PopeWatch: Pope Declares War on the Traditional Mass

It is on:

ROME (AP) — Pope Francis cracked down Friday on the spread of the old Latin Mass, reversing one of Pope Benedict XVI’s signature decisions in a major challenge to traditionalist Catholics who immediately decried it as an attack on them and the ancient liturgy.

Francis reimposed restrictions on celebrating the Latin Mass that Benedict relaxed in 2007, and went further to limit its use. The pontiff said he was taking action because Benedict’s reform had become a source of division in the church and been exploited by Catholics opposed to the Second Vatican Council, the 1960s meetings that modernized the church and its liturgy.

Critics said they had never before witnessed a pope so thoroughly reversing his predecessor. That the reversal concerned something so fundamental as the liturgy, while Benedict is still alive and living in the Vatican as a retired pope, only amplified the extraordinary nature of Francis’ move, which will surely result in more right-wing hostility directed at him.

Francis, 84, issued a new law requiring individual bishops to approve celebrations of the old Mass, also called the Tridentine Mass, and requiring newly ordained priests to receive explicit permission to celebrate it from their bishops in consultation with the Vatican.

Under the new law, bishops must also determine if the current groups of faithful attached to the old Mass accept Vatican II, which allowed for Mass to be celebrated in the vernacular rather than Latin. These groups cannot use regular churches for their services; instead, bishops must find an alternate location for them without creating new parishes.

In addition, Francis said bishops are no longer allowed to authorize the formation of any new pro-Latin Mass groups in their dioceses.

Francis said he was taking action to promote unity and heal divisions within the church that had grown since Benedict’s 2007 document, Summorum Pontificum. He said he based his decision on a 2020 Vatican survey of all the world’s bishops, whose “responses reveal a situation that preoccupies and saddens me, and persuades me of the need to intervene.”

Go here to read the rest.  Unless he is a complete idiot, and that possibility should not be completely discounted, Pope Francis is forcing a schism.  Worst Pope ever.

Update I:

Letter from the Pope on this monstrosity:

Dear Brothers in the Episcopate,

Just as my Predecessor Benedict XVI did with Summorum Pontificum, I wish to accompany the Motu proprio Traditionis custodes with a letter explaining the motives that prompted my decision. I turn to you with trust and parresia, in the name of that shared “solicitude for the whole Church, that contributes supremely to the good of the Universal Church” as Vatican Council II reminds us.[1]

Most people understand the motives that prompted St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI to allow the use of the Roman Missal, promulgated by St. Pius V and edited by St. John XXIII in 1962, for the Eucharistic Sacrifice. The faculty — granted by the indult of the Congregation for Divine Worship in 1984[2] and confirmed by St. John Paul II in the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei in 1988[3] — was above all motivated by the desire to foster the healing of the schism with the movement of Mons. Lefebvre. With the ecclesial intention of restoring the unity of the Church, the Bishops were thus asked to accept with generosity the “just aspirations” of the faithful who requested the use of that Missal.

Many in the Church came to regard this faculty as an opportunity to adopt freely the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and use it in a manner parallel to the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Paul VI. In order to regulate this situation at the distance of many years, Benedict XVI intervened to address this state of affairs in the Church. Many priests and communities had “used with gratitude the possibility offered by the Motu proprio” of St. John Paul II. Underscoring that this development was not foreseeable in 1988, the Motu proprio Summorum Pontificum of 2007 intended to introduce “a clearer juridical regulation” in this area.[4] In order to allow access to those, including young people, who when “they discover this liturgical form, feel attracted to it and find in it a form, particularly suited to them, to encounter the mystery of the most holy Eucharist”,[5] Benedict XVI declared “the Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and newly edited by Blessed John XXIII, as a extraordinary expression of the same lex orandi”, granting a “more ample possibility for the use of the 1962 Missal”.[6]

