TRADITIONIS CUSTODES

[fides' Jack]

23 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

I've no rage, just anger perhaps, rage is an uncontrolled passion.

Yes, blame is to be laid upon Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI. But one is dead and the other has no power, and neither published Traditionis Custodes. 

It is Pope Francis who is Pope now, he has the current power, he has the current blame.

To add I never recall seeing Pope John Paul II nor Pope Benedict XVI accusing abuse victims of calumny and slander as Pope Francis did when defending Bishop Barros, in Chile.

Also, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI recognized that he made some serious mistakes during his papacy, and did apologize, publicly.  Not for this, specifically, but still something.

[Michelle_christi]

Ok so I don’t really have two cents to put into “arguments” and I don’t have any clever insights into the theological or structural reasons for or against his decision, but I can give my feelings as a young twenty something Catholic. I consider myself traditional, but stay away from the rad trad community with a ten foot pole. I don’t exclusively attend the TLM and I don’t reject Vatican 2 or the NO, but I do attend the TLM when I can and have attended the lovely FSSP masses rarely. 

I personally am deeply grieved by the decision. I can’t speak to the deeper reasons why he may have made this decision, but on the ground level it’s just extremely painful. The TLM masses in my diocese have always been so beautiful and reverent, with mostly young people, and the people have always been friendly and welcoming. I despise the online trad types who use the TLM as a pride point or bash “Bergoglio”. I think that’s pharasaical and prideful. However, I don’t see how the Latin Mass is the issue. The people are. And they are a very small but loud minority. For me, the TLM helped me grow closer to my community, and it helped me focus my worship on God, not on the feelings that the NO sometimes tries to fill in and evoke. I think that with online trads, they almost worship the liturgy instead of God. Obviously that’s bad. But I will say, at least for me, it’s so much easier to focus and worship God at a TLM mass than at a NO mass. I think I’m frustrated because Pope Francis comes out strongly against this, even though there’s really not a lot of data for this disunity except for loud online trads? And meanwhile, Germany is about to schism, Cardinal Weurl is stil recieving 2 million a year from the diocese of Washington, and they’re dealing with a huge financial scandal. I just don’t see the importance of this, and I feel like this is hurting the communities and the people rather than trying to fix the root of the problem. He mentioned the horribleness of liturical abuse from the NO as well, but what is he doing about it? I love my Pope, and I will follow him, but it is like a sword to have something so beautiful taken away from us, especially as a young person who just discovered the beauty of the Latin Mass. Countless young people have been drawn to the Catholic Church because of the reverent liturgy at TLM masses. It felt lot like a revival, and now it just feels like a stifling of something we love deeply. And what I’m afraid of, is that some people might (wrongly) be drawn towards schismatic groups (which is bad because that prompts worship of Liturgy, not God) but still. I don’t see how this will be unifying. I’m hoping that some day we’ll have another liturgical reform that will take the good of both, and have something reverent but which still includes the congregation. 

[SicutColumba]

1 hour ago, Michelle_christi said:

despise the online trad types who use the TLM as a pride point or bash “Bergoglio”. I think that’s pharasaical and prideful. However, I don’t see how the Latin Mass is the issue. The people are. And they are a very small but loud minority.

It’s worth pointing out that a good lot of trads have no TV and aren’t heavily online. Very, very few trads that I know use social media. So the trads with whom you’re interacting online are an unusually and necessarily radical minority.  It’s not fair to blame the entire traditional movement for what some of them say online, and it is totally unjust to suppress their mass because of it. The more I think of it the less I can blame trads. Take away their liturgy and humiliate them as though they’re children getting a toy taken away. It’s honestly truly angering and I don’t understand why the Holy Father has done this. 

The only possible reason I can see for Traditionis Custodes is the wholesale suppression of the TLM. 

[Peace]

1 hour ago, Michelle_christi said:

Ok so I don’t really have two cents to put into “arguments” and I don’t have any clever insights into the theological or structural reasons for or against his decision, but I can give my feelings as a young twenty something Catholic. I consider myself traditional, but stay away from the rad trad community with a ten foot pole. I don’t exclusively attend the TLM and I don’t reject Vatican 2 or the NO, but I do attend the TLM when I can and have attended the lovely FSSP masses rarely. 

