There is a piece at the blog Unam Sanctam Catholicam which merits attention.
I’ll preface this with personal experience. Over the years I’ve seen time and again that people who are exposed to a more traditional style of worship in the Novus Ordo will often start to seek out the Vetus Ordo. I suppose the thought line goes something like this. If the Novus Ordo is made “better” through enrichment from the Vetus Ordo, then why not just use the Vetus Ordo? That’s not a complete argument, of course, but it is salient.
Now the aforementioned piece at the blog. HERE I’ll edit. My emphases and comments.
Bishops See Reverent Novus Ordo as a Gateway Drug [Right out of the gate!]
Not yet three months into his administration of the Archdiocese of Detroit and the new Archbishop Edward Weisenburger has already called for the eviceration 10 TLM parishes and drafted an instruction against traditional elements in the Novus Ordo with a decree reminiscent of Charlotte Bishop Michael Martin’s horrific document.
[…]
I think the actions of bishops like Weisenburger and Martin suggests that the reverent Novus Ordo is indeed an incubator for pro-TLM sentiments. If it wasn’t, it would not be proscribed. As someone who has attended both TLMs and unicorn NOs simultaneously for years, I can attest to this. A diocesan congregation becomes more sympathetic to the TLM to the degree that traditional elements are incorporated into the Novus Ordo. This is, of course, because whatever traditional elements are found in a Novus Ordo are carry overs from the TLM, and to the degree that one appreciates, say, altar rails or Gregorian chant, one is appreciating what was bequeathed to us by the Traditional Latin Mass. And there is a great deal of overlap—Catholics who attend the reverent Novus Ordo also tend to attend the Traditional Latin Mass when it is available. [This, too, is my experience.]
The bishops thus see these traditional elements as a “gateway drug” to the TLM and therefore suppress them. This is why the unicorn Novus Ordo is neither a refuge nor alternative to the TLM. The same bishops who are eager to root out the TLM will do the same to the reverent Novus Ordo, because everything that makes the reverent Novus Ordo reverent comes from the TLM. The bishops, then, are correct; the reverent Novus Ordo is a gateway drug to the TLM. That’s precisely why it’s being attacked.
[…]
Loading ...
This is hard. This whole subject is almost impossible to discuss, the limitations of your blog, Fr Z, not wanting to be inflammatory, and the constant hesitation to express oneself so as to avoid bad example, but at some point its just impossible to skip around anymore. At least, I cant do it well anymore. Its coming to a head, after Francis, now this. The tiny hope for Leo, going out, no, frankly gone, Im done with hedging. Meet the new pope, same as the old pope.
These men are the source of division in the church. We want Catholicism, and they dont want us to have it. Simple. Its become entirely simple. Its also gotten very distilled down for us, and I hope for others, because not knowing whats going on is hard, we did that for decades! Now we know, theyve made themselves clear. Christ must come down from His cross. Its unwanted, its not convenient. The piety and reverence and love for God, it no longer fits the mainstream Catholicism plan. They will ban the TLM, pretty much everywhere. Now not even reverent NO because its a reminder, youre close but not quite there? Whats acceptable, only Pachamama worship so nobody is reminded of the holiness of God?
We will go with the Holy Catholic Mass wherever it is offered. No more qualms about being outside of anything. We chose the TLM. Even if we didnt, for us, they go too far. This is abuse.
The Charlotte Catholics reportedly just had a confirmation. Bp Martin was of course there. It is reported 95 percent of the Catholics there knelt for Holy Communion. They knew what they were doing, asserting their rights as Catholics to show their respect for God, and it will not be denied them. The more they ban Catholicism the more the people will push back and find it! They cannot, and will not, stop us.
Honestly, I think this was the plan all along. First, the TLM then the reverent NO. Because it’s really about going after those who are traditional practicing Catholics. They don’t like us. We want to practice the Roman Catholic faith handed down to us through the centuries.
If they really wanted the TLMers to “return” to the NO they’d incorporate the Latin and smells & bells to entice them. Instead the TLM is being banned as is “Latin-y” NO.
Well I guess we’re doing something right or they wouldn’t want to get rid of us. It’s not just about saying the Mass in Latin.