In making their decision they were confident that such a provision would not place in doubt one of the key measures of Vatican Council II or minimize in this way its authority: the Motu proprio recognized that, in its own right, “the Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the lex orandi of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite”.[7] The recognition of the Missal promulgated by St. Pius V “as an extraordinary expression of the same lex orandi” did not in any way underrate the liturgical reform, but was decreed with the desire to acknowledge the “insistent prayers of these faithful,” allowing them “to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass according to the editio typica of the Roman Missal promulgated by Blessed John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as the extraordinary form of the Liturgy of the Church”.[8] It comforted Benedict XVI in his discernment that many desired “to find the form of the sacred Liturgy dear to them,” “clearly accepted the binding character of Vatican Council II and were faithful to the Pope and to the Bishops”.[9] What is more, he declared to be unfounded the fear of division in parish communities, because “the two forms of the use of the Roman Rite would enrich one another”.[10] Thus, he invited the Bishops to set aside their doubts and fears, and to welcome the norms, “attentive that everything would proceed in peace and serenity,” with the promise that “it would be possible to find resolutions” in the event that “serious difficulties came to light” in the implementation of the norms “once the Motu proprio came into effect”.[11]

With the passage of thirteen years, I instructed the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to circulate a questionnaire to the Bishops regarding the implementation of the Motu proprio Summorum Pontificum. The responses reveal a situation that preoccupies and saddens me, and persuades me of the need to intervene. Regrettably, the pastoral objective of my Predecessors, who had intended “to do everything possible to ensure that all those who truly possessed the desire for unity would find it possible to remain in this unity or to rediscover it anew”,[12] has often been seriously disregarded. An opportunity offered by St. John Paul II and, with even greater magnanimity, by Benedict XVI, intended to recover the unity of an ecclesial body with diverse liturgical sensibilities, was exploited to widen the gaps, reinforce the divergences, and encourage disagreements that injure the Church, block her path, and expose her to the peril of division.

At the same time, I am saddened by abuses in the celebration of the liturgy on all sides. In common with Benedict XVI, I deplore the fact that “in many places the prescriptions of the new Missal are not observed in celebration, but indeed come to be interpreted as an authorization for or even a requirement of creativity, which leads to almost unbearable distortions”.[13] But I am nonetheless saddened that the instrumental use of Missale Romanum of 1962 is often characterized by a rejection not only of the liturgical reform, but of the Vatican Council II itself, claiming, with unfounded and unsustainable assertions, that it betrayed the Tradition and the “true Church”. The path of the Church must be seen within the dynamic of Tradition “which originates from the Apostles and progresses in the Church with the assistance of the Holy Spirit” (DV 8). A recent stage of this dynamic was constituted by Vatican Council II where the Catholic episcopate came together to listen and to discern the path for the Church indicated by the Holy Spirit. To doubt the Council is to doubt the intentions of those very Fathers who exercised their collegial power in a solemn manner cum Petro et sub Petro in an ecumenical council,[14] and, in the final analysis, to doubt the Holy Spirit himself who guides the Church.

The objective of the modification of the permission granted by my Predecessors is highlighted by the Second Vatican Council itself. From the vota submitted by the Bishops there emerged a great insistence on the full, conscious and active participation of the whole People of God in the liturgy,[15] along lines already indicated by Pius XII in the encyclical Mediator Dei on the renewal of the liturgy.[16] The constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium confirmed this appeal, by seeking “the renewal and advancement of the liturgy”,[17] and by indicating the principles that should guide the reform.[18] In particular, it established that these principles concerned the Roman Rite, and other legitimate rites where applicable, and asked that “the rites be revised carefully in the light of sound tradition, and that they be given new vigor to meet present-day circumstances and needs”.[19] On the basis of these principles a reform of the liturgy was undertaken, with its highest expression in the Roman Missal, published in editio typica by St. Paul VI[20] and revised by St. John Paul II.[21] It must therefore be maintained that the Roman Rite, adapted many times over the course of the centuries according to the needs of the day, not only be preserved but renewed “in faithful observance of the Tradition”.[22] Whoever wishes to celebrate with devotion according to earlier forms of the liturgy can find in the reformed Roman Missal according to Vatican Council II all the elements of the Roman Rite, in particular the Roman Canon which constitutes one of its more distinctive elements.