I personally am deeply grieved by the decision. I can’t speak to the deeper reasons why he may have made this decision, but on the ground level it’s just extremely painful. The TLM masses in my diocese have always been so beautiful and reverent, with mostly young people, and the people have always been friendly and welcoming. I despise the online trad types who use the TLM as a pride point or bash “Bergoglio”. I think that’s pharasaical and prideful. However, I don’t see how the Latin Mass is the issue. The people are. And they are a very small but loud minority. For me, the TLM helped me grow closer to my community, and it helped me focus my worship on God, not on the feelings that the NO sometimes tries to fill in and evoke. I think that with online trads, they almost worship the liturgy instead of God. Obviously that’s bad. But I will say, at least for me, it’s so much easier to focus and worship God at a TLM mass than at a NO mass. I think I’m frustrated because Pope Francis comes out strongly against this, even though there’s really not a lot of data for this disunity except for loud online trads? And meanwhile, Germany is about to schism, Cardinal Weurl is stil recieving 2 million a year from the diocese of Washington, and they’re dealing with a huge financial scandal. I just don’t see the importance of this, and I feel like this is hurting the communities and the people rather than trying to fix the root of the problem. He mentioned the horribleness of liturical abuse from the NO as well, but what is he doing about it? I love my Pope, and I will follow him, but it is like a sword to have something so beautiful taken away from us, especially as a young person who just discovered the beauty of the Latin Mass. Countless young people have been drawn to the Catholic Church because of the reverent liturgy at TLM masses. It felt lot like a revival, and now it just feels like a stifling of something we love deeply. And what I’m afraid of, is that some people might (wrongly) be drawn towards schismatic groups (which is bad because that prompts worship of Liturgy, not God) but still. I don’t see how this will be unifying. I’m hoping that some day we’ll have another liturgical reform that will take the good of both, and have something reverent but which still includes the congregation. 

OK some people here at Phatmass a.k.a. Tradmass obviously ain't gonna like my opinion on this, but there is a fundamental issue with the TLM that goes beyond certain groups using it as a rallying cry of sorts to vent against the pope.

Sacrosanctum Concilium was approved by a vote of the bishops of 2,147 to 4, and approved the pope in 1963. It calls for a reform of the liturgy. The TLM is the 1962 liturgy and is literally no reform at all. So fundamentally the continued practice of this old liturgy poses a stumbling block for the reform that was approved at Vatican 2. Thus, the TLM was suppressed with the 1970 Mass, and that was the case up until about the late 1990's or early 2000's.

Pope Benedict had a bit of a soft heart for trads and issued Summorum Pontificum, but the fact of the matter is that Vatican 2 never contemplated that the TLM would continue alongside with the reformed liturgy, as though the TLM and the reformed liturgy would be co-equal options of celebrating the Mass that individual Catholics would be free to choose among according to their personal preference. It does not contemplate that new generations of young Catholics would continue participating in the old liturgy. Vatican 2 contemplates that the Church will celebrate a reformed liturgy going forward, period. So Pope Francis isn't wrong for wanting to suppress the TLM. Although it can be said that his most recent decision was rather abrupt and undiplomatic, his suppression of the TLM is entirely consistent with what the Church decided in Vatican 2.

Now as for your other point - it's easier for you to worship God in the TLM than the NO. I can understand that sentiment and I'm not unsympathetic here. It is a good reason I think for having variation within the liturgy as Vatican 2 contemplates. Different people have different affinities (cultural or otherwise) so its a good thing that the liturgy can be adjusted to foster worship of God that is not alien to the cultural traditions of various groups. And that I think that should include people who have an affinity for things like Gregorian Chant or what have you.

On the other hand, "ease" is not a fundamental requirement for Christian worship. We still worship the way that God wants us to worship, whether that is "easy" for us or not, according to the way that the Church instructs us. Here, Vatican 2 calls for reform, but the 1962 Mass has no reform at all, so it is out of line with what the Church has instructed. That is problematic, regardless of whatever particular affinity people may have for the 1962 Mass.

Personally, I appreciate many of the aspects of the TLM. The general style of worship, the music, the pace, communion on the rail, etc. all suit my sensibilities well too, for the most part. But the 1962 is not a reformed mass and it does not seek to incorporate the specific things that are called for by the Church in Sacrosanctum Concilium. I think it would be great to have Gregorian Chant, the communion on the rail, the use of the Latin language, etc., but at a reformed Mass, so you still have many of those aesthetic aspects of the TLM present while still having the Mass be in the spirit of Vatican 2. You don't see many Masses like this, unfortunately, but they do exist. Hopefully we'll see more of them going forward.