Isn’t it something that after 50+ years the Vatican II spirit is still being forced on us? If it was so great you’d think it would’ve been a done deal decades ago.
Kathleen10: He’s been Pope for a month and change. I think we should give him a chance to figure out where the light switches are and which keys go to which doors.
He isn’t omniscient.
He isn’t omnipresent.
He isn’t omnipotent.
He isn’t omnific.
Let’s see… did I leave one out?
BTW… I didn’t make up that last one. It’s from Milton.
First the TLM, now traditional NO.
It’s like they sit around thinking up new ways to decrease the number of vocations to the priesthood & religious life.
Perhaps they believe that these practices produce the “wrong” seminarians.
Pope Leo XIV has inherited Francis’ appointments to key positions such as the DDF and DDW and it will take time to get his own people in there and make changes. Some traditional Catholics expected that on Day 1 he would repeal Traditionis Custodes and if he didn’t then he must be Francis II. As our host said, we need to give him time.
Liturgical issues are of the utmost importance and what we are observing over the last month in Charlotte and Detroit are particularly concerning as we enter into the new pontificate. These interventions appear almost a challenge to Pope Leo as well as being a particularly deliberate and aggressive assault upon the faithful.
Perhaps an even more serious issue we need to address is the dearth of sound candidates for the episcopate which the vocation crisis of the last sixty years presents. Authority cannot be exercised productively by individuals who are not equipped to be leaders in any circumstance at all, let alone a pastoral one. This unspoken crisis is not by any means confined to the episcopate, it is sadly observed in parishes, religious orders and congregations and monastic communities. The need to “lord it over” others without necessity is as destructive an impulse as any administrator can harbor. Sins against pride and prudence flourish when it is present and destroy the faith — and vocations — of others.
The sad story continues…
The vast majority of our bishops do not know The Faith that it is their First Duty to defend and teach and spread. And, their episcopal brethren who should correct them are both likewise hobbled by error and the “heresy” of being “nice guys” and not saints-in-the-making who put Our Lord first.
Hoping our new Pope will indeed be given the Light to clearly end the liturgical persecution — not merely correcting these worldly, mal-formed bishops, who treat The Mass and other parts of the Liturgy of the Church as their own personal plaything, but going to “the source,” ie, the wordings of the GIRM and Canon Law et al. Bugini and his cohorts intentionally (by their own admissions) worded things ambiguously way, way, way back when, and their actions continue to bear the “fruit” of confusion, division, permitted persecution, etc.
Mother Angelica was healed by God Himself, directly, miraculously, in the midst of a major dispute on the worldwide stage over The Mass, a dispute with a very powerful, very wordly, prelate, a man who also shuffled abusers about his diocese and much more. Among other things, she was a major fighter for the truth of the Ad Orientem posture. Although no one listened, God was “yelling” very very loudly Who Was In The Right and Who Was Not.
Our bishops — those who do these things and also those who silently let them pass without ovious fraternal correction — continue their cowardly, “bare-bones only” leadership into mediocrity and worldliness.
May Our Lady intercede powerfully for Our Holy Father to finally be given the Light and Will to repair this and the many other errors still perpetuated and forced upon His people by our non-credible bishops.
Do what they say, but not what they do…
The Mass is NOT anyone’s plaything. Someday, the full meaning of “Source and Summit” will, God willing, include that ontological reality…
Father Z, could you please tell us what traditional elements we are talking about here? Altar rails, Gregorian chant, ad orientem… what else exactly? I always hear talk about reverent “Novus Ordo” celebrations, but I’m not 100% clear on what that means exactly. Thanks.
Whoops, the quotation marks should have been around “reverent”, not Novus Ordo.
Regrettably one has to ask: who was it, as prefect of the dicastery for bishops, that assisted Pope Francis in appointing Martin and Weisenburger?
By ‘reverent’ NO do you, Father, mean one done according to the prescriptions and subsequent clarifications emanating from the applicable confraternity or discastery? Your discussion is much appreciated.
If there is division over liturgical practices, its origination is with the rebellious in power position – not the orthodox and observant. The Detroit and Charlotte bishops chastise the orthodox and observant (using the dreadful ‘My dear brothers and sisters in Christ’ appellation) as the obstinate rebellious ones and characterize themselves as righteous. It is easily shown by text their take is in error.
