TRADITIONIS CUSTODES

[Peace]

And here it is:

https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2021/07/16/0469/01014.html

Doesn't seem to leave a whole lot of room for the TLM.

The part about it not being allowed in parish churches seems pretty restrictive. But does that apply only to "new" celebrations at parish churches, or does it ban already existing celebrations at parish churches from continuing? Seems like the latter, but I'm not certain how to interpret the document.

Edited July 16, 2021 by Peace

[KnightofChrist]

It's early, but it feels as if this is meant to profoundly limit the growth of the TLM, note also EF seems to be an outdated term now. As well as corral and contain the TLM. 

The one big thing I notice between the two forms more than anything else, the EF is filled with large young families, the priests that offer the TLM are also young. Yet at the OF there are some young families, but mostly the pews are filled with older faithful and the priests are also older. 

Should this trend be true and continue in a few generations will Pope Francis' Traditionis Custodes matter? Unlikely.

Its really too bad Pope Francis could not, has not, but hopefully will go this strong against sexual abusers, their defenders, as well as the German who seem to actually want schism.

 

Edited July 16, 2021 by KnightofChrist

[Ash Wednesday]

I interpreted it in that whether or not it's allowed at a parish is now subject to bishop approval -- basically as it was prior to 2007.

I hope that at the very least, bishops can be accommodating towards existing parishes and priests that are currently celebrating it. Many have joined or reverted to the Church thanks to the TLM and that shouldn't be taken away from them. I can't help but wonder if many may end up feeling pushed to join the SSPX.

Part of me feels some anger in that I feel like the current ruling generation the Church is still stuck in the 60s and 70s and this philosophy that the TLM is supposed to be abandoned and people are supposed to just get with the program, and they insist that everything is just fine, and if you call things out and remind people that 2+2 is still 4, you're just "rigid". Most Catholics don't even believe in the True Presence but no, we're supposed to be on board with this new springtime we're all still waiting for. Whether the boomers like it or not, people will always be drawn to mystique and tradition, and the attraction of the TLM is never going to go away.

Though I suppose the elephant in the room that this recent crackdown isn't exclusively a liturgical matter, but about Vatican II -- and there was a lot of concern about too many groups being hostile and movements going off the deep end. Many in traditionalist circles haven't done themselves a lot of favors in this regard.

I do echo the frustration in that trads get cracked down on pretty quickly but there's a lot of other baloney that goes on that gets treated with kid gloves. 

I will not lose sleep over what mass someone is going to. The church I attend regularly offers both the TLM and the Novus Ordo, without any of the funny business either way (no nasty remarks about the Pope, but no rainbows, felt banners or clown masses either.) They're a wonderful group of reverent, obedient priests and I'm hoping that they will still be allowed this liturgical diversity. 

Pray for the Church and be the best Catholic you can be. That's all you can do.
 

[truthfinder]

The very concerning part is where it says the EF can’t be celebrated in “parochial churches”. How that’s going to be interpreted and applied is in the air. 
 

Also, for a hierarchy which has been going on about decentralization for the last few years to pull out of the bag that all priests ordained today and onward who want to celebrate the EF to apply to Rome for permission is just the absolute opposite. 

[Peace]

8 minutes ago, Ash Wednesday said:

I interpreted it in that whether or not it's allowed at a parish is now subject to bishop approval -- basically as it was prior to 2007.

Upon second reading I think you are right. My parish has the TLM. I guess I read the document as saying that the pastor of my church has to ask our Bishop for permission to continue celebrating the TLM at my parish, but that the Bishop has the authority to grant it.

I'd be surprised if my bishop does not grant it, but I guess we will see.

8 minutes ago, Ash Wednesday said:

I hope that at the very least, bishops can be accommodating towards existing parishes and priests that are currently celebrating it. Many have joined or reverted to the Church thanks to the TLM and that shouldn't be taken away from them. I can't help but wonder if many may end up feeling pushed to join the SSPX.

Part of me feels some anger in that I feel like the current ruling generation the Church is still stuck in the 60s and 70s and this philosophy that the TLM is supposed to be abandoned and people are supposed to just get with the program, and they insist that everything is just fine, and if you call things out and remind people that 2+2 is still 4, you're just "rigid". Most Catholics don't even believe in the True Presence but no, we're supposed to be on board with this new springtime we're all still waiting for. Whether the boomers like it or not, people will always be drawn to mystique and tradition, and the attraction of the TLM is never going to go away.