A final reason for my decision is this: ever more plain in the words and attitudes of many is the close connection between the choice of celebrations according to the liturgical books prior to Vatican Council II and the rejection of the Church and her institutions in the name of what is called the “true Church.” One is dealing here with comportment that contradicts communion and nurtures the divisive tendency — “I belong to Paul; I belong instead to Apollo; I belong to Cephas; I belong to Christ” — against which the Apostle Paul so vigorously reacted.[23] In defense of the unity of the Body of Christ, I am constrained to revoke the faculty granted by my Predecessors. The distorted use that has been made of this faculty is contrary to the intentions that led to granting the freedom to celebrate the Mass with the Missale Romanum of 1962. Because “liturgical celebrations are not private actions, but celebrations of the Church, which is the sacrament of unity”,[24] they must be carried out in communion with the Church. Vatican Council II, while it reaffirmed the external bonds of incorporation in the Church — the profession of faith, the sacraments, of communion — affirmed with St. Augustine that to remain in the Church not only “with the body” but also “with the heart” is a condition for salvation.[25]

Dear brothers in the Episcopate, Sacrosanctum Concilium explained that the Church, the “sacrament of unity,” is such because it is “the holy People gathered and governed under the authority of the Bishops”.[26] Lumen gentium, while recalling that the Bishop of Rome is “the permanent and visible principle and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the multitude of the faithful,” states that you the Bishops are “the visible principle and foundation of the unity of your local Churches, in which and through which exists the one and only Catholic Church”.[27]

Responding to your requests, I take the firm decision to abrogate all the norms, instructions, permissions and customs that precede the present Motu proprio, and declare that the liturgical books promulgated by the saintly Pontiffs Paul VI and John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II, constitute the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite. I take comfort in this decision from the fact that, after the Council of Trent, St. Pius V also abrogated all the rites that could not claim a proven antiquity, establishing for the whole Latin Church a single Missale Romanum. For four centuries this Missale Romanum, promulgated by St. Pius V was thus the principal expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite, and functioned to maintain the unity of the Church. Without denying the dignity and grandeur of this Rite, the Bishops gathered in ecumenical council asked that it be reformed; their intention was that “the faithful would not assist as strangers and silent spectators in the mystery of faith, but, with a full understanding of the rites and prayers, would participate in the sacred action consciously, piously, and actively”.[28] St. Paul VI, recalling that the work of adaptation of the Roman Missal had already been initiated by Pius XII, declared that the revision of the Roman Missal, carried out in the light of ancient liturgical sources, had the goal of permitting the Church to raise up, in the variety of languages, “a single and identical prayer,” that expressed her unity.[29] This unity I intend to re-establish throughout the Church of the Roman Rite.

Vatican Council II, when it described the catholicity of the People of God, recalled that “within the ecclesial communion” there exist the particular Churches which enjoy their proper traditions, without prejudice to the primacy of the Chair of Peter who presides over the universal communion of charity, guarantees the legitimate diversity and together ensures that the particular not only does not injure the universal but above all serves it”.[30] While, in the exercise of my ministry in service of unity, I take the decision to suspend the faculty granted by my Predecessors, I ask you to share with me this burden as a form of participation in the solicitude for the whole Church proper to the Bishops. In the Motu proprio I have desired to affirm that it is up to the Bishop, as moderator, promoter, and guardian of the liturgical life of the Church of which he is the principle of unity, to regulate the liturgical celebrations. It is up to you to authorize in your Churches, as local Ordinaries, the use of the Missale Romanum of 1962, applying the norms of the present Motu proprio. It is up to you to proceed in such a way as to return to a unitary form of celebration, and to determine case by case the reality of the groups which celebrate with this Missale Romanum.

Indications about how to proceed in your dioceses are chiefly dictated by two principles: on the one hand, to provide for the good of those who are rooted in the previous form of celebration and need to return in due time to the Roman Rite promulgated by Saints Paul VI and John Paul II, and, on the other hand, to discontinue the erection of new personal parishes tied more to the desire and wishes of individual priests than to the real need of the “holy People of God.” At the same time, I ask you to be vigilant in ensuring that every liturgy be celebrated with decorum and fidelity to the liturgical books promulgated after Vatican Council II, without the eccentricities that can easily degenerate into abuses. Seminarians and new priests should be formed in the faithful observance of the prescriptions of the Missal and liturgical books, in which is reflected the liturgical reform willed by Vatican Council II.