Honest TLM-goers admit to NO as valid, so the division is meritless. And unity does not require uniformity; otherwise, for one example, the sign of the cross by those blessing themselves in one of the two common ways would be wrong and the practice proscribed. Worse, there would be no Eastern Rites.
The skulls of bishops pave the way….
If Pope Leo is true to his word — a significant “if” — he will come to the rescue in some fashion. He has said he is seeking unity. Unity in the present context is ambiguous: The Pope Francis wing of the Church seeks to acheive “unity” by eliminating the TLM while those sympathetic to the TLM understand “unity” to be acceptance of the TLM and those attached to it. Which is understanding is Pope Leo’s? It should be the latter because unity was widely understood to be an issue in the Conclave and in that context unity was understood to entail acceptance back into the fold of those attached to the TLM. Consistent with this, Pope Leo in his opening remarks called not only for unity but also for peace. It is thus to be expected that he will seek a peace treaty with those attached to the TLM.
I agree with Fr. Z. Pope Leo is an Augustinian, so has a strong sense of original sin. Certainly, like Augustine, he is likely less sanguine about the efficacy of government social interventions to bring us back to a Garden of Eden state than his predecessor. There is evil in the world, it is not going away anytime soon, but we have the Sacrifice of the Mass to redeem us from our sins and empower us live redemptive lives.
Speculation rarely yields any clarity. One could read this hurry since Pope Leo’s election as trying to force things via fait accompli before something happens (and by something I don’t mean grand dispositions about the TLM. A document from the DDW saying even something like that the faithful must be widely consulted before a bishop makes a liturgical change, or that what’s allowed by the GIRM cannot be forbidden would still make this kind of imposition more difficult to make). But I do not read minds, so…
The same way I don’t read minds, I’m not privy to the details of the assignment of these bishops. The prefect of the Dicastery for Bishops certainly has a hand in it, but he’s also still mediating between candidates the local bishops/nuntio/a few others present and what the Pope himself wishes to pick. One can speculate one way or another.
The one thing I’d find difficult to square is Pope Leo’s manifested appreciation for Eastern Catholicism AND a desire for the desacralization of the liturgy. That inclines me to believe that whether he means to ease restrictions on the TLM (viva voce, sotto voce, or in deed) or not, I do think he favors reverent NO.
There’s another factor at play here. I live in a diocese that has only had TLM through a visiting FSSPX priest once or twice a month or so, and for which Summorum Pontificum apparently did nothing. I do attend Mass where I can, and things are… varied. 20-25 years ago it was common for over half the congregation to stand during consecration. That has been steadily changing and the proportion is now at the very least reversed in most places. The Francis effect did not stop the trend. Eucharistic adoration and Marian devotion have been on the rise as well. This is all to say, the faithful not only need but also want reverent worship across the board, and I’m pretty certain these bishops know it; otherwise the heavy handedness to get what they want wouldn’t be necessary. That is a hopeful sign for me. God is doing His work, even there where cooperation is scarce.
I’m not immune to bitterness and despair myself. I do get angry. It does occur to me to ask, in these occasions, whether this is the most pressing issue in the diocese. I mean, we do know worship is of capital importance, but do they think that? Or is it lashing out in this manner just a way to make *someone* feel their power, because they feel powerless elsewhere? Are precious things being destroyed just for the sake of personal satisfaction? But then I have to remind myself that in my current position there’s nothing I can do other than pray and do the work I’ve been assigned to do, and my finite energies are best applied there.
1. Thank God I live in the Arlington Diocese. We chanted all the antiphons at a worthy NO Mass this morning.
2. I think we are seeing the Boomers’ last gasp here: trying to ban simple piety because it doesn’t fit their liturgical world view. They can’t and they won’t – not forever.
The “reverent NO” brings people to the VO, not only because of the elements (practices, external visible things) people find there, but because the explanations used to justify the “reverent NO” are the same used to justify the VO.
The “traditional” Novus Ordo, i.e. the Novus Ordo which adheres to the recommended guidelines of Vatican II. Would these guidelines need to be abrogated?
Pingback: MONDAY EARLY-MORNING EDITION - BIG PULPIT