[chrysostom]

A Catholic can accept what Sacrosanctum Concilium said without accepting 1. that everything in it was a good idea, 2. that the Consilium which put together the new order of Mass did a good job, and 3. that there is no going back from the end product of the Consilium.

My personal opinion is that at some point in the future (who knows how long), it would be good to backtrack and set about reforming the Mass of St Pius V in such a manner that it actually resembles the organic changes which brought it to the point in the early 20th century before wholesale instant revisions began. Start from there, preserve it as an essentially Roman Rite with a 1-year calendar, and fine, reform it, but in a more careful way and over a much longer period of time.

Having a body of faithful and priests who live with the 1962 is key to how we'd be able to move forward.

Half opinion half speculation.

[Peace]

35 minutes ago, chrysostom said:

A Catholic can accept what Sacrosanctum Concilium said without accepting 1. that everything in it was a good idea, 2. that the Consilium which put together the new order of Mass did a good job, and 3. that there is no going back from the end product of the Consilium.

Agreed.

35 minutes ago, chrysostom said:

My personal opinion is that at some point in the future (who knows how long), it would be good to backtrack and set about reforming the Mass of St Pius V in such a manner that it actually resembles the organic changes which brought it to the point in the early 20th century before wholesale instant revisions began. Start from there, preserve it as an essentially Roman Rite with a 1-year calendar, and fine, reform it, but in a more careful way and over a much longer period of time.

Having a body of faithful and priests who live with the 1962 is key to how we'd be able to move forward.

Half opinion half speculation.

That might not be a bad idea. I don't know if you would have to go all the way back to 1962 and start from there. I'd say start with the the NO and focus on the implementation and eliminating the abuses, and see what you have then, as a first step. At least at my parish, we have the TLM and a "Latin" NO (for lack of a better phrase) and its implemented in a way that is meant to resemble the TLM (since the parish leans pretty trad). When I go to both Masses the feel of both of them is honestly very similar, except that the NO has a more of that "active participation" that V2 calls for. I wouldn't say that the NO is intrinsically "inorganic" or misses the mark, its just that the implementation has been too varied in certain places, which makes it feel like a radical change. I don't think it has to be.

[Nihil Obstat]

1 hour ago, chrysostom said:

A Catholic can accept what Sacrosanctum Concilium said without accepting 1. that everything in it was a good idea, 2. that the Consilium which put together the new order of Mass did a good job, and 3. that there is no going back from the end product of the Consilium.

My personal opinion is that at some point in the future (who knows how long), it would be good to backtrack and set about reforming the Mass of St Pius V in such a manner that it actually resembles the organic changes which brought it to the point in the early 20th century before wholesale instant revisions began. Start from there, preserve it as an essentially Roman Rite with a 1-year calendar, and fine, reform it, but in a more careful way and over a much longer period of time.

Having a body of faithful and priests who live with the 1962 is key to how we'd be able to move forward.

Half opinion half speculation.

Well heck, that would be almost word for word what Laszlo Dobszay proposed in Restoration and Organic Development of the Roman Rite, after which he laid out his academic perspective on an authentic reform, in painstaking detail.

[Peace]

27 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Well heck, that would be almost word for word what Laszlo Dobszay proposed in Restoration and Organic Development of the Roman Rite, after which he laid out his academic perspective on an authentic reform, in painstaking detail.

Man I dunno I feel like some folks are using this "organic development" stuff basically as a stall-tactic. As a means to keep the Mass as close the the TLM as possible, for as long as possible.

There seems to be this idea that changes should be made to the Mass "little-by-little" over a period of hundreds of years or something like that, but that's not what Sacrosanctum Concilium contemplates. You don't see that in the document. It does have one short statement along the lines that innovations should derive in some way organically from an existing part of the Mass, but that's about it as far as that concept goes I think. The document contemplates major changes to the Mass to be implemented in the short term, not some drawn out process that is going to take 200 years.

[Nihil Obstat]

1 hour ago, Peace said:

Man I dunno I feel like some folks are using this "organic development" stuff basically as a stall-tactic. As a means to keep the Mass as close the the TLM as possible, for as long as possible.

There seems to be this idea that changes should be made to the Mass "little-by-little" over a period of hundreds of years or something like that, but that's not what Sacrosanctum Concilium contemplates. You don't see that in the document. It does have one short statement along the lines that innovations should derive in some way organically from an existing part of the Mass, but that's about it as far as that concept goes I think. The document contemplates major changes to the Mass to be implemented in the short term, not some drawn out process that is going to take 200 years.

