I’ll bet that Tweet yesterday freaked out the usual suspects. Hence…
From the USCCB website:
VATICAN CITY (CNS) — Pope Leo XIV does not intend to overturn Pope Francis’ limits on celebrating the traditional Latin Mass but will grant two-year dispensations to bishops who ask, a nuncio said.
Archbishop Miguel Maury Buendía, the apostolic nuncio to Great Britain, told bishops Nov. 13 that Pope Leo told him he would not abrogate “Traditionis Custodes,” Pope Francis’ 2021 letter greatly restricting the celebration of Masses according to the 1962 Roman Missal, the Latin liturgy in use before the reforms of the Second Vatican Council.
The Vatican press office did not respond to a request for comment.
But the archbishop made headlines by telling members of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales that the pope would grant bishops who request it a two-year, renewable exemption.
The exemptions are nothing new, a Vatican official told Catholic News Service Nov. 14.
“This is no more than a restatement of the practice of the Dicastery for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments since the motu proprio (‘Traditionis Custodes’) came into force,” said Msgr. Enda Murphy, an official at the dicastery.
What the nuncio is clearly referring to is the necessity for a diocesan bishop to request a derogation from art. 3 § 2 of ‘Traditionis Custodes’ in order that Mass according to the Missale Romanum of 1962 can be celebrated in a parish church,” he said.
The subsection referred to by Msgr. Murphy says that a bishop can designate one or more locations where the faithful who had been celebrating the older Mass could continue to do so, “not however in the parochial churches and without the erection of new personal parishes.”
In late October, various Catholic news outlets reported that the Diocese of Cleveland, led by Bishop Edward C. Malesic, had received permission for the older Latin Mass to continue at two parish churches in his diocese. In July, Bishop Michael Sis of San Angelo, Texas, confirmed that he had made a similar request, which was granted.
Pope Leo also personally granted permission for U.S. Cardinal Raymond L. Burke, a former Vatican official, to celebrate the older form of the Mass in St. Peter’s Basilica in late October.
[…]
At the time, Pope Francis said his decision was meant “to promote the concord and unity of the church.”
“concord and unity”
Uh huh.
Loading ...
All this does is leave the celebration of the TLM up to the whims of your Bishop. It is unacceptable. Just ask the wonderful people in the Charlotte Diocese that were ghettoized to the Chapel of the Little Flower (aka. The Leper Colony).
My wife’s and My favorite scene. We use it for things just like you did here. How dare us little peons ask for what is ours.
To contradict Francis would be breach of contract.
He left faithful Catholics in the steely grip of some mean bishops who hate Summorum Pontificum almost as much as Fr Z hates Vatican II! Kidding, almost as much as I now hate Vatican II.
Does this put us back in the same sort of scenario as pre Summorum Pontificum? Feels like the same scenario as the indult days.
Well, that’s that, I guess. After TC, I was tempted to write Pope Francis to tell him that I would quote an old Italian song as my response: “Cessa crudel! Tanto rigor!” But I never did. I wonder if I should write Pope Leo a nice, polite letter. What would happen if I did? Would it immediately be put in the circular file?
The whispers before his election were that no further dispensations would be forthcoming; so this is a change in that sense.
Like I said yesterday, I think from what the Holy Father has said in his interviews and homilies, plus what has been leaked of DDW correspondence, the end goal is to convince people to attend the Mass of St. Paul VI celebrated in line with the norms. It’s essentially the Benedict XVI reform of the reform project that has both a carrot and stick instead of just carrot (BXVI) or just stick (Francis.)
The Holy Father wants unity in the Church and wants to put the liturgy wars behind us, and it’s becoming clear that he sees a reformed Pauline mass as the way to do it.
This is essentially extending the transitional dispensations from the Francis era. At some point transitional accommodations end.
I really still want to give His Holiness the benefit of the doubt here. Any good manager waits a good, long time before making changes. Obviously, the majority of Fr. Z’s readers want TC abrogated post haste. But, this seems like quite a good way of getting around doing that officially, while still doing something practically in support of the TLM. Obviously, it is a bit dependent on the bishop, which is a problem. But, if we don’t like the way TC seemed to force good bishops who would otherwise be willing to withhold consent before, we need to remember that the vast majority of bishops don’t want to stir anything up at all. If they can ask for Rome for a renewable extension, which will be granted automatically, they will. It is only the bad bishops who will refuse to do so. This is not a long-term solution, for sure. But, it is better than not offering that option, and I imagine it will save a lot of bishops headaches if they know it will be granted. I can’t be a crepe hanger about this, even if it is not what I want.