Well the attraction of the TLM never going away is a bit speculative I think. I appreciate the TLM but yeah ya'll know I don't buy into it as having some inherent "mystique" or "tradition" that is lacking in the NO. We'll see how it plays out I think.

Personally I think its find to have the TLM. I like it, but at the same time if you read the letter that PF put out too, I think there are some valid points in it concerning church unity. Apparently at Trent, all previous forms of the western rite were abrogated for the sake of having one uniform celebration throughout the church. There is something that strikes me as a bit off about having multiple different forms of the Mass celebrated by different groups within the same right.

And yeah there is probably a legit point about how some groups who are super-pro-TLM tend to cast doubt on the validity of V2. I think its tough to deny that.

8 minutes ago, Ash Wednesday said:

Though I suppose the elephant in the room that this recent crackdown isn't exclusively a liturgical, but about Vatican II -- and there was a lot of concern about too many groups being hostile and movements going off the deep end. Many in traditionalist circles haven't done themselves a lot of favors in this regard.

I do echo the frustration in that trads get cracked down on pretty quickly but there's a lot of other baloney that goes on that gets treated with kid gloves. 

I will not lose sleep over what mass someone is going to. The church I attend regularly offers both the TLM and the Novus Ordo, without any of the funny business either way. They're a wonderful group of reverent, obedient priests and I'm hoping that they will still be allowed this liturgical diversity.

Yeah I think you are right here. It has a lot to do with V2 I think.

2 minutes ago, truthfinder said:

The very concerning part is where it says the EF can’t be celebrated in “parochial churches”. How that’s going to be interpreted and applied is in the air. 
 

Also, for a hierarchy which has been going on about decentralization for the last few years to pull out of the bag that all priests ordained today and onward who want to celebrate the EF to apply to Rome for permission is just the absolute opposite. 

At first I thought that applied to current parishes that celebrate the EF, but upon a second reading I think that is meant to apply to certain groups like the FSSP? Parishes that are established kind of specifically for the TLM? Now I read that as saying that if you are going to have any new groups centered around the TLM, that they cannot be established at a regular parish - but that bishops can still allow the TLM to be celebrated at a regular parish?

It's a bit unclear I think . . .

43 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

It's early, but it feels as if this is meant to profoundly limit the growth of the TLM, note also EF seems to be an outdated term now. As well as corral and contain the TLM. 

The one big thing I notice between the two forms more than anything else, the EF is filled with large young families, the priests that offer the TLM are also young. Yet at the OF there are some young families, but mostly the pews are filled with older faithful and the priests are also older. 

Should this trend be true and continue in a few generations will Pope Francis' Traditionis Custodes matter? Unlikely.

Its really too bad Pope Francis could not, has not, but hopefully will go this strong against sexual abusers, their defenders, as well as the German who seem to actually want schism.

 

It's kind of interesting. At least at my parish yeah it seems like most of the TLM folks are young. The YA groups at my parish are all about the TLM I think.

On the other hand I wouldn't say that the NO masses are just a bunch of old foagies. One of the NO Masses is stock-full of young people (the 11AM) while the 7AM and 8AM NO run pretty old. Then when I look at some of the parishes in the younger Catholic neighborhoods in my city - most of those parishes are NO and don't have the TLM at all.

But as for the long term effect of the document - it does not seem to bode too well for the TLM even if many younger priests and parishoners prefer it. Doesn't the document basically prohibit newly ordained priests from being trained in or celebrating the old missal? The way I read it, it seems that if a newly ordained priest wants to receive training in the old missal he needs to get approval from the bishop, then the bishop needs to get approval from the Vatican. Which means it ain't happening basically. So it seems like long term you'll have a situation where there won't be any priests left to celebrate it.

But maybe I read that part of the document wrong.

Seems like this part will make it pretty tough for the TLM to survive in the long-term, unless the next pope changes it:

Art. 4. Priests ordained after the publication of the present Motu Proprio, who wish to celebrate using the Missale Romanum of 1962, should submit a formal request to the diocesan Bishop who shall consult the Apostolic See before granting this authorization.

[Ash Wednesday]

20 minutes ago, Peace said:

I don't buy into it as having some inherent "mystique" or "tradition" that is lacking in the NO. We'll see how it plays out I think.

