It occurs to me that we missed celebrating the 2nd anniversary of the stupidly unnecessary, falsely grounded and wickedly cruel attack on the people who desire the Traditional Latin Mass via the document Taurina cacata… er… um… Traditionis custodes.
In the last year, in travelling in these USA and also during my sojourns in Rome (thank you… and I have a fundraiser going on for October) I’ve heard again and again what a great failure TC and subsequent documents have been. Interest in the traditional Roman Rite has increased, not decreased. Young priests and seminarians still want to use the 1962 (and earlier) Missale.
The best thing that bishops can do is IGNORE TC and quietly let people have what they want.
The best thing that priests can do is CONTINUE to say Mass with the older rite when they can.
The best thing that laypeople can do is JOYFULLY participate with eager hearts and attentive minds and EXCERCISE PRUDENCE. Don’t be your and our own worst enemy.
Pop over the One Peter Five (where I also write weekly) and check out this:
Papalist Failure: Traditionis Custodes, Two Years Later
That piece mentions also an important consequence of TC: the unmasking of “hyperüberultramontanism”, nearly fanatic papalotry unlike that ever seen in the history of the Church.
Friends, the Traditional Roman Rite is not going away. It can’t be suppressed. This is not the 70’s or 80’s when resources such as appropriate vestments and books were as rare as hen’s teeth. We have the internet. The haters have nothing but bullying.
Three points:
I suspect that those who want to suppress the Traditional Latin Mass do so because it makes them feel guilty about something.
They might dislike the TLM, but they dislike the people who want the TLM even more. It’s the people they dislike. The attack on the rite is really an attack on the people who desire it.
When they say that the Traditional Roman Rite is against Vatican II, they are lying. If the “spirit” of Vatican II, informed by an overly optimistic anthropocentrism, might emphasize eschatological joy more than the Traditional Latin Mass, the TLM offers a strong focus on eschatological joy but it supplements that hope with HOW TO ATTAIN IT.
The Novus Ordo falls down on something important: the joy of Heaven is a great theme, but we have to get to Heaven to have it. That means that we have to deal with our sin, our guilt, our unworthiness, the overwhelming mercy of God which we must beg for in order to receive it, the obligation to amend our lives, etc.
ACTION ITEM! Be a “Custos Traditionis”! Join an association of prayer for the reversal of “Traditionis custodes”.
Loading ...
” . . . the unmasking of “hyperüberultramontanism”, nearly fanatic papalotry unlike that ever seen in the history of the Church.”
We have to step back from this twisted, unCatholic view that the Pope is an oracle of God who directly reveals His will in every utterance. This is madness.
We also need to abandon the false obedience that prevails in some quarters and Bishops need to regain their sense of being Shepherds in their own right, directly commissioned by Christ to guard a portion of the flock, and not merely factotums of the Pope.
If the Church can step back from these unCatholic attitudes and beliefs, then maybe this nightmare will have some redeeming effect after all.
“They might dislike the TLM, but they dislike the people who want the TLM even more. It’s the people they dislike. The attack on the rite is really an attack on the people who desire it.”
Reminds me of the current political situation here in the USA where the powers that be are going after Trump but what they really hate are his supporters, anyone who wants freedom, secure borders, and a strong economy.
Pingback: THVRSDAY AFTERNOON EDITION – Big Pulpit
While I am very happy that (relatively) few dioceses have completely suppressed the Latin Mass, I must take issue with the article by TS Flanders at onepeterfive. He reports “About 75% of bishops responded to the decree and refused to implement it. ”
But this is not warranted: TC does not tell bishops “Suppress the Latin Mass”. It creates a nightmare of constraints around it, which is (surely) intended to lead to a suppression LATER. Many of the bishops who did not suppress the Latin Mass entirely, and didn’t even suppress some of them, are on board with implementing that regime of making it harder, and (more concerning) making it seem to priests that their ministry is in danger if they keep saying it. That is, they are (to one degree or another) going along with the “long road” method of TC, which is to gradually, eventually make TLM impossible to sustain.
