I recently received a copy of
From Benedict’s Peace to Francis’s War: Catholics Respond to the Motu Proprio Traditionis Custodes on the Latin Mass
This is a collection of short pieces from the internet assembled in chronological order by a wide (but not wide enough) array of, mostly known, writers.
There is general consensus among the writers, not all of whom regularly frequent the Vetus Ordo, that Traditionis custodes was founded on quagmire of inaccuracies, was sloppy and incoherent, and was narrow-minded and cruel.
The book is somewhat crippled by the lack of a thematic index, which couldn’t have made it a more useful tool for defense, response and – let’s use this unpopular world – proselytizing.
One of the more useful pieces is by Walter Card. Brandmüller (one of the Dubia Cardinals whom Francis failed to “accompany” in any way reflecting charity). Card. Brandmüller writes about the necessity of reception of a law for the law to have force. It was originally published on 29 July 2021.
By coincidence, a canonist friend and I were talking about the very same concept that day and I posted on it. HERE Happily, I got right! I did pick up from his piece a quote that I didn’t have in my quiver:
“Leges instituuntur cum promulgantur. Firmantur cum moribus utentium approbantur. Sicut enim moribus utentium in contrariem nonnullae leges hodie abrogatae sunt, ita moribus utentium leges confirmantur” (c. 3, D. 4).
“Laws are established when they are promulgated. They are confirmed when they are approved by the behavior of those who use them. For as due to the behaviors of users in a contrary direction, quite a few laws today have been abrogated, so through the
behaviors of the users the laws are confirmed.”
The nutshell is that when people simply ignore a law, it is no law at all. That applies to matters of discipline, rather than moral precepts deriving from divine law and matters of faith that are defined, etc. So, this can apply to something like Traditionis custodes but not the Church’s teaching about, say, contraception in Humanae vitae or John Paul II’s clarification about the impossibility of the ordination of women in Ordinatio sacerdotalis.
And so I arrive at my point.
I read at CNA the dreadful and hurtful news that the bishop of Charleston, SC, Bishop Robert E. Guglielmone, has forbidden confirmation and, even worse, anointing of the sick in the Vetus Ordo. He forbids Christmas Midnight Mass. He forbids the Triduum. He allows one Mass on All Souls. He designated four parishes in diocese for Mass in the Vetus Ordo except for the things he cruelly forbade.
Marriages and funerals are allowed only at the bishop’s discretion. ‘Cause, you know, accompaniment… subsidiarity….
Think about this.
Firstly, those who are inclined to traditional worship wouldn’t seek confirmation from a priest. They would want to be confirmed by a bishop. People will travel across the whole of these USA to have their children confirmed by a bishop. So, forbidding confirmation in the older rite is not that big a deal.
But all the other things, the dates that the bishop has forbidden Mass are super important in the devotion of the Catholic people. They are sensitive days, tied to people’s hearts and fondest memories. Midnight Mass! Triduum!
What about certain moments in people’s lives, such as getting married, yoking yourself sacramentally until your last breath to another for the sake of helping each other get to heaven and bringing children into the world. Not pivotal or important at all, I guess. No reason to be pastorally, paternally sensitive to their “legitimate aspirations” as Saint John Paul II called them. No no… we will permit all sorts of goofy stuff at “normal” weddings, but you people can just shut up and take a seat in the back of the bus.
What about another pivotal moment in your life: DYING. The bishop forbids that a person who truly longs for the traditional form of anointing by denied. Father is supposed to refuse to do it. “Please, Father, anoint me in the old way?” “No. The bishop says you can’t have that.”
“Please, Father, anoint my grandpa with the traditional book?” “Nope. No can do! Here, have a tissue.”
Honestly, I might have a heart as cold as a frog on a mountain, but I don’t think I could look into teary, anxious eyes and deny anointing with the older book.
What priest could do that? What bishop would even suggest that? For the love of all that’s holy… what’s with that?