Well, I want to avoid this being a debate about the masses, but the irony here is that the Novus Ordo was originally supposed to be done in Latin with Gregorian chant given preference. It's not seen very often in general, but when it is done, it's actually quite exquisite. So when people say "Latin Mass" and tradition, it's unfortunate that they don't associate it with Novus Ordo, because in theory, they could.

My normal mass is actually the Novus Ordo in vernacular, as the TLM is not said at a time of day that I can easily attend, though I do support it and want to see it available. I can see why the Church does want to avoid people becoming too entrenched into "tribes" about these things, where some will ONLY accept the Tridentine and don't think the Novus is valid. That's just dangerous territory. Sadly we don't let ourselves have nice things. 

[Nihil Obstat]

2 minutes ago, Ash Wednesday said:

Well, I want to avoid this being a debate about the masses, but the irony here is that the Novus Ordo was originally supposed to be done in Latin with Gregorian chant given preference. It's not seen very often in general, but when it is done, it's actually quite exquisite. So when people say "Latin Mass" and tradition, it's unfortunate that they don't associate it with Novus Ordo, because in theory, they could.

It was always possible in theory, even recommended in theory, but for many of its architects and earliest cheerleaders, that was never the intent. In my opinion that possibility was always a smokescreen under which was implemented what we have now. The liturgical iconoclasm of the 70s did not just appear ex nihilo and suddenly become the norm practically everywhere.

[Ash Wednesday]

1 minute ago, Nihil Obstat said:

It was always possible in theory, even recommended in theory, but for many of its architects and earliest cheerleaders, that was never the intent. In my opinion that possibility was always a smokescreen under which was implemented what we have now. The liturgical iconoclasm of the 70s did not just appear ex nihilo and suddenly become the norm practically everywhere.

I suppose what I don't understand at this point, is why the old guard insists on maintaining a path forward and shoehorning the faithful in this continued direction when we have the results that we do. 

[Peace]

14 minutes ago, Ash Wednesday said:

Well, I want to avoid this being a debate about the masses, but the irony here is that the Novus Ordo was originally supposed to be done in Latin with Gregorian chant given preference. It's not seen very often in general, but when it is done, it's actually quite exquisite. So when people say "Latin Mass" and tradition, it's unfortunate that they don't associate it with Novus Ordo, because in theory, they could.

My normal mass is actually the Novus Ordo in vernacular, as the TLM is not said at a time of day that I can easily attend, though I do support it and want to see it available. I can see why the Church does want to avoid people becoming too entrenched into "tribes" about these things, where some will ONLY accept the Tridentine and don't think the Novus is valid. That's just dangerous territory. Sadly we don't let ourselves have nice things. 

The 11AM NO at my parish comes pretty close to that I think.  The gloria, the "sanctus, sanctus, sanctus", the "Agnus Dei" are said in Latin, maybe a few other small parts. I think we say the creed in English, which makes sense to me. It's pretty nice, communion on the rail. The music and the psalms are sung by a couple young girls in that Gregorian style. I'm pretty sure well-meaning trad-heads could appreciate it, except for the ones who hate the NO just on principle.

[Peace]

39 minutes ago, Ash Wednesday said:

I suppose what I don't understand at this point, is why the old guard insists on maintaining a path forward and shoehorning the faithful in this continued direction when we have the results that we do. 

I have heard some folks say that the change from the TLM to the NO is largely responsible for the current poor lack of education among the faithful and huge decline in Mass attendance, etc. but I never really bought into that jazz. I think those poor results are much more a sign of the times and overall cultural changes. I'm not too convinced that retaining the TLM would have helped that situation. I mean, you could have ended up with a situation with even less people going to Mass than you do now. At least where I am at there is kind of like a small-devoted population of "TLM folks" but it's still a very small percentage of the overall Catholic population it seems. It seems like 90% of more of the folks who are attending Mass regularly still choose the NO. Like at my parish there are 5 Sunday Masses but we can only support 1 of them being TLM in terms of getting turnout. So I wonder if we only had the TLM and no other forms, if that 90% would have dwindled down even further due to the various difficulties that the TLM presents from the practical perspective of being in a foreign language.

Edited July 16, 2021 by Peace

[KnightofChrist]

Here is the accompanying letter by Pope Francis. 

 

http://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/letters/2021/documents/20210716-lettera-vescovi-liturgia.html

 

@Peace I agree that the OF isn't just older folks. But that it is on average mostly older folks, who will not live forever. There are of course examples of young OF parishes, but again the passionate enthusiasm greatly favors the traditionalists. 