@R2D
So will all the Novus Ordo folks be forced to go to your “reformed Pauline mass [sic]” as well? Or is it “unity for thee but not for me”?
Besides the fact that there WERE NO LITURGY WARS before Francis decided to attempt a suppression of the Vetus Ordo. If one wanted the liturgy wars to end, then one could just STOP unnecessarily antagonizing Traditionalists. It’s really that simple. The idea that they “can’t” end until the Traditionalists are all defeated is your construct, not reality.
Also, do you understand that a gussied up Novus Ordo with “smells and bells” isn’t the same thing as the actual Vetus Ordo? Have you watched episode 2 of the “Mass of the Ages” series? Do you realize it’s about more than just saying the new Mass in Latin?
@WVC: to your first point; yes, and the evidence of that is that even left-wing parishes no longer have clown masses. The abuses frequent in the Mass of St. Paul VI in the 20th century have largely disappeared with no one complaining. The weird viral videos are not the norm. They used to be.
The Holy Father has been very clear each time he has spoken of the liturgy that he prefers a return to the stylistic heritage of the Roman Rite, while continuing with the Pauline Mass. You’ll likely continue to see a more traditional shift in the celebration of the 2002 MR even by more liberal clerics.
To the rest of your points: the response to poor behavior is not to leave the people behaving poorly alone. This thread has someone saying they hate Vatican II in it — that Successor of Peter in his mission to confirm the brethren in the faith has a moral obligation to defend the teachings of an ecumenical council, which are an extraordinary expression of the magisterium of the Church. And yes, I’m aware there’s different levels of magisterial authority. That doesn’t mean you can just throw out an ecumenical council and that the Holy See should tolerate open contempt for the magisterium of the Church. I personally prefer the Leo approach to the Francis approach, and I think it will promote unity within the Church with less pain, but he’s still acting to correct excesses on the right.
And to be clear: I do not believe all traditionalists fall into that category, but pretending that the Holy See’s actions over the last five years don’t have some basis in legitimate concerns also isn’t being fair to them.
“This is essentially extending the transitional dispensations from the Francis era. At some point transitional accommodations end”.
There never was a need for any “dispensations”. Summorum Pontificum was, and remains, the key: those who oppose it have set up their own uncharitable, deliberately contentious and unfounded oppositions – despite their Uriah Heep verbiage. Of which we are more than sick.
The 20,000 people mostly under the age of 30 who walked the Chartres Pilgrimage in June – 90% of whom are too young even to remember the introduction of S.P. – and who will do so next year, are the future. The 70s are over.
@R2D
So all the Novus Ordo folks are going to be attending the Pauline Mass in Latin, ad orientem? Will you at least let them have vernacular Masses in the school gym if they ask permission?
So far as liturgical abuses no longer being a problem, I have no clue what you’re talking about. Even here on Fr. Z’s blog there have been outrageous examples over the past year of monstrous abuses, and just recently we had Bishop Strickland address all the US bishops about the public Confirmation of an openly gay man in a gay relationship. Sure doesn’t look like the traditional shift you’re so certain of.
“the response to poor behavior” – you’re going to have to provide examples of such a bold accusation. And it has to rise above the “one time one guy sad a mean thing to me” or “I one time saw a jerk on Twitter” variety. What we KNOW is that the survey that was used to justify TC was doctored, and that the report about there being widespread bad behavior on the part of traditionalists was a fabrication. Unless you can point to an actual survey or something other than “one guy in a comment thread said a bad thing about Vatican II” complaints, you’re way, way out of line. It would be the equivalent of me accusing the majority of Novus Ordo Catholics of supporting homosexual unions because of the public behavior of James Martin. This would be a bold and unjust accusation on my part, and I wouldn’t dream of making it of my fellow Catholics unless I had some substantial evidence to support the claim.
You keep saying you don’t believe all traditionalists fall into this category, but you don’t have a problem turning around and painting them with a broad brush and endorsing that they all get punished in equal measure. You call them all right-wingers, you accuse them of being schismatics, you equate them with sedevacantists – it’s pretty consistent. You can’t keep calling people names but then insist you don’t really think badly of those people. It’s at best dishonest.
And the whole “promote unity” canard will require you to explain what this even means. My parish (and there are many others like it) enjoyed a TLM community as well as a Novus Ordo community. Our kids went to the same Legion of Mary groups. We participated in the same potlucks. Our kids went to homeschool co-op together. We invited each other to parties. We celebrated each other’s baptisms and confirmations. Now, the TLM community has been forbidden baptisms and gets kicked out of the Church one Sunday a month. How, exactly and specifically, is that promoting unity?