The Sacrament of Anointing has been one of the most abused sacraments since the Council. It is, as classical theology explains, one of the “sacraments of the living”, that is, to be given to those who are alive in grace rather than dead in mortal sin. The “sacraments of dead”, Baptism and Penance”, bring a person back to life in grace. All the other sacraments must be received in the state of grace, by the “living”.
I wonder if the bishop of Charleston has ever admonished any priest about administering Anointing to those who have been previously confessed, except in danger of death. “Danger of death” is a concept that has been much abused as well, though there is quite a bit of latitude. The latitude is not all-inclusive. In fact, far and wide, there are mass-anointings performed without any sacramental preparation.
So, while it is good to know that there are four – out of how many? – places in that diocese where Holy Mass in the Vetus Ordo can be celebrated, the restrictions placed by the bishops strike exactly at times in people’s lives when they are the most sensitive and the feasts or moments that are most dear.
Traditionis custodes is, in its very spirit, immensely harsh and cruel. What bishop would willingly succumb to that spirit? Are they just signing stuff that some flunky wrote for them? Don’t they think this through? These are young and zealous Catholics who are going to weather the demographic storm we are in. These are the people you want to attack right now?
We are dealing with the single most marginalized group of people in the Church today. And their fathers give them stones instead of bread.
So much better would it be were the bishop himself to celebrate Holy Mass at Midnight on Christmas. Will we see a bishop write to his people that, if they want to be married in the ancient way, he himself would be happy to witness it? Could we conceive of a bishops who, in applying TC, says, “If your loved one is dying and wants Last Rites in the traditional way, I myself will do it it at all possible, or I will find someone who will. After all, as St. Augustine said, ‘I am a bishop for you and a Christian with you.”
Quamdiu?
Loading ...
If he forbids Mass at Midnight on Christmas Day, offer it at 12:05 a.m.
[And THAT friends, is why we need canon law.]
Pingback: Another US Diocese applies ‘Traditionis custodes’. Strikingly hurtful. Notes on “reception theory”. – Via Nova Media
Father Timothy:
Perfect answer. If the bishop seeks to be a legalist people should respond in the same manner.
My diocese, my bishop. The spin locally has been since he’s already submitted his resignation due to age that these restrictions should suffice should his successor be unfriendly toward Catholicism (normally I’d write “tradition”). Seriously, we’ve been trying to convince ourselves and anyone who would listen that this is all so it won’t be worse under whoever gets to stand on our necks next.
We’re idiots. We’re idiots and I’m a coward.
The arbitrary cruelty mixed with unjustified leniency. Does TC say anything about Anointing? No. Well, too bad. Does TC say anything about parishes? Yes. Well, there the bishop will not follow.
It’s the post Vatican 2 Spirit of capriciousness of it all. It does not minister to the faithful, it does not persuade the faithful, it abuses the faithful by gaslighting them.
So if I’m dying and I receive last Rites in the old form, what’s the bishop going to do to me – excommunicate me? He’d have to pastorally counsel me first, and I’d be more than welcome to have him join me for said counsel!
Would it be worthwhile to look at the exact juridical status of the Novus Ordo? We know that the traditional Mass was never abrogated; does this mean the Novus Ordo was just imposed by brute force and not by an actual law? Does active refusal to celebrate/attend the Novus Ordo and the persistence in using the traditional rite — or Catholics just leaving the Church on account of it — count as non-acceptance?
“Traditionis custodes is, in its very spirit, immensely harsh and cruel.”
Thus the Francisprinzip (or the Pachamamaprinzip) strikes again, this time in South Carolina.
The anti-Christian TC attacks the faithful and tradition. However, this is Bergoglio in August, approvingly quoting the belligerent hypocrite Vladimir Putin:
“It is necessary to put an end to the irresponsible policy of intervening from outside and building democracy in other countries, ignoring the traditions of the peoples.”
It might be better for all if Bergoglio, who ignores the Dubia, also ignored tradition rather than attack it.