This isn't really going to stop the TLM, if anything it may help promote it. Human nature draws us to the underdog. In the end the TLM will continue to grow and out live those that are trying their best to contain or in effect abolish it. The attempt failed in the 70s and ever since. This may yet be the beginning of the end for those attempts. 

We shall see, or rather God will. 

 

Edited July 16, 2021 by KnightofChrist

[Ash Wednesday]

29 minutes ago, Peace said:

I have heard some folks say that the change from the TLM to the NO is largely responsible for the current poor lack of education among the faithful and huge decline in Mass attendance, etc. but I never really bought into that jazz.

It's definitely more complicated than that. And to what extent the Church could have shielded herself from cultural revolutions gets into whataboutisms that we will never have an answer to, at least in this life. 

But what I really don't understand is the inability for the current establishment's willingness to look at the situation at hand and to not review anything from the last 50 years or so with any kind of critical eye and to try to understand why there are so many millennials that want to wear veils and attend the TLM (and I say this as a Gen X who usually attends the old Novus Ordo.) They generally seem very hostile and resistant to this. Giving it the greatest benefit of the doubt I am chalking this up to generational differences in that they view this attraction to pre Vatican II tradition with a great deal of suspicion because they hold different baggage about it than younger people do.

[KnightofChrist]

And Does anyone else notice how straight to the point, CLEARCUT AND UNAMBIGUOUS these documents are in comparison of other documents and statements by Pope Francis?

So he can make statements that doesn't require mental gymnastics or deep meditation.

[Peace]

16 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

Here is the accompanying letter by Pope Francis. 

 

http://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/letters/2021/documents/20210716-lettera-vescovi-liturgia.html

 

@Peace I agree that the OF isn't just older folks. But that it is on average mostly older folks, who will not live forever. There are of course examples of young OF parishes, but again the passionate enthusiasm greatly favors the traditionalists. 

This isn't really going to stop the TLM, if anything it may help promote it. Human nature draws us to the underdog. In the end the TLM will continue to grow and out live those that are trying their best to contain or in effect abolish it. The attempt failed in the 70s and ever since. This may yet be the beginning of the end for those attempts. 

We shall see, or rather God will. 

 

Well yeah I would not count the TLM out. At least for me, maybe a positive effect of the new document could be that more TLM folks will start giving more attention to the abuses in the NO, so maybe those can be rooted out and the NO can become more in-line with what was intended for it.

Now I think we have a situation where most folks who are fed-up with the abuses in the NO kind of throw their hands up in the air and just go to the TLM instead. If the NO becomes the only real game in town, perhaps more energies can be focused on fixing the issues with the NO.

 

6 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

And Does anyone else notice how straight to the point, CLEARCUT AND UNAMBIGUOUS these documents are in comparison of other documents and statements by Pope Francis?

So he can make statements that doesn't require mental gymnastics or deep meditation.

Well I would not say clear-cut exactly. My and a bunch of other folks in my YA group at church have been discussing it, and we still aren't sure the extent to which it will impact the TLM Masses at our parish.

Edited July 16, 2021 by Peace

[benedictaaugustine]

I’m wondering what this means for places like St. John Cantius, who offer both the NO and the EF... I only ask because I’m visiting in the fall, and it’s been my bucket list to attend a solemn high mass at Cantius, so if they can’t celebrate anymore I’m going to be so disappointed. What will this mean for orders like FSSP? Or like the Carmelites and Benedictines who exclusively celebrate the Latin Mass in their convents?

[Peace]

10 minutes ago, Ash Wednesday said:

It's definitely more complicated than that. And to what extent the Church could have shielded herself from cultural revolutions gets into whataboutisms that we will never have an answer to, at least in this life. 

But what I really don't understand is the inability for the current establishment's willingness to look at the situation at hand and to not review anything from the last 50 years or so with any kind of critical eye and to try to understand why there are so many millennials that want to wear veils and attend the TLM (and I say this as a Gen X who usually attends the old Novus Ordo.) They generally seem very hostile and resistant to this. Giving this the greatest benefit of the doubt I am chalking this up to generational differences in that they view this attraction to tradition with a great deal of suspicion because they hold different baggage about it than younger people do.

