Fr. Allan McDonald has a blog called Southern Orders.
At that blog he issued a “challenge” to me. HERE
Father has taken exception to what I wrote about a homily (homilies) given by Fr. David Carter in Chattanooga about the suppression of the TLM and its replacement with a Novus Ordo Mass with traditional elements. I took Fr. Carter, a man caught between Scylla and Charybdis, to task for his solution and his tone. His explanations of his solution sidestep the deeper issue of the difference between the two rites. I also was hard on him for what I perceived as a tone of condescension toward those who were not going along with the Novus Ordo idea. NB: I’ll add here that I read what he delivered from the pulpit and that can make a difference.
Father McDonald wrote:
The pastor, Fr. Carter made a promise to his bishop and his successors of obedience. That’s up there with the promise of celibacy, btw! He has to eliminate the TLM in his parish by the bishop’s decree based upon what the bishop wants or does not want to do in terms of seeking an extension of the TLM in his diocese with the Vatican’s Dycastery [sic] of Divine worship. That’s the bishop’s prerogative, fair or not.
[…]
I applaud Fr. Carter’s pastoral approach to this debacle and I suspect he is working in union with his bishop to make a more traditional model of the Paul VI Mass available to those who love the TLM.
“fair or not”. Yup.
Two points, with respect.
Firstly, Fr McD is correct to underscore that Fr. Carter has to implement what the bishop ordered for the Basilica. I fully understand that and I surmise from his (many) words that he has a genuine affection for the traditional rites. His presentation of what he would implement might have been a bit less … patronizing?… had he simply rested on the fact that the bishop has ordered this. “Sorry, folks. My hands are tied. This is what we are going to have to do… fair or not.” rather than “This is going to be soooo meaningful and you don’t understand that its really better for you.” Going on and on about the reform and the continuity and participation while stressing the more “decorative” liturgical elements (which is what you turn the “prayers at the foot of the altar” into if you tack it onto the Novus Ordo) wears thin.
Fr. McDonald defends the Fr. Carter’s position, noting that as a priest he promised obedience to his bishop, rendering the decision to suppress the TLM less a matter of personal preference and more of duty. He calls for compassion toward pastors caught between diocesan mandates and the liturgical expectations of faithful attached to the TLM.
Compassion: this is an entirely reasonable thing to call for. Although he said at one point that he agreed with the bishop that this was what they should do, I am genuinely sorry that Fr. Carter was put in this insoluble position the first place.
See also my posts about Moral Injury. Especially HERE
Returning to Father McDonald’s post, here are his conclusions with my comments:
1. We worship God, not the form of the Mass. Don’t turn the form of the Mass, TLM or Modern into a false god!!! [A bit of a straw man, Father. I don’t think people who prefer the TLM are that shallow. The suggestion of idolatry is not helpful.]
2. Pope Leo needs to deal with all the problems of the Modern Mass with all its subjectivity of style of celebration which is clericalism on steroids. [He may not see the urgency, since I suspect these issues never came across his desk as a bishop in S. America. Also, I don’t think we will see anything “big” from him until after the close of the Jubilee, which is keeping him busy with endless audiences, etc.]
3. Pope Leo needs to return to the Summorum Pontificum days and Ecclesia Dei! [I’m not convinced that going back to the terms of Summorum is really the summum bonum. What I would like to see is an Ordinariate or Prelature. I doubt that will happen. Channeling the shade of the late Wm. F. Buckley, I suppose that a return to the terms of Summorum would be the best of the plausible moves. Even more likely would be a retromarch to the terms of Ecclesia Dei adflicta. But then we would have the same terrain that brought B16 to issue Summorum. Hence, the chimera of an Ordinariate. The worst scenario might be an attempt to pacify the situation by issuing yet another Novus Ordo, a Magis Novus Ordo Missale along the lines of what Fr Carter pieced together: even more options and subjectivity. An attempt to please all and, thereby, failing to please anyone.]
4. Pope Leo needs to concretize the traditional celebration of the Modern Mass by allowing all TLM Order of the Modern Mass along with all the traditional elements allowed in the Ordinariate’s Missal, Divine Worship–that would take some of the subjectivity out of this option, but not all! [See above. Plus, it’s not going to happen.]
Loading ...
We’ve lost a sense of the priest as father of a family. A corporation runs on blind loyaty – I can have no respect for my boss, but barring something illegal I do what he says because he pays me. Dads who expect that relationship from their kids produce really screwed up kids.