So the document that makes major immediate changes claims that making major immediate changes is totally cool? Shocking development! 

 

You should give Dobszay a chance, if you have the time. His book is very scholarly (quite dense), not polemical in the slightest.

Mass was packed today. I suspect that most traditional Mass communities (the ones that were not shuttered today) were likewise packed 

 

[Peace]

11 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

So the document that makes major immediate changes claims that making major immediate changes is totally cool? Shocking development! 

Well whether or not making major immediate changes is a good thing is open to debate, but that's ultimately up for the bishops to decide.

11 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

You should give Dobszay a chance, if you have the time. His book is very scholarly (quite dense), not polemical in the slightest.

Sure. I mean, I'm not against the idea of gradual small changes to a liturgy instead of making wholesale large changes at once. There are pros to that way of doing things, certainly. My issue with it is not that I disagree with the idea itself, it's more one of authority I think. I see Vatican 2 as calling for certain changes. Whether or not those changes are a good idea or the best thing for the Church to do I do not know, but that's for the bishops to decide not me, and that is what they appear to have decided at V2.

If they want to have another council and reverse V2 a bit to save the TLM or what have you, it wouldn't bother me.

11 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Mass was packed today. I suspect that most traditional Mass communities (the ones that were not shuttered today) were likewise packed

I thought that might be the case. I actually thought to myself "maybe I might go to the TLM today because we may not see it again for a while." But I had to usher at a different Mass instead. Apparently during the TLM homily the pastor at our church said something along the lines that the TLM would be kept at the parish until a new location can be found for it outside of the church. As you might imagine that did not go over very well. Then this afternoon he sent out an email to the parish indicating that the Bishop would "allow the Latin Mass to continue within the Diocese" which gave folks some hope. But the email was pretty vague and says that the Bishop is contemplating how he will implement the changes required by PF's document.

But given the popularity of it within my diocese, I think it should be around for a while, the YA group at my parish is already organizing a letter writing campaign and stuff like that.

[Nihil Obstat]

5 minutes ago, Peace said:

 

My issue with it is not that I disagree with the idea itself, it's more one of authority I think. I see Vatican 2 as calling for certain changes. Whether or not those changes are a good idea or the best thing for the Church to do I do not know, but that's for the bishops to decide not me, and that is what they appear to have decided at V2.

 

5 minutes ago, Peace said:

 

Yes that has always been an aspect of the wider debate. A question that needs to be well understood and answered is whether or not the authority of the pope and a council is completely unlimited and unconditional. Or are there qualifications there? If so, what are they? How do we understand those subjects where even a pope's authority is constrained? 

Are we ultramontanist? Conciliarist? Is there another, more authentically Catholic standard?

I phrase those all rhetorically because I think that will be all I can say at this time.

[Jaime]

I had a hard time imagining a day when @KnightofChrist and I would ever be on the same side of a debate.  But here we are!  I'm going to confession today because we must be nearing the end of the world.

That this is being done for the sake of unity is a lie. Of course this brings more division.  It's yet one more thing in our world that suggests "wouldn't the world be a better place if". and it's not.  

I don't recall ever attending a TLM.  But the idea that it should be restricted (read "ended") in the name of ANYTHING is just wrong.  As I get older, I become more hesitant to be critical of clergy, vatican officials, the pope, but I cannot see this as a good move at all.

[Peace]

8 minutes ago, Jaime said:

  But the idea that it should be restricted (read "ended") in the name of ANYTHING is just wrong.  As I get older, I become more hesitant to be critical of clergy, vatican officials, the pope, but I cannot see this as a good move at all.

Well it may be "wrong" but that is what the bishops decided in Vatican 2. There is no reform if you are to keep using the exact same liturgy.

[Jaime]

29 minutes ago, Peace said:

Well it may be "wrong" but that is what the bishops decided in Vatican 2. There is no reform if you are to keep using the exact same liturgy.

Vatican II was not about reform.  It was about spiritual renewal

[Peace]

12 minutes ago, Jaime said:

Vatican II was not about reform.

Well Sacrosanctum Concilium states "The Reform of the Sacred Liturgy". That sounds like a reform of the liturgy to me, but perhaps you interpret that differently.

Edited July 19, 2021 by Peace

[qfnol31]

FWIW I think this is being used as a litmus test for Catholics. It is as though the Pope is saying, "You either follow my decision or you are clearly separating yourself from Peter. Those who deny Peter are henceforth cast out of the Church." Additionally, crazily, the Pope manages to be somewhat conciliarist in that he's forcing people to admit the legitimacy of the Second Vatican Council.