Well I recall PF saying something a few years back about people liking the TLM having a "rigid" attitude or something like that? So yeah maybe there is a bit of a bias among the old folks, or an unwillingness to really understand why interest in the TLM has grown among young folks.

I wouldn't say that the TLM has a particular appeal to younger folks. I mean, most younger folks I know still prefer the NO over the TLM in large numbers, at least as far as I see it.

But there is certainly a strong niche of young folks who seem to be drawn to the TLM and that is an interesting question. I wonder whether the higher-ups in the church have taken notice of that, or even considered it? One thing is that this niche is present in the USA/Canada. But do we see it in South America? Do we see it in Africa? I honestly don't know. But it could be that it is too much of a local phenomenon and not something that we see in the global church, that it would naturally be on the radar of the powers-that-be.

But as for the niche of young folks in the USA/Canada that are drawn to the TLM - it is actually an interesting question for me. Why are they drawn to it so much? I still haven't actually been able to figure that question out for myself. Most of the trad YA at my parish are good people and I like them a lot, but if I am being honest I have kind of felt that "rigidness" among some of them. Some of them do seem to spend too much time criticizing folks who don't agree with them, I have sensed a bit of an "air of superiority" or pride among some of them, if I am being honest. But then there are others who just seem to be totally cool, well-meaning Catholics who seem to have a certain aesthetic affinity towards the TLM. Aspects of that I can appreciate, because I do actually like to hear the Latin parts in the NO, and the general solmen pace of the Mass and the Gregorian music, it does kind of put me in a certain state of mind of think, that has a nice appeal to it.

7 minutes ago, benedictaaugustine said:

I’m wondering what this means for places like St. John Cantius, who offer both the NO and the EF... I only ask because I’m visiting in the fall, and it’s been my bucket list to attend a solemn high mass at Cantius, so if they can’t celebrate anymore I’m going to be so disappointed. What will this mean for orders like FSSP? Or like the Carmelites and Benedictines who exclusively celebrate the Latin Mass in their convents?

Yeah that is unclear to me. My parish has both NO and TLM Masses. Folks at my parish are not sure yet about what impact it will have on the TLM Masses, but it seems like we should be able to keep them, if the bishop approves.

6 minutes ago, Peace said:

 Some of them do seem to spend too much time criticizing folks who don't agree with them, I have sensed a bit of an "air of superiority" or pride among some of them, if I am being honest.

--> Kind of like how many recent converts to the Church start getting way too prideful about being Catholic and start criticizing Protestants left and right (I was one of these annoying converts for a period I'm sorry to say)?
 

I would guess that for some folks who find the TLM, you could have sort of the same thing going on. It's kind of like this prideful attitude in having found "the truth" or "the better" way of doing something, that can drive some folks I think.

[Nihil Obstat]

1 hour ago, Ash Wednesday said:

I suppose what I don't understand at this point, is why the old guard insists on maintaining a path forward and shoehorning the faithful in this continued direction when we have the results that we do. 

I believe it is a mix of things. On the one hand we have a (significant) minority of traditionalists who for years have actively fostered a spirit of disobedience, pride, and anger. Divisiveness if you want to call it that. Those are the racists and the conspiracy theorists and the ones obsessed with right wing politics. They exist, especially on the internet, and they are loud. We have not been able to rise over those voices with something more moderate and temperate (and virtuous!), and we are paying for it now.

We, traditionalists, have consistently and notoriously failed to become holy. Fair or not, anyone else's failures aside, that is on us and we do deserve to suffer.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.tumblarhouse.com/blogs/news/problems-in-the-traditionalist-movement&ved=2ahUKEwjCzOSzp-jxAhWPs54KHZbxDbwQFnoECAMQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0K5ETB5IOVVLYF-uUTMXI6

On the other hand we have a rather large group in the episcopate who do want to traditional Mass gone, for ideological reasons. Especially entrenched in the curia. Francis alludes to this in the document, the fact that the traditional Mass exists at all is, according to the progressivist worldview, a challenge to the 'development' that is the Pauline Mass. It was the exact same arguments in the 70s. The Ecclesia Dei Summorum Pontificum period has been a brief respite.

If you look back at the history of the SSPX, the disobedience and claims of schism were secondary. What it came down to was the Mass itself. Even on the day of the Econe consecrations, Archbishop Lefebvre was told "if you celebrate this Mass today in the new rite, then these problems disappear and everything goes back to normal for you." His refusal to give up the traditional Mass made him a challenge to the concept of reform.

