If they think this is going to go away, they are delusional.
Keep in mind the phrase: quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
Also, yesterday in some commentary on the strange opinions of a bishop, I mentioned the issue of “unity”, which has become a prevailing theme (aka buzz word).
From Infovaticana. How it starts:
The prefect of the Dicastery for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Cardinal Arthur Roche, has assured that Pope Leo XIV will not modify the restrictions on the celebration of the traditional Mass established by Traditionis custodes nor restore the regime provided for by Benedict XVI in Summorum Pontificum.
The statements were made in an interview granted to the British weekly The Tablet, [aka The Bitter Pill] in which the English prelate categorically affirmed: «Pope Leo is not going to change Traditionis custodes and is not going to return to Summorum Pontificum.»
This is the first public statement by Roche regarding the Pontiff’s position on one of the liturgical issues that has generated the most debate within the Church in recent years.
Unity as an argument
During the interview, the prefect defended that the question of the traditional liturgy must be understood from the perspective of ecclesial unity. He recalled that the Eucharist is «the sacrament of unity» and maintained that, if the celebration of the Mass becomes a cause of division, «something is seriously wrong». [Something is seriously wrong with his ecclesiology. Are Romans not in unity with Ukrainians and Maronites? Apparently we are not in unity with those who use the NeoCat thing or Anglican use.]
Roche also rejected the claims of persecution made by some faithful linked to the traditional liturgy. According to him, when the Pope grants authorizations in accordance with current regulations and those groups continue to claim they are being persecuted, «they cannot answer what the real problem is». [What?!?]
Likewise, he lamented the tone of some criticisms directed against Church authorities and even wondered: «Can one honestly say that one is Catholic when one writes things so full of hatred about people and about the Church?».
Defense of the liturgical reform
The prefect clarified that he does not consider the liturgy prior to the Second Vatican Council to be erroneous, but maintained that the reform promoted after the Council responded to the need to prepare the Church for a renewed missionary task. [Does we need again to trot out the statistics of what has gone on since the Council? Do we need again to point out that the great missionary age of the Church was not carried out with the Novus Ordo?]
[…]
How long, Lord?
Given that the idea of ex ecclesiam nullus sallus is persona non grata in the post-conciliar period, I feel the need to ask:
What is the renewed missionary task of the church of which +Roche speaks?
Given how quickly arguments like Roche’s fall apart upon the slightest scrutiny, it would be comedic, except that he and all to many like him sit in various drivers’ seats. Therefore, it is instead dangerous and tragic, if not completely maddening.
Likewise, he lamented the tone of some criticisms directed against Church authorities and even wondered: Can one honestly say that one is Catholic when one writes things so full of hatred about people and about the Church?
What the heck does that even mean? Roche is going to be replaced soon, and his office leaves a legacy of hatred for the authority of bishops and the dignity due to the people of God. He sneers at anyone who likes the Traditional Mass, he forces bishops to ask him for permissions to do things within their competency. He abolished the privilege of bishops to dispense particular elements of the Universal Law via Canon 87, something the Vatican has only done for processes like scandal and sex abuse. He goes around every few months taking interviews and flaunting his authority.
Indeed, Cardinal Roche, can one honestly say that one is Catholic when one writes things so full of hatred about people and about the Church?
What is asserted without proof can be denied without proof indeed. Sounds to me like ++Roche might be wishing out loud. Matthew Hazell posted this excerpt from the Bitter Pill on his X account with his take, “Well, what Card. Roche claims in The Tablet this week may very well be true. Until it isn’t.” Time will tell. Kind of like the rumor mill stating right after the conclave last year that “Cardinal Prevost even said the TLM privately.” Rumors that turned out to be false. What irks me is that people ran with the rumor waving it around like gospel truth, people who should know better than to be broadcasting this stuff without evidence.
About a year ago there was a National Bureau of Economic research
(https://www.nber.org/papers/w34060)
paper released that creatively used survey data on attendance at religious services to exam how attendance across countries had varied since the 1920’s.
The authors, two of which are recognized as outstanding economists, used common statistical methods to show that their extension of the data back to ‘20s gave an accurate reflection of behavior by examining how religious services attendance had changed since 1965 as well as after the fall of the iron curtain.
What I did not realize is that the results they got were already well known by economists (and others) who studied religious observance. They just wanted to show that this creative use of the data is useful. So what did they find? Among other things:
1. Attendance in predominately Catholic countries declined relative to attendance in predominately Protestant countries beginning in 1965.
2. Attendance in predominately Catholic countries relative to that in Protestant countries has continued to decline.
3. This relative decline did not exist in the 1950’s.
I found this astounding because the authors referred to enormous scholarly literature beginning over 40 years ago trying to explain why Catholic attendance at Mass has declined. But the guy who has the Hand Missal History website has pointed out that not only did Vatican II end in 1965, the Mass began to be changed in 1965. I think the change in the liturgy is the main cause but the NBER working paper, if I am remembering correctly, does not mention this.
Since I read that paper I have become even more astounded than I was before. I was impatient with Catholic Answers and EWTN commentators who blame the general loss in faith by Catholics on changes in the culture because it is possible that the Church largely responsible for the changes in culture that have occurred in predominately Catholic countries.
What also is not discussed is the emptying of monasteries and the loss of most of the Human Capital in the Church that staffed Catholic colleges and primary and secondary schools. (There were at least 3 English professors at my university who had gone to seminary in the early ‘60s as well as many proud ex-Catholics.)
Things are not going to get better until the hierarchy of the Church looks in the mirror and each one admits he has some responsibility for the decline Catholic piety.
I did not reread the paper before writing this, so I hope I did not make any mistakes.
How has that “renewed missionary work” progressed over the last 50 years? Just take a look. The pews filled every Sunday? Catholics attending Mass regularly? Our seminaries filled with young men? Convents filled with sisters dedicating their lives to Christ? Please, someone just tell me where to find the “fruits” of Vatican II. I’m sorry, I have no “hate” for Church authorities, but I just don’t see the fruits and I can’t pretend that everything is fine.
Quoting Roche: “…when the Pope grants authorizations in accordance with current regulations and those groups continue to claim they are being persecuted, «they cannot answer what the real problem is». ”
This is like saying, when a child is being abused by separating him from other members of the family, being confined to his room 23/7, being fed barely adequate nutrition, and is crying out for the perpetrator to stop, the cruel parent saying, “The child can’t really say what the problem is. After all, he has a place to sleep and gets fed.” You’d have to be a flaming heartless narcissistic abuser to take that position.
Is it that those being hurt by Traditiones Custodes can’t really say what the problem is, or is it that those in authority refuse to acknowledge the effects of what they’ve put into place? I guess any and all complaints serve to verify for the likes of Roche that the policy is causing the pain it is designed to cause.
This reminds me of a diocesan pilgrimage in SW Germany back in the 90’s in which the bishop, upon having visited several Byzantine Catholic churches, with great self-satisfaction proclaimed to all on board the bus how “diverse” the Catholic Church in Germany is. A woman then asked the bishop, “If you were so interested in “diversity”, why do you not allow the FSSP to work in your diocese?” He was gob-smashed and rescued to silence. “Unity”, “diversity”, these are empty terms once you depart from the Truth.