Upon you I invoke the Spirit of the risen Lord, that he may make you strong and firm in your service to the People of God entrusted to you by the Lord, so that your care and vigilance express communion even in the unity of one, single Rite, in which is preserved the great richness of the Roman liturgical tradition. I pray for you. You pray for me.

FRANCIS

Update II:

Here is the Motu Proprio:

APOSTOLIC LETTER
ISSUED “MOTU PROPRIO”
BY THE SUPREME PONTIFF

FRANCIS

“TRADITIONIS CUSTODES”

ON THE USE OF THE ROMAN LITURGY PRIOR TO THE REFORM OF 1970

Guardians of the tradition, the bishops in communion with the Bishop of Rome constitute the visible principle and foundation of the unity of their particular Churches.[1] Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, through the proclamation of the Gospel and by means of the celebration of the Eucharist, they govern the particular Churches entrusted to them.[2]

In order to promote the concord and unity of the Church, with paternal solicitude towards those who in any region adhere to liturgical forms antecedent to the reform willed by the Vatican Council II, my Venerable Predecessors, Saint John Paul II and Benedict XVI, granted and regulated the faculty to use the Roman Missal edited by John XXIII in 1962.[3] In this way they intended “to facilitate the ecclesial communion of those Catholics who feel attached to some earlier liturgical forms” and not to others.[4]

In line with the initiative of my Venerable Predecessor Benedict XVI to invite the bishops to assess the application of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum three years after its publication, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith carried out a detailed consultation of the bishops in 2020. The results have been carefully considered in the light of experience that has matured during these years.

At this time, having considered the wishes expressed by the episcopate and having heard the opinion of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, I now desire, with this Apostolic Letter, to press on ever more in the constant search for ecclesial communion. Therefore, I have considered it appropriate to establish the following:

Art. 1. The liturgical books promulgated by Saint Paul VI and Saint John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II, are the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.

Art. 2. It belongs to the diocesan bishop, as moderator, promoter, and guardian of the whole liturgical life of the particular Church entrusted to him,[5] to regulate the liturgical celebrations of his diocese.[6] Therefore, it is his exclusive competence to authorize the use of the 1962 Roman Missal in his diocese, according to the guidelines of the Apostolic See.

Art. 3. The bishop of the diocese in which until now there exist one or more groups that celebrate according to the Missal antecedent to the reform of 1970:

§ 1. is to determine that these groups do not deny the validity and the legitimacy of the liturgical reform, dictated by Vatican Council II and the Magisterium of the Supreme Pontiffs;

§ 2. is to 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);

§ 3. to establish at the designated locations the days on which eucharistic celebrations are permitted using the Roman Missal promulgated by Saint John XXIII in 1962.[7] In these celebrations the readings are proclaimed in the vernacular language, using translations of the Sacred Scripture approved for liturgical use by the respective Episcopal Conferences;

§ 4. to appoint a priest who, as delegate of the bishop, is entrusted with these celebrations and with the pastoral care of these groups of the faithful. This priest should be suited for this responsibility, skilled in the use of the Missale Romanum antecedent to the reform of 1970, possess a knowledge of the Latin language sufficient for a thorough comprehension of the rubrics and liturgical texts, and be animated by a lively pastoral charity and by a sense of ecclesial communion. This priest should have at heart not only the correct celebration of the liturgy, but also the pastoral and spiritual care of the faithful;

§ 5. to proceed suitably to verify that the parishes canonically erected for the benefit of these faithful are effective for their spiritual growth, and to determine whether or not to retain them;

§ 6. to take care not to authorize the establishment of new groups.

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.

Art. 5. Priests who already celebrate according to the Missale Romanum of 1962 should request from the diocesan Bishop the authorization to continue to enjoy this faculty.

Art. 6. Institutes of consecrated life and Societies of apostolic life, erected by the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, fall under the competence of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies for Apostolic Life.

Art. 7. The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments and the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, for matters of their particular competence, exercise the authority of the Holy See with respect to the observance of these provisions.

Art. 8. Previous norms, instructions, permissions, and customs that do not conform to the provisions of the present Motu Proprio are abrogated.