But most (not all) of the hierarchy cannot be bothered with Midnight Mass and the Triduum when they have more important things on their plate, such as ice cream during afternoon break:
https://www.twitter.com/USCCB/status/1460976217025306628
Behold the glories of Accompaniment and Walking Together: a Twitter poll about snacks.
So, there’s alot to be said for reception theory: “The nutshell is that when people simply ignore a law, it is no law at all.” Indeed.
“After all, as St. Augustine said, “I am a bishop for you and a Christian with you.”” Good point, and the key here is “a Christian.”
Whatever can be used against a bishop and diocese that would do this, should be used. Stop attending. Stop giving. Stop supporting. Stand outside with signs. Make petitions and try to find people of goodwill who will see what is being done, and maybe some of them will begin to wonder, what kind of church does this to their own people? This would be spreading the word about the Roman Rite, perhaps sparking some interest, as well as maybe opening some eyes. At the least, it casts an ugly light on what should be illuminated. Why should we continue to suffer silently from these evil edicts? Do we have to remain longsuffering victims into perpetuity? Are Catholics just designated victims, never allowed to say, ENOUGH, we’re mad as hell and we’re not going to take it anymore! Pray, yes, by all means, but for crying out loud, act! We need to stop being willing victims, because it’s getting to be the only thing as disgusting as petty bullies like this bishop, is weak Catholics standing by thanking them for their brutality and silently wiping their tears away, then saying nothing. We need to fight against terminal effeminacy, with which we have all been brainwashed, it’s horrible. We don’t win and can’t make headway because we aren’t even in the fight. Where are the people with fire in their bellies. It does not make you holy to refuse to fight for the Holy Mass or to get what Jesus gave you. You don’t get points in heaven, you don’t get an extra shiny crown, nothing. You get stomped on and that makes it easy on the bullies. We need to stop making it easy on the bullies. Look at it this way, we’ve tried being holy victims. Where has it gotten us? Wouldn’t it be much better to face God and at least say, I may have erred sometimes Lord, but I TRIED.
Who would have ever thought that the Christmas Midnight Mass and the Triduum in the traditional form, the same form used by the many saints and Christians before us would be banned WHILE at the same time Pachamama rituals would be allowed inside the Vatican itself? How did things ever come to this?
As to the cruel TC and “pastoral” bishops like Guglielmone, there is only one solution: ignore, ignore, ignore. It is up to us faithful to apply reception theory to all their illicit laws and decrees. Only through us can they be rendered worthless.
My bishop, my diocese, too. And boredoftheworld is right. There’s been talk about Bishop Guglielmone’s retirement for a while, though I hadn’t heard that he had handed in his resignation. I had only heard it was getting ready to happen.
Anyway. On the one hand, I’m a little surprised as this sudden crackdown when, before TC, he seemed to be, if not supportive, at least tolerant of the Mass of the Ages. On the other hand, given how harshly he came down with restrictions during the COVID lockdown (we couldn’t even have confession), I’m surprised that I’m surprised.
I miss Bishop Baker. One of the first Latin Masses we had in the state was in Charleston and I think it was at his insistence. I could be wrong, though.
My Bishop, as well. The four parishes are the only places the TLM was currently being offered, I believe. There may have been one more. He at least allowed those to continue.
TC says nothing about the ‘other’ sacraments. Therefore we can deduce that SP is still in force for them. Therefore we can deduce that the bishop has no authority to restrict the ‘other’ sacraments and that his priests can lawfully and in good conscience ignore him on this matter. Am I wrong?
(All this assumes, for the sake of argument, that TC is legitimate and not ultra vires, but that’s a different question.)
Get to your nearest SSPX chapel, quickly
“Please, Father, anoint my grandpa with the traditional book?” “Nope. No can do! Here, have a tissue
So, hypothetically speaking then, a priest from the FSSP is travelling through the diocese and comes across an accident where someone is at risk of dying? What’s he supposed to do? “Sorry, can’t help you. I only know how to give extreme unction in the EF, but your bishop doesn’t allow it.”