I sometimes have to deliver bad news to my kids about something outside of my control. With my younger kids I just say “this is how it is, it’ll be okay” because that is all they can understand. But with my older kids I teach them to process it the way an adult has to process stuff: “so and so made a bad decision, they are in charge, I’m frustrated by that too but we’re not in a spot to change the decision, here is what we can do to move forward”.
Consistent with what you wrote initially on these homilies, the rector would have been a much better father if he had 1) evidenced an informed compassion of what his faithful are going through (vs. gaslighting them into thinking they all think NO-concecrated Hosts are “lesser” than TLM-concecrated ones), 2) not tried to convince the laity that Stockholm syndrome is the only faithful response to this, 3) given them actual steps forward (pray for the bishop/Pope, use this suffering to grow closer to Jesus, even consider practicing that tough virtue of humility by holding your tongue every now and then).
You’d encourage more rather than less obedience to the bishop from the faithful if you outlined for them what an honest obedience looked like. We present trads with the option to abandon the truth and beauty they’ve seen with their own eyes or instead be disobedient… regretably some choose disobedience, but you never gave them an honest chance at finding the right path when you presented two wrong paths.
Fr. McDonald has some excellent points about poisonous clericalism, kudos.
I totally agree with the point that Fr. Carter has to obey the bishop and his unreasonable (but legal) decisions, and we should sympathize with his being caught in a difficult bind. But (as Fr. Z says) it’s one thing for Fr. Pastor to say “we have to obey the bishop’s order here regardless of its prudence”, quite another to claim the orders were in fact wise and prudent. Ultimately, the TLM people are NOT pushing divisiveness or disorder at the Church, it’s the other way around. The Church right now not only tolerates but encourages different masses in the Latin Rite, as well as other Rites, as “inclusivity” and “diversity”, which leaves plenty of room for the TLM, but for unjust and irrational liberal TLM0phobia.
Pope Leo needs to return to the Summorum Pontificum days and Ecclesia Dei!
Might be nice-ish, but obviously the way Francis did a hatchet-job on Summorum shows that merely restoring Summorum isn’t a long-term solution. My suggestion was to establish an Eparchy for the TLM, so that it has its own Rite and its own patriarchal bishop with (separate from Rome) right of selection of the new eparch. This WOULD be a long-term solution, and it would just about totally solve SSPX’s worries about getting another bishop. It’s also not perfect, as doing this would probably speed up the side-lining of Latin as the language of the Latin Rite, and that arm of the Church would be in danger of becoming merely the “Vatican” arm of the Church. But we aren’t going to get a “perfect” solution to the mess.
Here’s a practical basis for revising the NO Missal (or any Missal) with lots and lots of choices: the choosings foster division, discord, legalism and interventions. If the Missal says the priest chooses between X and Y, but the bishop says “do X, not Y”, is this legal or infringe on the priest’s prescribed autonomy? Priests who want what their bishop doesn’t want (and vice versa) invites disagreement and discord. Will they appeal to Rome? Etc. Ultimately, there’s no NEED for most of the choices, they are pointless exercises in “performance art” for something that’s not supposed to be a performance but worship & sacrifice. In most cases, the priest shouldn’t have a preference, he should just say the black, do the red, and not have to come up with his own signature on it.
What I would like to see is all parishes simply making the Vetus Ordo available at least once every Sunday. Weekdays can be negotiated if need requires. If any pastor is not up to the task then, let it be. I perfectly understand that some are not up to learning Latin or the more complex rubrics. You can go to another parish which has it as you needs require when you want to. If there is absolutely no interest from the parish faithful in the Vetus Ordo put it on the sideboard until any interest might develop.
This should come from Rome. Permission granted by Rome to all pastors across the globe — no local ordinary need step into it at all. Its a parish issue. Just like some parishes have a novena every week and other don’t. No drama… Can we just drop the drama and do what common sense requires?
We can go deeper on this in ten or twenty years after we see how it all worked out.
I think he hits on something that turned me off the traditionalist movement a while ago after having been immersed in it to some degree in my 20s: at least from my vantage point there’s developed a sense that disobedience to local ordinaries or even the Holy See is somehow a laudable thing.
Going back 10-15 years or so when I was a young trad, there was a genuine desire to work with the local pastors and ordinaries and obedience to them in spirit even if not required by the law itself was something many of us were very keen on.