Everything that I have declared in this Apostolic Letter in the form of Motu Proprio, I order to be observed in all its parts, anything else to the contrary notwithstanding, even if worthy of particular mention, and I establish that it be promulgated by way of publication in “L’Osservatore Romano”, entering immediately in force and, subsequently, that it be published in the official Commentary of the Holy See, Acta Apostolicae Sedis.

Given at Rome, at Saint John Lateran, on 16 July 2021, the liturgical Memorial of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, in the ninth year of Our Pontificate.

FRANCIS

 

 

 

0 0 votes
Article Rating
43 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
John F. Kennedy
John F. Kennedy
Friday, July 16, AD 2021 9:00am

“Critics said they had never before witnessed a pope so thoroughly reversing his predecessor. ”
Just wait until Bergoglio, aka “Pope Francis” is gone.

Article 4 is a poison pill to insure all future priests will be prohibited from ever offering the “EF” Mass. Demonic.

Elizabeth
Elizabeth
Friday, July 16, AD 2021 9:01am

So it’s worse than I thought it’d be. And it’s now war. And it’s now SSPX. What a maroon this dude is.

Dale Price
Dale Price
Friday, July 16, AD 2021 9:23am

The NO preserves 48.3% of “the great richness of the Roman liturgical tradition.”

https://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2021/07/mythbusting-how-much-of-1962-missal-is.html#.YPGiS0wpA2w

One can only conclude with this edict that the pontiff wants to make sure to sever the memory of the Catholic faith from the Vatican II project.

If you can’t see the old liturgy in action, you won’t be as able to ask all sorts of pesky questions about the pseudo-Catholic construct the regime is trying to erect.

Not that that will stop the unblinking fanboys from places like Where Is Peter from cheering like good Stalinists, but it might shake loose a few still clinging to the hermeneutic of continuity read of Francis.

DJH
DJH
Friday, July 16, AD 2021 9:33am

I predict an increased interest in the Eastern (Catholic) Churches.

Greg Mockeridge
Greg Mockeridge
Friday, July 16, AD 2021 10:05am

If I were the Superior General of the SSPX, I’d never stop being thankful for this pontificate because no one has done more to ensure the survival…and growth of that community than Pope Juan Peron II.

In the meantime, I will eagerly await Jimmy Akin’s Ten Things to Know and Share post on this. It ought to be mind numbing rationalization at its finest.

John F. Kennedy
John F. Kennedy
Friday, July 16, AD 2021 10:19am

I think the issuing of this today was of particular significance. On this date in 1054, the Great Schism began.

Pinky
Pinky
Friday, July 16, AD 2021 10:26am

There are lots of issues to be raised here, but I’m having a problem with this one. if we’ve gone from the NO as the ordinary expression and the TLM as the extraordinary expression, to the NO as the unique expression, how could the TLM be permitted at all?

c matt
c matt
Friday, July 16, AD 2021 10:39am

Man, I am going to have to get started on that priest hole sooner than I thought.

Greg Mockeridge
Greg Mockeridge
Friday, July 16, AD 2021 10:52am

“ I doubt the Pope has a clue as to the fury of the whirlwind he has now unleashed.“

Actually, Don, I think the more dangerous truth is he DOES have a clue as to the “fury of the whirlwind he has unleashed.”

Art Deco
Art Deco
Friday, July 16, AD 2021 10:56am

What the Pope doesn’t realize is that serial abuse of authority and abuse of everyone’s patience generates non-compliance. (And recruits to the SSPX).

Art Deco
Art Deco
Friday, July 16, AD 2021 11:03am

I go to the NO Mass as the Traditional Mass is not offered at my parish. I think anger over this will reverberate far beyond those who will now suddenly find themselves cut off from the Traditional Mas.

I’ll offer an alternative hypothesis: that this latest travesty will increase the degree to which committed Catholics and faithful clergy look upon the utterances of the Pope as static to be ignored.

Don L
Don L
Friday, July 16, AD 2021 11:16am

“…because it had become a source of division…”
Gee, isn’t that what they said in order to crucify our Lord?
The very idea that “unity,” in itself, is always an automatic higher good is ludicrous and is far too often used by evil-doers to confuse and obfuscate the doing of a good.
Unity, loyalty, patriotism, obedience, discipline, teamwork, etc, are all heart-tugging buzzwords than can mean the opposite of what people perceive, depending upon their goal.
(i.e. The Nazis had most of those “virtues)
As for the traditional Mass being “division” one must ask, who is causing the division over it?