This all just seems very dumb. How can a Bishop prohibit something like that? Even the Church allows laicized priests to do extreme unction in danger of death because it’s that important of a sacrament.
“So, forbidding confirmation in the older rite is not that big a deal.”
As a member of a (suppressed) TLM Community at the End-Of-The-Road, USA, I vehemently disagree with this statement. We have had dozens of children confirmed at the hands of a delegated priest. Yes, it would be nice to be confirmed by the hands of the bishop, but we often found that neighboring dioceses either forbid it explicitly or our own bishop stepped in and slandered us while forbidding us from going elsewhere. So the vast majority have been confirmed here.
@Kate (and others affected by cruel bishops):
Would it be possible to go to an SSPX parish for the sacrament of Confirmation? I am assuming there must be an SSPX somewhere near you or at least in your own state? If I’m not mistaken, SSPX sacraments are even officially recognized by no other than “pacha-pacha” Francis himself.
I remember meeting a young Priest who was a very devout Novus Ordo. I brought him some great traditional books and books on the TLM. He loved all of it but said he didn’t know if he could embrace it. I asked him the same question I would ask this Bishop. Did you become a Priest for a comfortable life and pension or to save souls?
This is my former bISHOP in Charleston SC (Before moving to Chile I lived in SC).
Man what a weak spineless worm he turned out to be, and exactly as expected he would be as well. He was and is confident in his mediocrity.
Maybe @Bored of the World can give us a run down on what ever happened to the case against the Bishop Of Charleston? I seem to remember that he was rightly accused of diddling little boys in Rockville Center before coming to SC. (I understand diddling little boys in Rockville Center is an average pass time for the cATHOLIC clergy there).
Last I heard was that The bISHOP of Charleston was laying low to avoid being interviewed by the secular press in Charleston and hiding in the rectory, not even going in to the Chancery right next door to the rectory, to avoid the press!
Did someone get paid off on the diddiling thingey?
Was he proven innocent?
Did the victim (likely now a homosexual) recant his story? Maybe the victim is now an ordained Priest in Rockville Center and was ordered to not say any more?
What happened? Seems like lots of NDAs were likely signed!
I remember the struggle we went through for about 15 years to get the Latin Mass in SC.
B.M. and others (our family was just one of many) worked and pleaded and begged for the PERMISSION for the Latin Mass. We drove all over the state singing in the scholas of clandestine Masses provided by different orders of excellent priests from all over the world. Then there were the Petitions for the Ancient Mass (Every Year).
The scoop then was DO NOT MAKE THE BISHOP MAD. He will make your lives miserable! Well we knew then like we know now life IS miserable with out the old Mass. (Hey offer it up. We do).
I wonder if the faithful people of SC will take this lying down now. Please… please… please bISHOP Googly cut our throats! Not so sure. Maybe times are a changing?
I would think that now in SC there is such a massive presence of Latin Mass Lovers that they could attract a good number of SSPX priests to say the old Mass. Maybe open up a Chapel or a Community or hey even a Seminary! God works in wondrous ways maybe this is the oil that was needed to fix the squeak? I guess the good bISHOP was not counting on Latin Mass Lovers being so devoted to Christ that his trying to stop them is like trying to keep a goat fenced in. Not going to happen. Only this time it is faithful sheep!
Well life goes on in SC. .
FR Z I would not fault you for editing this or dumping it at all but it is true.
Meanwhile, there are dioceses where TC has been cruelly implemented “under the table” without a public decree. You’ll never hear about them, but it affects a good number of the faithful. By this I mean that priests who were celebrating TLMs regularly have stopped, even without explicit word from their bishop, because they know what the chancery is like and are afraid. We can say all we want that they need to just celebrate it anyway, but it must be an incredibly difficult position to be in. Or other dioceses where people have been requesting the TLM for years and were making progress in being allowed to have one a couple of times per year, but now the bishop just ignores their requests and uses TC as an excuse not to allow any further expansion because he “can’t go against Francis.” These two examples I speak of are real dioceses, and at least one is a bishop who is not an extreme modernist, but just doesn’t like to make waves with his aging priests.