Last comment: it’s not about the Mass of St. John XXIII or of St. Paul VI. It’s about acceptance of Vatican II and the ordinary magisterium of the post-conciliar popes charged with implementing it.
Not talking about all the different layers of magisterium and how the interact, but the actual legitimacy and acceptance of the council itself.
If you could get traditionalist communities in parishes and online that didn’t tolerate rejection and/or contempt for an ecumenical council and all that goes with that, the middle of the road bishops and the Holy See would probably be more open to more liberalization of the Tridentine Mass.
No one really opposes the Tridentine Mass in itself. Its beautiful, uplifting, and theologically very meaningful. People oppose the subcultures that have developed in some traditionalist communities that wound the unity of the Church. Fix that problem, people would be more willing to talk.
So here’s my question: What do I do? I’m a son of the West. Yes, I could go to an Eastern Church, but my sensibilities are Western. Why shouldn’t I be able to experience my patrimony? Yes, I understand that human nature is messy, and I understand that I live at a particular moment, and I must “suck up” my difficulty. But is it too much to ask that I enjoy my inheritance?
If they can ask for Rome for a renewable extension, which will be granted automatically, they will. It is only the bad bishops who will refuse to do so
@Robert:
Sadly, this is not quite true. Number one: bishops can sniff and tell which way the wind is blowing: nobody in Rome is telling the bishops of Knoxville, Austen, and Charlotte to stop the persecutions. With the change being merely 2-year delays of the Francine persecution, there is every reason for the bishops to believe Leo (a) will eventually STOP the delays, and (b) will continue with the regime of taking names of bishops who even ask for the delays, and ensure that these bishops will never get promotions, and may get cut off at the knees for trumped up “reasons” that have nothing to do with real offenses against the Church. Furthermore, even if they don’t suspect quite this level of back-room gamesmanship, they will not see any plausible benefit from asking. Assuming that he already shut down the TLMs in the past and already suffered the complaints – to which he already plausibly answered “Rome told me to cancel you”, if he now asks for a dispensation, all that does is ensure that he will AGAIN have to shut down the TLM masses when the dispensations stop and he will have a NEW round of anguished cries to put up with. He’s got nothing that looks beneficial in it for him. For those bishops who have not (quite) shut down the masses but relegated the 2 remaining ones to old gyms, the “dispensations” give him room to KEEP ON tearing off the bandage over and over every 2 years, until he is finally told to cut off the limb.
This might help one diocese in 10, a bit. For the rest, to me it feels like window-dressing on persecution.
I wonder if Leo is just trying a short run fix to pick up Peter Pence contributions?
Follow the money
We tend to forget that even in the heady days after Summorum Pontificum if a bishop was hostile to the TLM then any priest under him who decided to offer the TLM was risking his career to do so. So in a sense not much has changed. Those dioceses where the bishop is friendly or at least indifferent to the TLM will allow it to continue. It is unfortunate that we are in this situation where a change of bishop can cause things to go pear shaped overnight e.g. Charlotte but it is what it is.
They are hung up on this fixation that we must have the Mass of Paul VI I think because they know how we worship is how we believe (Lex Orandi Lex Credendi) and it is the beliefs that go along with the TLM that they are really afraid of i.e. authentic Catholicism. Because it destroys the whole “spirit of Vatican 2” that they have been brought up with in the last 60 or so years.
The most frustrating thing about this is it doesn’t reach the level of theological significance, rather it seems merely political. That’s uniquely frustrating as my spiritual stability (and that of my families) is on two year ice pending the political leanings of the Bishop that is assigned to my diocese? At a time of complete confusion and uncertainty and extremes politically and theologically now would be a great time to not allow the culture to destabilize the lives of the faithful but standardize a freedom to let people worship as their ancestors did. Again, always the tolerance for everyone in any sinful or chaotic circumstance ever but the most faithful need to hope their parish life isn’t destroyed next year. I am exhausted by this
“This is essentially extending the transitional dispensations from the Francis era. At some point transitional accommodations end”.
I don’t think that’s accurate. Pope Francis aimed, at least it seemed at times, at putting a complete end to the traditional Latin Mass. It became evident however that to acheive this end requires the use of brute force and cruel authoriation measures and even then the outcome is far from guaranteed (I believe the effort would ultimate fail). Pope Francis may have been willing to “do what it takes” to forcibly suppress the traditional Latin Mass. I do not think Pope Leo is. His nuncio in England has signalled as much by indicating that dispensations would be freely granted. There was never any such signal during the Francis pontificate.
He says “per TUTTI”, which means “for ALL” in Italian.