Pinky
Pinky
Friday, July 16, AD 2021 11:21am

Don L – I think this was a bad move too, but let’s be honest here, there are plenty of TLM attendees who regularly cross the line into schism or even heresy. I think the good outweighs the bad within the Latin Mass community, but there is plenty of bad. A pope who was less panicked about rigidity could have addressed it.

John F. Kennedy
John F. Kennedy
Friday, July 16, AD 2021 11:28am

I think this was a bad move too, but let’s be honest here, there are plenty of NO attendees who regularly cross the line into schism or even heresy. I think the good outweighs the bad within the NO community, but there is plenty of bad. A “pope” who was less enthusiastic about heresies could have addressed it.

David WS
David WS
Friday, July 16, AD 2021 11:34am

@Art Deco
I’ll go even further than your:
“ alternative hypothesis: that this latest travesty will increase the degree to which committed Catholics and faithful clergy look upon the utterances of the Pope as static to be ignored.”

Faithful Catholics who have up to now attended NO Mass, will be looking in earnest for the Traditional Mass and more.

Art Deco
Art Deco
Friday, July 16, AD 2021 12:21pm

Don L – I think this was a bad move too, but let’s be honest here, there are plenty of TLM attendees who regularly cross the line into schism or even heresy.

You’re not being honest here. SSPX is disobedient, but not schismatic. As for heresy, let’s see a comparative content analysis of Catholic Family News v. America.

A more salient problem with Traditionalism is the affinity of some of its adherents for social and scientific discussion off on weird tangents.

Art Deco
Art Deco
Friday, July 16, AD 2021 12:25pm

Faithful Catholics who have up to now attended NO Mass, will be looking in earnest for the Traditional Mass and more.

Perhaps. What I figure will happen is an elaboration on a phenomenon you already saw prior to 2007: ‘independent chapels’ where the old mass is offered off-the-books by priests with full faculties. Some of the better bishops will re-institute Benedict’s blanket permission.

DJH
DJH
Friday, July 16, AD 2021 12:36pm

“I think this was a bad move too, but let’s be honest here, there are plenty of TLM attendees who regularly cross the line into schism or even heresy.”
.
Pot calling the kettle black. The NO attendees are steeped in the heresy of fornication/contraception/abortion/divorce–at least far more so than the TLM types are (as far as I can tell). That’s one of the reasons why NO parishes (and yes, even Easter Rite parishes) are old and grey. TLM types not nearly as much. A smart bishop is going to pay close attention to demographics.

Dave G.
Dave G.
Friday, July 16, AD 2021 12:43pm

“The very idea that “unity,” in itself, is always an automatic higher good is ludicrous”

If the ones insisting on unity even pretended to want unity rather than conformity it wouldn’t be half bad.

David WS
David WS
Friday, July 16, AD 2021 1:26pm

@DJH, for decades and decades now Bishops have not been concerned neither:
– Teaching on “fornication/contraception/abortion/divorce” and general catechization.
– Families and children (exception being immigrants and those who could afford private “catholic” school, the vast majority they cared not for).

The USCCB has been more concerned with money from the government and not offending “catholic” politicians who graduated from their schools and oppose Life.

I’m afraid that none of this will change, until the money runs out and it will. Parishes were looking grayed out before COVID, now they’re very grayed out. In a few years the only vibrant parishes could be the Traditionalists? And the only NO might be in Spanish, but that still would likely vanish in a generation or two.

c matt
c matt
Friday, July 16, AD 2021 2:09pm

The NO preserves 48.3% of “the great richness of the Roman liturgical tradition.”

Awesome!! It’s only 51.7% arsenic!

c matt
c matt
Friday, July 16, AD 2021 2:13pm

Some of the better bishops will re-institute Benedict’s blanket permission.

You think maybe all three of them will?

c matt
c matt
Friday, July 16, AD 2021 2:20pm

A smart bishop is going to pay close attention to demographics.