The Long Island Wolf amongst the Carolinian sheepfold. It was never going to be good, and he gifts his Priests and Parishioners with a parting shot of pastoral charity. What a guy! Ya’ll come back , now, ya’ hear?
Oh yeah, and:
Bless his sweet lil’ heart….
Weep!
Prayers for the priests, religious and lay Catholics in that diocese and for the whole church.
Weep!
Prayers for the priests, religious and lay Catholics in that diocese and for the whole church.
Sorry for the double post. I thought I was just checking it once and posting it once.
kurtmaser: “Would it be possible to go to an SSPX parish for the sacrament of Confirmation?”
Well… we’re just coming around to this possibility. But even then, the closest one is eight hours away, so it is still quite a trip. I wasn’t kidding when I said we lived at the End-Of-The-Road. Yet still, we have a substantial number of TLM Catholics here.
This is precisely what happens when the SSPX has exactly zero presence in a diocese (or anywhere nearby).
@phlogiston Exactly! Regardless of what one thinks of the SSPX, simply looking at a map of TLM locations shows that bishops have pressure to start a diocesan TLM or to invite in the FSSP or ICKSP if there is an existing SSPX. This is how it is in our relatively rural diocese and another diocese nearby. The only locations in these two dioceses for an “approved” TLM are in the same towns as the SSPX. All other locations in the diocese without easy access to an SSPX are just out of luck. The bishop knows that traditional Catholics (for the most part) will not leave the Church, so if we have to drive several hours to the nearest TLM, then he has zero incentive to allow one to start, no matter how charitably and how often we ask. Even during the time of Summorum Pontificum our diocese was under a practical indult. We would ask priests, who were not opposed to it, and they would always say to ask the bishop. Without pressure from the SSPX, nothing ever came to fruition.
Far be it from me to defend his excellency but it must be done. He has been cleared of any charges related to anything either illegal or immoral. He has been, if not a friend of tradition then certainly a friend of his people.
That, probably more than anything else, is what makes this decree so painful. There’s no real rhyme or reason to it. WHY, when the parishes that have “traditionally” offered Mass at Midnight are already preparing, has he forbidden it? Considering the letter and spirit of TC what is the point of all this? The express will of the man who almost everyone acknowledges as the sovereign pontiff is that the older form and everything associated with it be eliminated during our lifetime. So why be so blatantly schismatic by refusing to implement the intended restrictions?
The smaller the man, the bigger the power grab. What a petty man.
He is the “Bishop” of the Diocese that gave us Cardinal Bernardin, so he is a perfect fit.
Apparently he has been named in a lawsuit for abusing a minor in NY in 1978–1979 – cue Claude Rains – “I’m shocked, shocked”
several thoughts
1. will this encourage the SSPX to open more chapels ( hopefully so)
2. obedience to the law, how did we get severettes and communion in the hand?
priests and congregations did it anyway and so finally the rule got changed. Apply it to this situation?
3. if nothing else the Vatican claimed that Benedict allowed the TLM to try to encourage the SSPX to come back in and since it seems to have failed the experiment is over. Well that just proved the SSPX correct. It was a ruse, SSPX-1,Vatican-0
or in other words https://youtu.be/4F4qzPbcFiA
There is, it should be said, a certain coherence to the ban on VO Christmas Midnight Mass in a diocesan parish, which is in order not to deprive those parishioners who want a Midnight Mass in the NO. However I can think of no possible reason for attacking Extreme Unction, which was given, among others, even to M de Talleyrand, an arch apostate. It is said that he insisted on receiving the anointing on the BACK of his hands, murmuring “remember, I am a bishop”.