A better measure would be this: TC tells seminarians who are now being ordained that if they want to say the TLM, they should ask the bishop, and the bishop should consult with Rome for this. So: How many bishops have reported to Rome on this issue, and how many who did report in tell Rome “well, I have X new priests that want to say the TLM”? Here’s the thing: how many new priests are willing to be that burr under the saddle of the bishop, having to be the topic of a specific discussion with the Vatican bully-boys who are taking names down? You can be confident that few new priests are willing to brave that risk. In the few cases where a bishop DID have a new priest ask, you can be sure he didn’t want to report to Rome without FIRST being able to say something like “but I talked him out of it” or, at least, some kind of minimizing that presents the issue as very small indeed.
If bishops in fact have new priests that say the TLM, and those bishops have refused to mention this to the Vatican, that’s the data you need for “bishops who didn’t implement TC”.
I live in a diocese where a deacon (on way to priesthood) applied to Rome for permission to have a solemn high mass as his first public mass after being ordained. Rome denied his request. So requests ARE being made. My assumption is they are all being denied.
Only members of a TLM societies or the SSPX will have this blessing at the current time. We need to pray that God provides shepherds who don’t want some of the flock to fed to the wolves.
[Perhaps it was a mistake to ask.]
I strongly endorse our Der Fr. Z’s comment: perhaps it was a mistake to ask.
The bare document of TC says newly made priests “should” ask their bishop. First of all, why would the deacon go to Rome instead of to his bishop? If he did go to his bishop first, and the bishop said no, he should not have bothered to take it to Rome, as Rome certainly would uphold the bishop and not overrule on such a matter. Much more importantly, “should” is not a mandate. The interpretive rules for church legislation are clear: restrictive rules are interpreted narrowly, not broadly. Since TC did not SAY that newly made priests must ask for permission from the bishop, then newly made priests DO NOT have to ask for permission from the bishop. So…don’t ask.
But what about “should”. In my opinion, this means TC was expressing a preference, and an opinion about what would be the better action. But you don’t have to AGREE with the opinion, and you don’t have to “comply” with a mere preference. So, don’t. If it gets back to the bishop that you didn’t ask for permission first, you have 2 pathways: (a) you can be frank and upfront and say “I did not interpret “should” as a mandate, but if you intend to make local law stating that in the future your priests are required to ask your permission to say the TLM, that of course would be different. Or (b) you can be cagey and non-confrontational and go-along-to-get-along and instead say “I didn’t realize there was any rule against my saying the TLM” and not elaborate the point, let the bishop elaborate whatever he wants to say. After the fact, there isn’t much he can do about it if he doesn’t want to create A Problem.
Either way, of course, the bishop has a real problem anyway, you just aren’t required to draw attention to it. For example, if (under option (a) above) the bishop tries to make local law requiring priests to ask permission, he still has a problem. Universal law (in the form of Summorum) says priests have the right to say the TLM (it doesn’t GIVE them the right, it declares that they have the right), and TC does not explicitly derogate or abrogate this. Not explicitly: it says “should”, and that’s not a mandate. To me it would be unclear (if a court were judging by law standards) that the bishop even has the power to make local law requiring priests to ask permission. So, even if a bishop were to issue such a local (apparent) law, if it’s not binding, his priests might or might not obey. (Of course, if they disobey, they run the risk of being cancelled, and Rome in its current state (including the tribunals that would hear complaints from pastors against an overbearing bishop) will not back up priests on this. So then there is a balancing act both by the priest – on how willing he is to create an issue the bishop might make public – and by the bishop on how willing he is to ditch a new priest he has just spent tens of $thousands on getting ordained. By no means is every bishop willing to “fire” (cancel) a priest over this issue – but some would.
I cannot understand bishops of other dioceses not picking up cancelled priests and (quietly or not) giving them (at least) temporary rights to say mass and do sacraments (confessions and weddings, etc). I would think that at least A COUPLE of bishops would be willing to grab such priests and call it cheap labor, and ignore the grumbling of the canceling bishops.
Typo: intended Dear Fr. Z. Sorry about that.