Okay, I've oversimplified a bit, but I really think this is aimed at those Catholics who are on the fringes and who are separated from the Church in their hearts, if not visibly. I'm saddened that we might be losing such a wonderful gift in the extraordinary form. I'm disheartened that the Pope (and/or his advisors) thinks it would be better to cast such a wide net. I'm also disheartened because I've known too many people who were caught up in that world. My best friend in high school left the Church because of these fights and the wrong apologetics offered by the Society of St. Pius X. My wife's family twice (!) abandoned clear communion with the Church to a situation that was quasi-schismatic. I think the sort of attitude that sometimes (unnecessarily!) accompanies the communities associated with this form is harmful.

I won't say whether I think this is a good decision or not, in part because I'm not certain. Surely this was a harsh decision. And worst of all, many faithful people were caught in the crossfire/wrongly identified as problematic. It's similar to the situation in my family today: a couple of my children aren't doing what they need to do and unfortunately the others will suffer the consequences as well (e.g., if they go into my daughters' room they'll hurt their feet or we might not go to the pool because certain work needs to be completed before we can go).

I trust that God guides his Church, even in difficult times. The Church has weathered far worse before (Iconoclasm!) and survived. I hope/trust she'll survive now.

In the end I must recognize that the Pope has the authority to do what he's done and I must in turn submit to it. I see that in the past decisions I wouldn't have chosen have brought about good, and maybe some good will come from this. I also hope that those who are in this situation will be able to endure in faith and charity, and thus continue build up the Church through their witness to what is true, good, and beautiful.

But yeah, this document was rough.

[Mercedes]

On 7/20/2021 at 5:26 AM, Jaime said:

Vatican II was not about reform.  It was about spiritual renewal

It was commonly described within the Council as an aggiornamento ie. bringing up to date.

[Peace]

Some young folks at my parish just started an online petition to "inform" the bishop that he can invoke Canon 87 to ignore the MP. I got people trying to convince me that the MP is inconsistent with Quo Primum.

Like the bishop is really gonna be educated by a 22 year old's interpretation of canon law?

It's starting to get ridiculous.

[KnightofChrist]

Bishop Paprocki, a canonist, has invoked Canon Law 87 for the spiritual good of his flock. 

 

 

 

 

 

[KnightofChrist]

For the record here are parts of a letter by Cardinal Mueller. Source: https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2021/07/19/cardinal-mueller-on-the-new-tlm-restrictions/

=======

"Nobody can turn a blind eye to the fact that even those priests and laypeople who celebrate Mass according to the order of the Missal of St. Paul VI are now being widely decried as traditionalist. The teachings of Vatican II on the uniqueness of redemption in Christ, the full realization of the Church of Christ in the Catholic Church, the inner essence of the Catholic liturgy as adoration of God and mediation of grace, Revelation and its presence in Scripture and Apostolic Tradition, the infallibility of the magisterium, the primacy of the pope, the sacramentality of the Church, the dignity of the priesthood, the holiness and indissolubility of marriage – all these are being heretically denied in open contradiction to Vatican II by a majority of German bishops and lay functionaries (even if disguised under pastoral phrases).

And despite all the apparent enthusiasm they express for Pope Francis, they are flatly denying the authority conferred on him by Christ as the successor of Peter. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s document about the impossibility of legitimizing same-sex and extramarital sexual contacts through a blessing is ridiculed by German (and not only German) bishops, priests, and theologians as merely the opinion of under-qualified curial officials. Here we have a threat to the unity of the Church in revealed faith, reminiscent of the size of the Protestant secession from Rome in the sixteenth century. Given the disproportion between the relatively modest response to the massive attacks on the unity of the church in the German “Synodal Way” (as well as in other pseudo-reforms) and the harsh disciplining of the old ritual minority, the image of the misguided fire brigade comes to mind, which – instead of saving the blazing house – instead first saves the small barn next to it.

Without the slightest empathy, one ignores the religious feelings of the (often young) participants in the Masses according to the Missal John XXIII. (1962) Instead of appreciating the smell of the sheep, the shepherd here hits them hard with his crook. It also seems simply unjust to abolish celebrations of the “old” rite just because it attracts some problematic people: abusus non tollit usum."

Edited July 21, 2021 by KnightofChrist