@Bored of the world it is GOOD to hear that the current bISHOP of Charleston DID NOT diddle little boys. I had not heard that he was cleared. Thanks for letting me know.
I still have my doubts about him though after going to my sons Confirmation and where he presided and gloated on and on about the crozier he was using being from Cd. Bernadine. I had to think …. what type of priest would that shepherd’s crook catch. Well he seemed awfully proud so to speak of that association and where it came from and all.
We continue here in our efforts to bring the Latin Mass to the South of Chile with mixed results. The problem is that Chile is a cATHOLIC wasteland and people do not even know that the Old Mass exists so it is a brick by brick thing. Also it takes money.
Our local ordinary here is very concerned about global warming, women in the church, global warming, COVID and no Mass at all, No Mass for the unvaxed, global warming, accompanying some people somewhere, and No Mass for the un masked and un vaxed, NO FUNERALS for those who died of covid, and locked church doors, and most important global warming. Yep that is our guy.
Curious if there’s been any impact to the Anglican Use Mass there. I attended once, and it was beautiful.
The non-reception of by the rank-and-file of the Church of Humanae vitae and Ordinatio sacerdotalis prove that there are no signs which are visible to all as to what is or isn’t ordained by moral law, etc. (I know you’ll disagree, but it’s clear people don’t see it.) The Magisterium or the Pope decides this, just as with Tradition Custodes. And like TC, the earlier decisions broke many, many hearts. We pray that the Holy Spirit had some imput in these decisions, but there’s no way to be certain. We just have to try to bandage the broken hearts and put up with it, or leave. That’s what being Catholic means. You can disobey these decrees, as many do, but then you will have to put up with what consequences there may be. That’s just the way it is in this Church.
@michele421
Humanae vitae and Ordinatio sacerdotalis neither issue new teachings nor laws, rather they present the received tradition of the Church; a contraceptive reproductive act, regardless of methodology, is sinful and women ontologically cannot be ordained. The refusal to accept the apostolic tradition of the Church by some members of the Church is not an example of “reception theory” and such a refusal to accept sacred tradition is an inditement upon those who refuse, not Humanae vitae and Ordinatio sacerdotalis.
T.C. on the other hand attempts to do three things 1.) Refuse to hand on the sacred tradition of the liturgy (of which Ratzinger said is a third source of revelation) 2.) Sever the faithful from access to (and ultimately expunge) the liturgical patrimony of the Roman Rite from the “lived experience” (for lack of a better word) of the Church 3.) Create and implement novel juridical theory of how the clergy/magisterium and liturgy function.
As it is the episcopate’s sacred duty to hand on the tradition of the Church, T.C. refusal to do so, #1, means that the document cannot be received by the faithful (as T.C. hands on nothing it is nothing) and is a dereliction of duty by any episcopate who attempts to bring about the intent of the document. While it is God’s pleasure to provide the sacraments to His people through His priests, His priests do not have the authority to change the sacraments or to remove an apostolically received expression from the lived experience of the Church. As an analogy, TLM is the trunk of the Roman Rite and the NO is a branch. If TLM is severed/expunged how then does the NO retain the life of the roots (apostolicity??) So T.C. cannot be received by the faithful on #2 as the faithful must always strive to maintain the apostolic faith as their present-day lived experience.
For #3, let us assume that this is actually novel and not some rehash from protestant/orthodox ecclesiology. The need to reject T.C. on #1 and #2 already indicates a deeply flawed and incompatible juridical theory. This is where “reception theory” could come into play. T.C. is a mess from the standpoint of “how to implement”. This is why you see those bishops who hate TLM implementing T.C. in such a way that it is not actually in compliance (as the document is vague and contradictory in the law). So from the standpoint of those who wish to receive T.C., it is not actually received. There is also the question of whether or not these bishops are acting because they agree with the novel judicial theory, out of sycopantry, or just out of maliace for TLM. The former is unlikely as the novel judicial theory severely impedes and redefines their own sovereign authority of their office. (Liberal bishops should be particularly outraged.) From the standpoint of those who disagree with the novel judicial theory, precisely because it is a novel judicial theory, the ability to reject T.C. on point #3 becomes permissible due to “reception theory”.
