Do you long-time readers remember how, back in the 1990’s, bishops refused to obey the commands of John Paul II regarding generosity in the application of legislation in force at that time concerning the Vetus Ordo? How they refused to follow his command, by his Apostolic authority, to show respect to those who were attached to traditional forms of liturgical worship? They dug in their little feetsies and, with crossed-arm pouty-face, they would not properly implement the 1988 Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei adflicta.
Then, in 2007, came the game changing Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, Benedict XVI’s “emancipation proclamation”, freeing priests and the Catholic faithful from the chains of the stingy bishops. The result, bishops were suddenly eager to implement the Motu Proprio… Ecclesia Dei adflicta, that is.
As the years went on, in the first 10 years after the promulgation of Benedict’s deft juridical solution, we saw in these USA a 500% growth in the numbers of places where the TLM was offered. “Trads” of the “rad” and the “mad” stripe were unclenching. Gladness was on the rise, vocations were multiplying, young families were flourishing.
Then Benedict ran from the wolves and the wolves took over the flock of the pasture.
Progress continued under Summorum Pontificum until finally the wolves realized that their wolfish plans were going to be thwarted through the ticking of the clock and the demographic sink hole opening under the Church. I suspect that the realization that evangelical converts as well as charismatics were discovering the TLM quite simply freaked them out.
The awesome Vatican II springtime of awesomeness turned out to be no so awesome after all and, hence, their powerbase, their raison d’être, was about to slip under the sands.
So, an enemy was identified and the Struggle against that enemy was planned and implemented.
The Struggle’s success would depend on a few key factors. First, speed. Second, lies. As Clausewitz famously said, “The backbone of surprise is fusing speed with secrecy.” Thus, a “survey” of bishops was put into circulation. When the “results” came back, they hid the feedback, lied about the feedback, and used that lie as an excuse for a speedy strike.
Third, a false hermeneutic was needed to shift the terrain. That hermeneutic concerns the Second Vatican Council as the new interpretive lens through which all of Tradition, Doctrine, Law, Cult – everything – was subject not to interpretation but to reinterpretation. Whatever is old is deemed to be against what the spirit of the Council wanted. Whatever is old is holding back the Council from finally being implemented. Whatever is old has to go. Whomever grasps after what is old must be dealt with accordingly as a grave danger.
Smash the Olds! Replace them with the News!
Down with the Olds! Latin! Ad orientem! Cassock! Kneeling for Communion!
Up with the News! Pachamama! Synods! (walking together) Global Government! Novus Ordo!
With that as a kind of slogan poster, akin the Cultural Revolution, anyone who strays from Bergoglio Thought, and foundations like Spadaro Thought, Grillo Thought, etc., could be labelled “reactionaries against the Council”. The result is that local leaders, diocesan “gamma” bishops, like quivering gerbils in the view of a hawk, wait for a “beta” bishop or two to implement something on the basis of the utterly incoherent Traditionis custodes and the Dubious Dubia, cobbled up for the sake of that speedy initial strike. Then the gerbils, confident at last that it is okay to start running on their wheels too, issue their ever-so-pastoral directives, all clearly designed in intent to hurt the people who want the Olds.
On that note, here is the letter of the Bishop of London, Ontario about Traditionis custodes, which is for a change accurately spelled.
A few notes, in no particular order.
Note the stress on “I”, “me”. I guess the moment he is transferred or dies this is null and void. Otherwise, it gives the impression that this is all about the power the bishop has over people. It smacks of lording it over them.
It is FALSE that under Summorum Pontificum the priest could act “without reference to the Diocesan Bishop”.
Art. 5, § 1. In parishes, where there is stably present a group of the faithful attached to the previous liturgical tradition, let the pastor willingly receive their petitions that Mass be celebrated according to the Rite of the Missale Romanum issued in 1962. Let him see to it that the good of these faithful be harmoniously brought into accord with the ordinary pastoral care of the parish, under the governance of the Bishop according to canon 392, by avoiding discord and by fostering the unity of the whole Church.
It is FALSE that the bishop has “exclusive competence”. There’s Rome.
It is FALSE that he “needs” to seek a dispensation from the CDW for the TLM to continue in parish churches. He can apply can apply can. 87. Also, what happened to “exclusive competence”?
It is FALSE that Francis’ Motu Proprio TC abrogated the legislation of Benedict XVI in regard to the Vetus Ordo. TC says, “Art. 8. Previous norms, instructions, permissions, and custom that do not conform to the provisions of the present Motu Proprio are abrogated.”
It is FALSE that the Novus Ordo is the “unique expression” of the lex orandi of the Latin Church. First, there are the Ambrosian Rite and the Rite of the Anglican Ordinariates. Also, the Vetus Ordo is STILL IN USE, which in his letter is clear. However, I will stipulate that the Novus Ordo is, indeed, “unique” amongst the Rites of the Latin Church. It’s unique, alright.
In the penultimate paragraph we find a real howler. He struts and postures about how the GRIM must be obeyed! We saw the Bishop of Venice do that, too. Then that infamous, embarrassing video emerged.
Finally, look at the buzz words and disclaimers. “This isn’t about demeaning the faithful who want the TLM! NO! NO! This is only about marginalizing and demoralizing them to the point where they either, “Go away so I don’t have to pretend to be pastoral!” or they give in, “So I don’t have to pretend to be pastoral!”