I don’t get that sense with many trads today. I hang around here despite not being a traditionalist anymore because I value a lot of the points Fr. Z makes even if I disagree with some of them, but I think the obedience point raised by Fr. McDonald is a very strong one.
Having talked to friends from school who were in the same boat, the general sense I get is that a lot of us would be more sympathetic to something like an ordinariate if trads played nice in the sandbox under TC rather than treating every utterance by a bishop trying to implement it as a fight to the finish with one of the Church’s legitimate pastors.
Probably will get a lot of flack for this from other commentators, but said in good faith.
I had been reluctant to chime in with any criticism of your original post on this, but I too thought that you were a bit harsh on the unfortunate Father Carter. I read the homily less as patronising and more as an attempt to save what he could and put the best face on it that he could. He honestly sounded like someone who needed convincing of his own words – something I think is reflected in the length of his homily. If he said what he actually thought, he might lose even more for his parish. I think of the different stances of Cardinal Wyszy?ski and Cardinal Mindszenty. No one doubts Mindszenty’s holiness, or conviction, but Wyszy?ski was certainly more successful in preserving the Faith in his country by stopping short of outright defiance. Did that require him to hold back sometimes, when it wasn’t absolutely essential? Certainly. But, by retreating from a few hopeless battles, he was able to win the war overall.
@R2D: I have not been to a Vetus Ordo Mass since the 1960’s. It simply has not been available to me. I would very much like to have it available.
Your point regarding obedience is pertinent, but I believe you are overlooking what be the cause. The twelve years of abuse of authority, the deliberate “in your face” comportment provoked a reaction. It has seemed apparent to me that this was quite a deliberate tactic employed to “out” traditionalists and characterize them as unfaithful and marginalize them until they either gave up or walked away from Rome.
It ended up by deceiving some. Who would have ever thought? Unless you’ve seen it up close and personal in ecclesial existence you might not be attuned to the sent of “let them self select.” Its not an uncommon maneuver at all.
It is quite cruel and a serious contradiction of right Christian behavior.
I no longer expect much from the new pontificate, but I do hope to no more deceitful puppet mastery.
To R2D, under the influence and prompting of misguided people like Peter Kwasniewski, trads today believe that their disobedience is “true” obedience. They believe they represent “true” Catholicism against the “false” postconciliar expression of Catholicism. [I find your comment insulting. I invite you to reconsider commenting at all if this is what you are going to offer.]
That’s why Pope Francis issued “Traditionis custodes” — because trad communities became enclaves of entrenched opposition to liturgical renewal and to the postconciliar Church — and that’s why it is necessary for TC to be fully implemented and the use of the 1962 Roman Missal to be suppressed completely once and for all.
When a partial leak of the survey results that prompted TC was released, look how quickly trads accused Pope Francis of lying about the survey. [If the shoe fits.] Trads feel justified in their disobedience. What the partial survey responses revealed was that quite a few bishops who opposed restricting the TLM opposed doing so because they were afraid of the problems trads would cause if the TLM were taken away. Bishops preferred the easier path of a cold war with the trads in their preconciliar enclaves than attempting to bring them to celebrating the postconciliar liturgy. We are seeing unfold in real time that those bishops were right about the problems trads would cause if they didn’t get their way.
@Benedict Joseph, it’s a chicken or the egg question, and I don’t really think Fr. Z’s combox is conducive to discussing the many missteps in governance from local parishes all the way up to the Holy See over 60 years that led us to the situation we’re in now.
My point was about perception just as much as anything. I think there’s a large chunk of people who are naturally sympathetic to the desires of people to worship under the traditional rubrics. I’d count myself as one of them. One of the biggest problems the traditionalist movement currently has, though, is that both through online and in-person interactions it shoots itself in the foot by frequently overreacting to events. That turns a lot of people outside of it who would be otherwise sympathetic off, even if the person overreacting was right on the merits.
Also thanks to father for tolerating my different perspective on his pages :)
To Godfrey, may I ask how many bishops have you spoken with who prefer the path of a cold war with the “Trads”? I agree with Father Zuhlsdorf that the your comment is insulting both in tone and the sweeping generalizations you assert. I suspect you have never actually spoken to a “Trad” or visited one of their “enclaves”. I invite you to do so and offer a prayer to Our Lady for an increase in charity.
ALAS… I thought it best to intervene and not release of couple of comments directed at trolling Godfrey.