(as a point of order, my local mass is a N.O. and I have been to four TLM in my life. none of this is me saying anything about the N.O. only T.C.)
Satan and all of his foot soldiers hate Latin.
Just returned from a few days visit to Charleston- visited the cathedral of St. John the Baptist- strikingly beautiful, pristine condition. Attended Mass at the Anglican Ordinariate, St. Mary of the Annunciation, the oldest Catholic parish in the southeast USA. I know now where I will send a Christmas donation-
It also occurred to me Father Z., what if any could the impact of TC have on the Ordinariates ?
Fortunately here in Minneapolis-Saint Paul, Archbishop Hebda is still permitting Confirmation in the Vetus Ordo, though there will not be any Mass as there was when our oldest daughter was confirmed by Bishop Cozzens at the Cathedral. I heard earlier that the Archdiocese was looking for a bishop who would be able to come for the ceremony, though it’s odd that Bishop Cozzens wouldn’t have been available for the day since his new diocese isn’t that far away. I guess we should be thankful for what we can get, though this and the fact that the archbishop has yet to issue any kind of official decision about TC makes me nervous.
“TC says nothing about the ‘other’ sacraments. Therefore we can deduce that SP is still in force for them. Therefore we can deduce that the bishop has no authority to restrict the ‘other’ sacraments and that his priests can lawfully and in good conscience ignore him on this matter. Am I wrong?”
Unfortunately, yes you are wrong. Traditiones Custodes expressly states that “The liturgical books promulgated by Saint Paul VI and Saint John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II, are the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite” and that “Previous norms, instructions, permissions, and customs that do not conform to the provisions of the present Motu Proprio are abrogated.”
I wish this were not the case!
@bourgja
You’d think so but T.C. doesn’t abrogate the various decrees, norms, etc., that Pope Francis issued regarding the SSPX’s nor those of Pope Benedict XVI for the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter (there are other examples). The Ordinate uses a form of the Roman Rite that is not the N.O. but a branch of the TLM. Thus, the liturgical books promulgated by SPVI and SJPII ARE NOT the unique expressions of the Roman Rite.
So we can see that T.C. here is neither talking about the rites for the other sacraments nor clear on what exactly is or is not abrogated. The lack of clarity here in T.C. makes it impossible for the faithful to receive this section as it is undefinable and unenforceable as a matter of law (though it is being enforced as a matter of will).
Pingback: Traditionis Custodes is, in its very spirit, immensely harsh and cruel. | Catholicism Pure & Simple
“Leges instituuntur cum promulgantur. Firmantur cum moribus utentium approbantur. Sicut enim moribus utentium in contrariem nonnullae leges hodie abrogatae sunt, ita moribus utentium leges confirmantur” (c. 3, D. 4).
Father Z, can you tell us where this is located. I thought it was Canon Law, canon 3, but that’s not it. Maybe the earlier 1917 Canon Law?
We have a new family (perhaps six weeks now?) at our TLM. The youngest (of three children) will turn 6 just before Christmas and is playing Melchior in our Nativity play (my youngest is Saint Joseph!). On Sunday I asked the father how they came across our Latin Mas (as they drive about 30 minutes to be there). He told me when he read about “Traditionis custodes” he wanted to find out what was so bad about the Latin Mass. He found us online and after their first visit the whole family was hooked!
Thank you, Pope Francis, for driving this family to the TLM!
Our bishop (Bishop Kevin Vann of the Diocese of Orange) issued a letter back on July 26 stating that any priest currently saying the Latin Mass may continue to do so. I meant to forward a copy to Father Z, but have not managed to do so.