More realistically, a smart bishop is going to pay attention to which way the ecclesial political winds blow, and I am fairly confident it is not in the TLM’s direction. Bergoglio is short for this world, but the cabal that placed him is not. Coupled with the apathy of 90% of the faithful, it is practically a no-brainer from a careerist squishop pov, and the vast majority of our bishops fall into that category. I would love to be proven wrong.

c matt
c matt
Friday, July 16, AD 2021 2:24pm

even Easter Rite parishes

Hehehe – don’t forget the Christmas Rite, Baptism Rite, Confirmation Rite, Wedding Rite, and Funeral Rite parishes. Collectively known as the “Special Occasionox Churches”

c matt
c matt
Friday, July 16, AD 2021 2:28pm

committed Catholics and faithful clergy look upon the utterances of the Pope as static to be ignored.

Or – to be carefully studied and believe/do the opposite.

DJH
DJH
Friday, July 16, AD 2021 2:28pm

LOL. I reread that. I meant Eastern Rite–the Byzantines, Maronites, etc.

Mark
Mark
Friday, July 16, AD 2021 2:34pm

There are no printable words which can fully express my disgust at this M/P and its author.

DJH
DJH
Friday, July 16, AD 2021 2:38pm

Oh, I realize most current bishops, cardinals and priests don’t much care about sexual sins and their destructive attributes, but a smart bishop–perhaps what I mean is a long-term thinking bishop (or priest)–is going to see what the families with children are doing. Because eventually, that is where the money will come from. Governbment funds will absolutely go by the wayside. I am surprised the German government still gives the Churches (various denominations) any.
.
I am going to guess most of the NO parishes and a very solid chunk of the Eastern Rite parishes have, what, maybe 50 years left? The dead will not put anything in the collection basket.
.
Only religious communities with strong family bonds and a willingness to procreate will survive.

Pinky
Pinky
Friday, July 16, AD 2021 2:45pm

Art, maybe you disagree with me, but I’m not being dishonest. In my experience of diocesan TLM’s, I’ve found beliefs from orthodoxy to Feeney to Lefebvre to Luther. The TLM is a source of great sacramental beauty and holiness, but it also attracts some folks who are off the reservation. And not just the older people. That’s the disturbing part to me. The communities can perpetuate and propagate dissent among the younger Catholics who are thirsting for the Faith.

But surely the Holy Father should understand the difference between applying a splint for a broken leg and amputating it! That’s the thing. I can understand his concerns, or at least what reasonable concerns would be, but this is such a bad way of handling it. I think there are some good bishops out there, and ones that would protect the old Mass, but it’s like he’s daring them to step out of line. I’m not going to judge his soul, but if he were a petty and vain man who couldn’t comprehend that there are orthodox people who don’t like him, he would act in just this way. He makes it hard to argue that he’s a well-meaning but mistaken shepherd.

Rudolph Harrier
Rudolph Harrier
Friday, July 16, AD 2021 3:40pm

Some thoughts:
-There have been bad popes throughout history. Maybe even literally damned popes. So logically speaking we could live through such a pope. But it is hard for us to imagine this situation, especially since John Paul II and Benedict XVI were very good popes.
-However at the end of the day the judgment of souls is for God alone. And there is an ideal towards obedience in Catholicism, even towards authority which acts improperly. In fact that’s what makes an authority an authority: the fact that he can impose a duty on you even if it’s a bad idea. Otherwise an authority would just be an advisor.
-Of course, no authority can compel us to do what is against God’s law.
-While the pope has authority over all believers in the sense that he is the head of the Church on Earth, in practice most of the authority is very indirect. We are like peasants living at the fringes of the Roman Empire. In theory the emperor might be our sovereign but in practice we can live our lives without ever seeing him or thinking about him, and most of his decrees will not even mention us. This is not a bad thing. The fact that modern media has convinced us that we all have a direct line to the pope is an unusual and bad thing.

Rudolph Harrier
Rudolph Harrier
Friday, July 16, AD 2021 3:48pm

Another thought:
-Heresies come in pairs. The more well known heresy in today’s world is the idea that the pope has no authority, or that he is at most just another religious figure. This is of course false, even with a bad pope.