Is the consecration illicit or invalid? Would you take communion?
https://www.youtube.com/live/dnJdLQn3F9c?si=LBi5ukTcXRhO6w1U&t=3689
They don’t need to change much for the NO Mass to become only symbolic and most all NO parishioners wouldn’t know the difference.
It’s in reach of the brotherhood of man..
@R2D
Multiple points.
1.) The stylistic heritage of the Roman Rite: The heritage of the Roman Rite isn’t a “stylistic accident” like some fancy embroidery that can be slipped onto the NO Mass and have everything be cool. I don’t know anyone, right or left, who thinks that doing this is a good idea — it is definitely not what Ratzinger or Sarah talked about when they discussed reforming the NO liturgy — they are talking about reforming the THEOLOGY and LITURGICAL ACTION, not the style. The Anglicans tried smells and bells liturgy — it doesn’t work.
2.) Not the “norm.” You must not be looking. The problem with the NO is that structurally it permits and norms what Catholics used to consider to be abuses. It is part of the Roman Heritage to kneel to receive the Eucharist. That we have bishops attempting to force people to stand to receive should be deeply offensive to any Roman Catholic, but it is a permissible norm in the NO.
2.) No one is complaining: My local NO parish had a lot of complaining going on a few years ago and lost a chunk of silver-haired people over a new priest who brought things more into line with the GIRM. Also, seems like a lot of bishops are complaining loudly lately with all their edicts.
3.) Vatican II: VII is an attempt to explain the Faith to modernity, utilizing modernity’s own terminology from the vantage point of post-war continental optimism mixed with various in vogue academic theories. It has some major problems with it, which both the left and the right will agree to. They might not agree as to what the problems are, but they both agree that there are problems with the documents. // There are many bishops, who believe that VII was a new beginning and a break from the past and ushered in a new theology and ecclesiology. If they are right, then of course VII should be hated because it is whatever the new thing is, but not Catholic. // Generally speaking, people hate things that cause suffering and injustice. When you encounter people who say “I hate Vatican II,” instead of beating them until they like it, one should attempt to understand what suffering they have seen, especially any personal suffering, and attempt to heal those hurts. Again, instead of beating them.
4.) Open Contempt: Ya, that is a problem when the Episcopate has open contempt for the laity, as it causes the laity to have open contempt for the Episcopate. Doubly so when the Episcopate comes off as hating the things of God. Now that may or may not be the actual cause, but they come off that way a lot of the time.
5.) Conservatives: Generally speaking, US conservatives want to be left alone. But that is changing. Younger conservatives aren’t interested in being left alone. The older younger ones are interested in confronting and changing minds through debate, the younger, younger ones are seeing that dialogue doesn’t get you anywhere but extra persecution. They are also see that, to use their words, “you can just do things.”
@R2D – Lurker makes plenty of excellent points. I’ll just say 2 things about your “last comment.”
1 – Suppressing the TLM and forcing everyone to go to the NO isn’t about the Mass? This sounds like you’re taking crazy pills. If Vatican II truly is the sacred cow you’re talking about, and the only way to enforce adoration of Vatican II is by suppressing the Sacred Liturgical Tradition of the Church, then there must be something very, very, very wrong with Vatican II. That’s using your own logic, not mine. The effort has not been to punish the so-called subcultures you worry about, but to forbid normal Catholics from accessing the TLM (TC didn’t even address TLM focused organizations like the FSSP, ICKSP, or SSPX – so clearly the “sub cultures of doom” weren’t the actual target).
2 – You seem to not be able to stop the name calling. This is a serious problem you should perhaps think about. Even in your final comment, you basically accuse Traditionalists of rejecting Vatican II and wounding the unity of the Church, and that this justifies the harsh punishment of TC. Where is your evidence? Why do you feel so free to constantly accuse your fellow Catholics of either being sedevecantists or in league with sedevacantists? How has anything the Traditionalists have done wounded the unity of the Church more than, say, James Martin or the German bishops or the progressive/Liberal American Catholics who fight for abortion rights and LGBTQ+ acceptance? How can you possibly think that Catholics who want to worship God in a “beautiful, uplifting, and theologically very meaningful” way are the ones wounding the Church? Even if your unjust accusations were true, it would be like complaining about a fly in the house while it’s going up in flames.