My alternative was to edit them here and there before letting them through but…. naaaaah… I don’t like to do that.
Think twice, please, and watch out for rash judgment. Thanks.
Frankly, I am sick and tired of priests and other Catholics feeling free to call me, a Traditionalist, a Protestant or accuse me of idolatry at every possible opportunity. I am SICK of it. If all they have on their side is name-calling and brow-beating over “obedience” as the only pertinent virtue, then I have nothing left to say to them.
To R2D, I think you fail to understand that many if not most Traditionalists WANT to work with their bishops and pastors. Apart from praying for my bishop every day, we had many of the kids in our TLM community offer him a month’s worth of Rosaries and Masses as a spiritual bouquet when he was first installed, and I personally handed him a CD recording we made of our TLM choir. During a “Synod of Synod” listening session, I looked him right in the eye and asked him to please not punish the children of our parish simply because they are growing up with a devotion to the Traditional Latin Mass. Now we get to enjoy having one of our TLMs a month randomly cancelled so that we can be punished for not appreciating the Novus Ordo more, even though many, like me, GREW UP in the Novus Ordo. Saying that people would be happier to work with us if we “played nice in the sand box under TC” is like saying a girl would earn more respect if she cooperated whenever she was assaulted. It’s blaming the victim to the nth degree, and pushing the concept that “obedience” to the clergy is the only thing that matters is clericalism on steroids.
If the pope and bishops are able to successfully throw out the Sacred Liturgical Tradition of the Church, then there is no such thing as Tradition in the Church. The whole “Scripture-Tradition-Magisterium” line is no more than hokum. Then it is simply a “Solo Papem” Church.
I’ve perhaps had the opposite trajectory as you. I used to be someone who didn’t even like calling myself a “Traditionalist” because I was more concerned with being Catholic than identifying with a faction. Now I not only sympathize with Archbishop Lefebvre, but I will gladly and without hesitation switch to an SSPX chapel if one opens up anywhere near me.
And I have nothing to say to Godfrey. It seems to me that his intent in commenting here is just to troll traditionalists with outrageous statements. Don’t feed the trolls.
It seems to me that priestly vows of obedience to the Bishop and the Pope are being treated like they are a pledge of blind obedience and this blind obedience is the summum bonum of the faith. It seems quite clear that Paul VI wanted to completely ban the Roman Rite. ( John Hunwicke quotes several people from all sorts of theological viewpoints who agree that the Novus Ordo cannot be properly called the Roman Rite.) If it were not for priests who were willing to disobey the current Pope during the late 60’s and early 70’s in order to obey their predecessor Popes and Bishops and therefore to obey Jesus Christ, we would have lost the VO Mass.
It would be interesting to see how local ordinaries who have banned the VO recently would react if all the clergy who offer it (as well as those who believe the order is unjust) simply refused to obey an unjust order. My guess is that they would lament the failure of the dissenting priests to keep their vows and accuse them of sowing disunity rather than face the fact they themselves are cruel and unwillingly to be good shepherds willing to sacrifice themselves for the good of their flock. Clearly many bishops today are hirelings rather than shepherds.
Pingback: SATVRDAY EARLY-MORNING EDITION - BIG PVLPIT
May I urge a serious reading of an accurate and eloquent exposition on the sermon delivered by Father Carter authored by Andrea Madrigal at Crisis Magazine entitled “Gaslighting the Faithful.”
It lets the gas out of that balloon to be sure.
Pingback: SATVRDAY LATE-AFTERNOON TOP-10 - BIG PVLPIT
No one would be surprised if an heir to a great treasure would fight to retain what is his.
Think of all the treasures of the Church– the things our ancestors passed on to the next generation that we should now have. Why should we not fight for them? That’s my ancestors’ heritage. And all of it is gone. The devotions, the saints, the titles, prayers, pious practices. The TLM barely holding on.
Then to be told:
“We worship God, not the form of the Mass. Don’t turn the form of the Mass, TLM or Modern into a false god!!!”
Do not protestants claim the same? Worship God! Not Mary, not bread & wine, not the saints. Don’t turn those into a false god!
Why, why, why do NO supporters spend so much time trying to detach traditional Catholics from these things?
I never hear a call for a similar response to the climate change people, the illegal immigration folks, the infinite number of ministries people. No. Rather they get space up on the altar to invite us into to their version of church.