But the corresponding heresy is that the pope’s authority is absolute, as if he could say that black is white and all Catholics would be obliged to believe this. Going along with this is the idea that the laity has no role except to accept whatever they are told. Even in feudalism the king has obligations towards the peasant and the peasant can make (limited) demands of the king, and so too is it here. The Church is not a democracy where authority is derived from the will of the people. But neither is it a caste system where those at the bottom must be slaves to those higher up.

What this practically means is that you are obliged to be obedient to your priest, and indirectly to your bishop, except when doing so would contradict God’s laws. You are obliged to be obedient to their commands. But this does not mean that you must be obedient silently, or that you cannot work to overturn those commands (so long as you do not directly disobey them.)

Art Deco
Art Deco
Friday, July 16, AD 2021 4:00pm

I can understand his concerns,
comment image

Art Deco
Art Deco
Friday, July 16, AD 2021 4:07pm

In my experience of diocesan TLM’s, I’ve found beliefs from orthodoxy to Feeney to Lefebvre to Luther.

You wanna look under that rock at your local novus ordinary parish? Yet, somehow no one suggests the NO cannot be celebrated absent explicit episcopal permission.

Pinky
Pinky
Friday, July 16, AD 2021 5:40pm

Art, I’ve seen some bad NO parishes, but obviously I don’t attend those regularly. Liturgical abuses, squishy sermons, and largely empty pews. I’ve never seen the constant hum of anti-clericalism and disobedience, though. Maybe those bad modern parishes don’t think about the pope enough to be constantly talking about schism. I’ve seen that in most TLM communities, though. I mean, that’s kind of the subtext of this whole conversation, right? If this were a condemnation of NO liturgical abuses, the abuses would probably just continue. There’d be no reaction, so no fear of schism. The reason this motu proprio matters is that the people affected by it are engaged enough, and potentially willing to walk.

Bob Kurland
Admin
Friday, July 16, AD 2021 5:41pm

The Anglican Ordinariate usage will be the salvation of the English speaking Church if “His Holiness” does not try to abolish that great deed of Pope Benedict SXVI.

Art Deco
Art Deco
Friday, July 16, AD 2021 6:45pm

I’ve never seen the constant hum of anti-clericalism and disobedience, though. Maybe those bad modern parishes don’t think about the pope enough to be constantly talking about schism. I’ve seen that in most TLM communities,

The local ordinary is not an antagonist of suburban NO parishes. This isn’t that difficult.

Art Deco
Art Deco
Friday, July 16, AD 2021 6:47pm

The reason this motu proprio matters is that the people affected by it are engaged enough, and potentially willing to walk.

No, that’s not the reason it matters. How long have you been employed by the diocesan chancery?

Art Deco
Art Deco
Friday, July 16, AD 2021 6:55pm

In the meantime, I will eagerly await Jimmy Akin’s Ten Things to Know and Share post on this. It ought to be mind numbing rationalization at its finest.
😉

I was never a regular reader. AFAICT, Jimmy Akin posted his last ‘know and share’ column on 1 Feburary 2017. He may have run out of gas.

Rudolph Harrier
Rudolph Harrier
Friday, July 16, AD 2021 6:59pm

Pinky,
Think about what this statement really means:

If this were a condemnation of NO liturgical abuses, the abuses would probably just continue. There’d be no reaction, so no fear of schism.

You imagine a situation in which supporters of NO defy orders of their superiors and continue abuses. Yet in your mind such an action would not have a hint of schism. Why is that?

Think about it deeply. You’ve touched on a very good observation about the state of the Church, but you haven’t fully unpacked what it is yet.

GregB
GregB
Friday, July 16, AD 2021 9:46pm

DJH To me the First and Sixth Commandments are joined at the hip. Holy Matrimony is founded on a covenant. Christ’s Bride the Church is founded on His New Covenant ratified in His Own Blood on the Cross. Covenants are supposed to be permanent. In Francis-speak they could be considered to be “rigid.” How many modernists take vows, promises, oaths, and covenants seriously? The modernists appear bound and determined to discard Christ’s New Covenant and create a church in the world’s image and likeness. They look like they are trying to turn Christ’s Bride into the Whore of Babylon.

Frank
Frank
Saturday, July 17, AD 2021 7:18am

GregB: A hundred Amens.

Scroll to Top