in the EF. But those groups always complained that this particular priest very often commented that he didn’t understand why they wanted the EF, that it wasn’t needed and, basically, that it was some kind of an ideology or fashion, specially amongst young people. Does this sound similar to what the Pope says now?
I do believe that his views on what he calls the “traditionalist movement” is strongly influenced by what was his relationship with traditionalist groups in Buenos Aires. When I read Traditiones Custodes’ description of traditionalist groups and its flaws, although I can’t agree that it represents many EF communities I’ve met or known, I do believe that it DOES represent a few of them. It’s almost exactly the same impression I had when I went to an EF mass in Santiago, Chile (next to Argentina and culturally close) and started hearing what people who attended had to say after mass.
It’s also fair to point that some traditionalist groups in Latin America and Spain had targeted Abp. Bergoglio for many years, pointing out that he was a liberal, antitraditionalist and many, many other harsher things. That was before he was elected Pope. And I know this because I did agree with many of those people, although I don’t vent my opinions online very often. Quite plainly, traditionalist gruoups who had heard about Abp. Bergoglio, plainly didn’t like him. I, a conservative and not affiliated with any traditionalist group, didn’t like Abp. Bergolio and I hoped he would leave his office relatively soon.
Then Abp. Bergoglio was elected Pope. I don’t have an ill image of him as a Pope, and I do like many, many things he says or comments. I don’t agree with everything he says or does, but I have come to like him. However, I believe that many of the reforms and changes he has tried to implement in the Church carry the weight of how things are done (or not done) in Argentina. If you know anything about that country, they are specialist in implementing many commissions to study the problems and propose solutions (rings any bells?). This, of course, means that many matters remain unresolved and “under discussion” for many years. It also means that if you think that something needs urgent solutions, the President of the country will take action even if it’s not entirely certain if that solution is lawful (again, rings any bells?), because it’s not possible to set up a commission to discuss it. Then, if it doesn’t work, you start patching things up from there (you improvise).
I wouldn’t, at all, be surprised if this very same Pope, in a few months, issued a decree modifying Traditiones Custodes and making it a little bit more lenient (or harsher), depending on the reception it has.
I believe that the best contribution you could make is to send letters to Rome introducing the communities that used the EF, explaining specially how its members are well introduced to Church’s works outside of liturgy. Basically, help Pope Francis see that not every EF community is akin to what he saw in Buenos Aires. And I recommend you do it quickly, before the first TC patch is issued.
[What is being hidden? The truth. There is no way the results will be released. The survey was cover for a predetermined outcome.]…
Kind of like “community organizing” eh?
Just some observations:
-The “nostalgia” argument is a ruse. Most of the folks attending the TLM were born well after 1962- At my age, I can remember as a very, very young child, the phrase :
“Per omnia saecula saeculorum”- like the smell of incense- you just don’t forget. However, I’m no nostalgist…
-I find it almost unbelievable that Pope Francis would equate the preference for the TLM with an “ideology”- rhymes with “Liberation Theology”? (sorry).
-My lived experience of the NO is not a good one. Many Sundays I would just find myself getting angry at Mass?! Why? From liturgical dancing on the altar to women “ministers” doing “shots” with the leftover consecrated wine to the insipid/often sacrilegious hymns? How about just the plain NOISE all around me?
-Francis is not a very good theologian.
Excuse the rant Father- thanks for your clarity.
I say often comment to people, when the conversation comes round to it, by way of example: I don’t think most people understand (or “mean” if that’s what we want here) the Nicene Creed *better* when spoken in English. You could pick almost any line and ask “what does this mean, and what are you saying you believe?”. The matter of understanding is a matter of doctrine, not a matter of what language any given word happens to be in. The problem is not language, it is instruction.
teomatteo says: “This guy was obviuosly out to womp some heads.”
Yep. No reaching out to the peripheries here. After all, one may get “rigid religiosity”. No getting the smell of the sheep of *those* Christians. Better beware of the pharisaical fundamentalists – something is wrong inside. But no digging to try to “help” what’s going on inside of them. They only deserve the back of my hand.
“I’m not one to bang on the table, I don’t get it. I’m rather shy.”
Well, he likes to hit Chinese women in public, which lends further credibility to the reports of temper tantrums inside the benighted halls of the Vatican. As for “I’m rather shy” perhaps he thinks he’s sitting for an interview with Teen Vogue.
“Ideology”
Not surprising coming from an angry and unstable pagan who has pontificated many times against the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
“Clear norms that put a limit to those who had not lived that experience.”
Typical behavior of a rigid tyrant. Bergoglio, the Dear Leader of the Pachamama political-religion, will now decide the “lived experience” of every Catholic.
The July “motu proprio” is a declaration of war against Christianity.
From the Vatican website:
Interviewer: “…after many years of military occupation.”
Interviewee: “…the fact of 20 years of occupation…”
*chuckle* The interviewee has occupied the Vatican for eight years during which he has attacked the Gospel of Jesus Christ, eliminated several faithful Catholic groups, and harassed, insulted and terrorized faithful Catholics. The interviewee apparently is ignorant of the fact that refugees are fleeing the Taliban (recipient of foreign assistance) and foreign terrorist groups.
The interviewee, to justify his tyranny, also blames the “nostalgia” of the victims- that is nothing less than ideological hatred.
Speaking of ideological hatred, on August 31 the First Things editor R.R. Reno read one tendentious book about Afghanistan and, as usual these days, became an Instant Afghanistan Expert. A brief sample of Reno, rummaging through the dream palace of his pro-Integralist mind:
“…liberal moralism.” Reno, rather than engaging thoughtfully with the topic and diligently researching, uncorks the usual vague, lazy sloganeering against “liberalism.”
“It is not the case that “everyone desires freedom” as Bush intoned in his Second Inaugural…”
Reno should meet the Afghan female robotics team who fled the Taliban and certain sexual enslavement. Maybe Reno is just being sour and flippant. Maybe Reno is a misogynist, or a racist. Maybe Reno is just an everyday thug, having consorted with and published in the once-great First Things authors who propose burning Protestants at the stake and kidnapping Jewish children.
“To this day, journalists repeat “women’s rights” as an all-purpose cry of anguish as that dream palace collapses.”
Hmm. How about Tough Guy Reno purchase one-way tickets to Kabul for his wife and daughters, that might cure the inexperienced and office-bound Reno of his callous dismissiveness. (Reno also uses “dream palace” several times in his column- wonder where he got that from.) Given how the Taliban and other Islamist groups abuse women and young girls, perhaps Ghoulish and Misogynistic are fitting labels for this First Things Editor blog post by keyboard warrior Reno.
One more.
“…the world is full of determined men who are willing to make extraordinary sacrifices to defend their way of life, which is not at all like ours.”
Reno seems motivated by fear. Reno is reminded of the many men and women who made extraordinary sacrifices at Tours, Malta, Lepanto, Vienna, the North American Martyrs, the martyred nuns of the French Revolution, and the military men and women of many countries who fought, and still fight, in the wars of the Twentieth and Twenty-First Centuries.
Now, Reno, like the interviewee mentioned above, has a bit of talent. Reno would benefit by getting out of the office and spending an extensive period of time overseas meeting not only military and civilian personnel but the majority of Afghans, male and female, “who are willing to make extraordinary sacrifices to defend their way of life” against evil.
Until then, Reno should take a closer look at what occurred during the last several months, the delusional Social Justice Warriors who produced this tragedy, and the non-Afghan groups and governments that benefit.