@R2D
6.) For 60 years, people with authority in highchairs have been saying, “We are doing [insert obnoxious, ostentatious, and obstinatus thing] because of Vatican II.” People have associated the beatings and heterodoxy, and getting their pious faith taken away, with Vatican II. If you personally R2D want to get people to stop having issues with Vatican II, you have to get them to see that the obnoxious, ostentatious, and obstinatus things that have been, are being, and will be done “because of Vatican II” are not because of Vatican II but because of very wrongheaded men in very high places acted, are acting, and will be acting according to their will rather than Christ’s will. The beatings are being done in the name of Vatican II. If you want Vatican II to have a good name, then you have got to call out the bad actors in the episcopate who are causing Vatican II to have that bad name. The dislike of Vatican II is a learned response; be upset at those who taught, not those who learned.
I just keep wondering why the Church spends so much time on one council that was pastoral and not dogmatic, and refuses to acknowledge that its own implementation of it was so flawed and is so frought with confusion and loss of participation. Thousands of years of Christian and ecclesial history, many other binding councils, and we go on and on about just one council all the time. It’s nonstop.
@TonyO
While I can understand your concern, I do not believe it is well founded. Obviously there are bishops who are cowards. But, I think an increasing number of them, even the more liberal leaning ones, want this problem to go away. Repeated biennial exemptions, freely given, are not ideal, but better than repression, and seem to be a step in the right direction compared to life under Francis. It is easier to be a gloomy gus, but I think it is better to look at these things as charitably as possible. The Pope is clearly not an enemy of tradition the way his predecessor was. If nothing else, look at Cardinal Burke’s rehabilitation.
Meanwhile, the type of cleric who would do something or not do something based on the likelihood of promotion is the type of cleric I don’t want. Excepting Father Z’s desire to be a Monsignor, of course.
@ Robert:
It is easier to be a gloomy gus, but I think it is better to look at these things as charitably as possible.
Time will tell, of course, better than either of our guesses. I encourage you to keep track of this.
Obviously there are bishops who are cowards.
Yes, but this is not primarily what I was noting. Even of bishops who are not cowards in an ordinary sense, they may plausibly triangulate on the prudence of the options: if (as is true in many places) they have already shut down TLM masses to 0 or near 0, they AND their flock have already endured the rigors of a major change in their worship life. Opening up new masses which – with high likelihood – will AGAIN be shut down after N cycles of dispensations, will have have the cast of (a) a change AGAIN, now, to re-shuffle priests and assignments and mass schedules etc to bring back TLM masses that right now don’t exist, and (b) another change LATER to do it all over again to squelch those very masses. Even if you don’t have any special animus to the TLM, you might not think this is a prudent use of effort and logistical resources. And bishops who ARE slightly lacking in fortitude will also have an easy out in claiming (with plausibility) that it’s “not worth that much effort”.
But, I think an increasing number of them, even the more liberal leaning ones, want this problem to go away.
Oh, I agree with that. But getting into a regimen of dispensations, where you have already pretty close to ended the practices, is exactly the opposite of getting the problem to go away, it’s preserving the problem in a kind of stasis. If you look at the distribution of surviving TLM masses around the US, it appears to me that fewer than 1/2 of diocese still have more than 2 diocesan TLM masses left: MOST dioceses have already done most of the work of reducing TLMs to near-0.
I would guess that at least 1/3 of the bishops have a definite animus against the TLM either personally or by agenda (the latter in that they have positive progressive goals and they view the TLM inhibits those goals). (And since several of the in-the-news recent persecutions are from NEW appointees, it appears that THIS pope is fine with the kind of men who have such animus.) And at least 1/3 more, while having no personal animus against it, have no clue or inkling at all why some people love it, and no notable empathy for them, as if they loved cricket and wanted to “bring it back”. And of the last 1/3 (or less), I think they are evenly split between those who either love the TLM as such or feel kindly toward it and toward those who love it, and those who, without loving the TLM, also see in it nothing divisive and nothing that merits suppression, and would be glad if TC did not exist, allowing them to implement SP freely for the sake of those who love it. The behaviors of the majority of diocese in knowingly repudiating obvious corrections to bolster vocations makes it apparent that they would rather preside over ultimate failure than permit traditional practices in any form. I expect neither the 1st or 2nd groups of bishops will make use of the dispensations.
Pingback: MONDAY EARLY-MORNING EDITION - BIG PVLPIT
R2D. Empty pews, houses of formation, rectories, convents. Lack of belief in the real presence
Explain the benefits of VII succinctly, as I have pls
I wish this was a surprise but it isn’t. This means the flow to the traditional groups from diocesan will continue, but what about those of us far away from them? Might mean that many of us end up moving next to an SSPX/FSSP, etc., which is assuredly a good thing. Many of us still in the wilderness for now.
R2D: “The Holy Father wants unity in the Church and wants to put the liturgy wars behind us” – If that were true, His Holiness would throw out TC.
See R2D we don’t “hate” VII
We just see its results and weigh it on a balance