I’m picking this up late, so I will limit to linking and a couple comments.
At The Pillar: Tomorrow the Archdiocese of Washington DC? will announce the implementation of Traditionis custodes in the capitol see, restricting the Extraordinary Form to three locations, and requiring all priests to obtain permission to celebrate the Ordinary form ad orientem.
Gregory’s letter accompanies a seven-page policy which outlines restrictions on the celebration of the Extraordinary Form in the Washington archdiocese.
SEVEN PAGES?
He has contempt for you. Never forget that. They fear the older form of Mass because of the emphasis on sin, propitiation, and conversion. They hate the people who desire the older form of Mass. Both, the rite and the people, make them think bad thoughts about the eschatological joy they would rather assume everyone merits. And, I think, when it comes to these bad thoughts, they have a lot of help.
Loading ...
Gregory has a DOCTORATE in Liturgy… trust the experts!
Doesn’t sound as though he has read Sacrosanctum Concilium gauging by his demands.
“They fear the older form of Mass because of the emphasis on sin, propitiation, and conversion.”
Yes, you again put your finger on it. It’s the New Religion persecuting those stubborn adherents of the Old Religion. It’s a different religion.
As for me, “Gimme that old time religion . . . “
I don’t understand this visceral fear of ad orientem. The General Instruction for the Novus Ordo clearly envisions that the priest, at least for a portion of the Mass, is not facing The People (TM), so much so that the GIRM has to instruct the priest that such-and-such part is to be done/said “facing the people,” (see Ch. IV, para. 124, 146, 154, et al.). How can these prelates defend finding the ad orientem posture so distasteful? Ah, but this appeal to the text as it actually is ends up being about as helpful as appeals to what Sacrosanctum concilium actually says re. the maintenance of the Latin language, Gregorian Chant having pride of place, etc., etc., etc.
To me the tell is actually forbidding ad orientem in NO.
As weak as the argument is that NO was the desire of V2 and as such is the only expression of the Church’s eucharistic liturgical celebration, it is an argument. What is the argument for forbidding ad orientem? We can’t face God while worshipping him?
Having attended NO celebrated ad orientem I noticed it makes a HUGE difference in the entire atmosphere of the Mass.
NO Masses are known for all sorts of nonsense yet turning to God is not to be allowed. Dancing up the aisles or a scooter riding recessional is just dandy. But under no circumstances face the tabernacle! Wouldn’t want to focus anyone’s attention on the reason for being there!
Ultimately I suspect the goal is to make the Church nothing more than an NGO operating with stripped down buildings resembling government facilities with narcissistic workers and patrons who are loyal to the cause with a feel good group activity thrown in to make everyone think the rulers care.
When a demon is faced with the name of Jesus or Mary, or when holy water is sprinkled, or a crucifix is present, they are tormented.
These men react the same way to the proper worship of God as God intends. I was reminded yesterday that, God chose Judas.
The limitation on ad orientem worship is particularly offensive, as it was obviously not even mentioned in TC. Some friends of mine have already gone SSPX over this sort of stuff.
In light of these restrictions on the TLM in my Archdiocese, we must do penance, pray, and become holier people. May the fire of our personal sanctity grow and spread to all those around us.
—–
“I need Thy mercy for my sin
But more than this I need
Thy mercy’s likeness in my soul
For others’ sins to bleed.”
-Frederick Faber
I’ve been thinking… and maybe it’s as simple as that PF wants to eliminate all power centers outside Rome. And if a movement or an order is being successful and doing good things, or people are talking about it, he regards it as a power center.
So the Synodal Way folks in Germany also get poked, not because they’re teaching horrible things but because they’re setting up a power center not in Rome.
The problem is that, if that’s really how PF is thinking, there’s not really anything that a person can do to ward off bad attention. Historically. You can try being tactful, you can try hiding and being boring, but it’s not necessarily going to work. So it might be best to trust in God and just do normal things that need done.
OTOH, some prelates seem to be using PF’s orders as an excuse to get rid of their own diocese’s alternate power centers (even though they should be glad not to have everything in the chancery, because even a city is too complex for one person), while others just hate all traditional stuff. And some are doing both.
But there are still plenty of bishops who are protecting all the members of their flock, so let’s not forget that.
He has contempt for you.
As do many for his Eminence.
Dear ajf1984
Are your comments rhetorical? If not, it seems as if you are ascribing Catholic thought to the bishops in question. Catholics thought is not their paradigm. Global/Masonic/Marxist would be their paradigm. Everything makes sense then.
(I refuse to believe the ‘naivety’ or ‘ignorance’ explanation)
wmHesch says:
Gregory has a DOCTORATE in Liturgy… trust the experts!
A theologian told me 40 years ago:
They know what rite was used in what location and which century, but they don’t know anything about worshipping God
If they wanted to reform the liturgy, they should have used people who knew something about worshipping God.
I looked at Gregory’s letter. It seems he’s leaving one vetus ordo community (St John’s Chapel on the cemetery that was Abp Carroll’s land) where it has always been. I don’t know much about the Aquasco mission. The DC community is moved from St Mary’s Parish downtown to the Franciscan Commissariat, which is a much bigger church (and quite beautiful, too). Everything in the letter/decree/norms seems to be as the pope’s legislation demanded. He puts Msgr Charles Pope in charge of being his liaison to the traditional Mass communities, and I know him and know he’s no liberal. So I guess I’m confused at what Gregory did that’s cruel or contemptuous, though I’m not saying that he wasn’t. Can someone explain it to me?