It is a direct repudiation of Benedict's famous quote, "what earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even be considered harmful."

[truthfinder]

2 hours ago, Peace said:

Apparently at Trent, all previous forms of the western rite were abrogated for the sake of having one uniform celebration throughout the church.

I'm catching up on the discussion, so not sure if this has been addressed, but the answer here is 'not quite.'

Trent abrogated usages that had been in use for less than 200 years.  (By this calculation today, the NO would be gone.)  This meant religious orders with their own Masses could decide: thus, Dominicans, Calced Carmelites, Premonstratensian, etc kept theirs, but others like the Discalced Carmelites embraced the Roman rite. But it certainly wasn't uniform: some locales also kept theirs: Lyon and Ambroisian rites (among others) are based on locality. 

And France itself didn't really embrace Trent for several decades, and in some places Gallican rites continued to wiggle into the liturgy for quite some time.

[SicutColumba]

Have no idea how this motu proprio is actually going to be applied in the real world. But what exactly does this mean: « designate one or more locations where the faithful adherents of these groups may gather for the eucharistic celebration (not however in the parochial churches and without the erection of new personal parishes). »

So the TLM is regulated to hotel lobbies and conference centers? I don’t get it. 
 
Still trying to process this but to me this seems like an extremely deliberate and clear attempt to phase out the TLM completely. The German Church is hovering on the brink of schism and the Holy Father has done next to nothing about it, so I can’t find an honest reason why he’s decided to crack down on the trads at this particularly fraught moment. 

32 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

On the one hand we have a (significant) minority of traditionalists who for years have actively fostered a spirit of disobedience, pride, and anger. Divisiveness if you want to call it that. Those are the racists and the conspiracy theorists and the ones obsessed with right wing politics. They exist, especially on the internet, and they are loud. We have not been able to rise over those voices with something more moderate and temperate (and virtuous!), and we are paying for it now.

We, traditionalists, have consistently and notoriously failed to become holy. Fair or not, anyone else's failures aside, that is on us and we do deserve to suff

Well said. But like Ash Wednesday has said the hierarchy of the Church is stuck in the sixties. It is unfair to us and to me underlined the need for a young, strong, faithful clergy and laity. 

[KnightofChrist]

1 hour ago, Peace said:

Well yeah I would not count the TLM out. At least for me, maybe a positive effect of the new document could be that more TLM folks will start giving more attention to the abuses in the NO, so maybe those can be rooted out and the NO can become more in-line with what was intended for it.

Now I think we have a situation where most folks who are fed-up with the abuses in the NO kind of throw their hands up in the air and just go to the TLM instead. If the NO becomes the only real game in town, perhaps more energies can be focused on fixing the issues with the NO.

One can only hope. But I'm afraid that this document today makes it all more clear. There is one law for some and in effect no law for others. Today Pope Francis has come down hard with the hammer on traditionalists. He goes easy on the German bishops and priests who would seem to be actually breaking from the Church. Easy on or even privately endorsing so-called liberal priests who object to some of the Church's moral doctrine, such and Father James Martin. 

I'm not sure that the Church leadership sees the abuses in the OF as abuses, but rather development, something good or at least no big deal.

All the while formal Cardinal McCarrick is sitting somewhere comfortably charged with no crimes civically or ecclesiastically. Why didn't Pope Francis use the hammer against him? Why didn't he go after him as hard as he today goes after traditionalists? Why did he allow McCarrick to resign and not bring him before and ecclesiastical court and punish him for his acts of rape of the young? Why was the only form of punishment for the rapist a title change?

Because there is one law for some and no real law for others.  

1 hour ago, Peace said:

 

Well I would not say clear-cut exactly. My and a bunch of other folks in my YA group at church have been discussing it, and we still aren't sure the extent to which it will impact the TLM Masses at our parish.

The key words were of course, "in comparison" to Pope Francis' other documents and statements.

To the statements of 'rigid' by Pope Francis, he has in fact said this many times from just a few days ago to the beginning of his pontificate. He has it directed towards younger traditionalists priests, in sadly what seems to be a very stereotypical view. A view that is not without truth, but it does not truly represent traditionalists as a whole. It is a way however to easily dismiss those that you do not agree with and yet do not wish to have a serious discussion with.

Edited July 16, 2021 by KnightofChrist