TRADITIONIS CUSTODES

[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

[truthfinder]

33 minutes ago, SicutColumba said:

So the TLM is regulated to hotel lobbies and conference centers? I don’t get it. 

This is how it was in some places before SP. the difference now is that there is many, many times the number of people who attend than in say 1988 when the Ecclesia Dei rules came out. 
 

In terms of promoting unity, this instead labels us the rebellious, petulant teenagers who need to move out of the house. Rather than finding ways to promote unity, it will separate devotees even more. I’m interested in seeing if some priests transfer to SSPX. 

[Hna.Caridad]

1 hour ago, KnightofChrist said:

 

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.  

 

I hear your rage, and offer a suggestion:  in order for your concern for abused children to be taken seriously, when you come down on Pope Francis, it would behoove you to also come down on John Paul II and maybe even Benedict XVI.  The abuse of children and cover-up is a problem that certainly pre-dated Francis' election. 

Please remember who it was that kept promoting McCarrick.  For those who think that John Paul II "didn't know":  he was PAID not to know.  He received funds ($90,000) from McCarrick and possibly even more from Marcial Maciel Degollado.  Benedict XVI wouldn't take money from Maciel Degollado, though he did accept $291,000 from McCarrick.

This is a long-time systemic problem and acting like it started in 2013 doesn't do anyone any favors.  In fact, it actually makes your legitimate concern for children sound insincere.

[KnightofChrist]

2 minutes ago, Hna.Caridad said:

I hear your rage, and offer a suggestion:  in order for your concern for abused children to be taken seriously, when you come down on Pope Francis, it would behoove you to also come down on John Paul II and maybe even Benedict XVI.  The abuse of children and cover-up is a problem that certainly pre-dated Francis' election. 

Please remember who it was that kept promoting McCarrick.  For those who think that John Paul II "didn't know":  he was PAID not to know.  He received funds ($90,000) from McCarrick and possibly even more from Marcial Maciel Degollado.  Benedict XVI wouldn't take money from Maciel Degollado, though he did accept $291,000 from McCarrick.

This is a long-time systemic problem and acting like it started in 2013 doesn't do anyone any favors.  In fact, it actually makes your legitimate concern for children sound insincere.

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.

[Peace]

2 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

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.

This is basically the issue and the solution - but not just for trads for the entire Church, myself included of course.

38 minutes 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.

PF is fairly criticized but yeah the timing can look suspect sometimes I think. Like if PF is criticized with respect to the sexual abuse scandal only when he is trying to address some other issue, it may seem that the sexual abuse issue is only being used to deflect away attention from the other issue.

Maybe its better just to keep the various issues separate.

Edited July 16, 2021 by Peace

[KnightofChrist]

7 minutes ago, Peace said:

This is basically the issue and the solution - but not just for trads for the entire Church, myself included of course.

PF is fairly criticized but yeah the timing can look suspect sometimes I think. Like if PF is criticized with respect to the sexual abuse scandal only when he is trying to address some other issue, it may seem that the sexual abuse issue is only being used to deflect away attention from the other issue.

Maybe its better just to keep the various issues separate.

No, I cannot agree. The application of  law is being applied in a most profoundly heavy handed and unbalanced nature. 

[Peace]

1 minute ago, KnightofChrist said:

No, I cannot agree. The application of  law is being applied in a most profoundly heavy handed and unbalanced nature. 

Well I can understand why you would feel that way.

[KnightofChrist]

8 minutes ago, Peace said:

Well I can understand why you would feel that way.

Thank you.

[Peace]

1 hour ago, truthfinder said:

This is how it was in some places before SP. the difference now is that there is many, many times the number of people who attend than in say 1988 when the Ecclesia Dei rules came out. 

At least in the short term I think many bishops will allow parishes that have the TLM continue to celebrate it. From what I heard my bishop has allowed all the parishes that have the TLM to celebrate it this weekend at least. I'd be surprised if he doesn't allow them to continue since there is a solid group of young folks in our diocese who is drawn to it.

1 hour ago, truthfinder said:

In terms of promoting unity, this instead labels us the rebellious, petulant teenagers who need to move out of the house. Rather than finding ways to promote unity, it will separate devotees even more. I’m interested in seeing if some priests transfer to SSPX. 

Well I don't know what effect it will have on unity ultimately. You can make that argument both ways I think. The trads will say that all Masses should be in a common church language (Latin) because its important to have one universal language for everyone to speak and understand. If PF one day woke up and said "all Masses will be according to the 1962 missal" trads would say it is a great thing for the unification of the church. I don't think trads have an issue with the idea that uniform customs throughout the church promote unity - its that only in this case they are on the outside looking in as for what they prefer.

But that being said practically yeah - it may have the effect of pushing some people away. But that is kind of a litmus test of fidelity to the Church isn't it? I mean, if PF was like "Only TLM from tomorrow" that may not be my cup of tea, but I'd be at the TLM on Sunday. I'm not going to leave the Church because of it. If someone says "I'm going to go join SSPX because I must have the TLM and will not follow the pope" - how much fidelity does that person really have? Was he/she really in the Church in the first place?

[truthfinder]

4 minutes ago, Peace said:

how much fidelity does that person really have? Was he/she really in the Church in the first place?

Considering the faculties the pope extended to the SSPX in the last few years, it's really hard to argue they're out of the church.

But this modernist attachment to 'unity' is really to uniformity -"you have to do and think like me" and it found among those who favour the NO and the EF.  And this attachment to uniformity is problematic: it introduced Latinizations into the Eastern churches and just as much as it made people hold hands during the Our Father. On the ground, there's many chapels and churches which have different little customs in the EF - when exactly one stands, approaches the altar rail, etc. In well formed places, those who actually know the history and practices of the form, they're fine with variation.  Those that are not will try to convince you that you're a sinful modernist for not kneeling through the epistle.  But it cuts both ways: you're a sinful, rigid trad if you kneel after Communion.

Unity in spirit and theology, not uniformity of practice, is what should be sought.

[Peace]

33 minutes ago, truthfinder said:

Considering the faculties the pope extended to the SSPX in the last few years, it's really hard to argue they're out of the church.

Well that's a whole other can of worms. How can a group reject important parts of Vatican 2 and claim not to be in schism? How can they say that the NO Mass is not valid and not be in schism? Make it make sense.

33 minutes ago, truthfinder said:

But this modernist attachment to 'unity' is really to uniformity -"you have to do and think like me" and it found among those who favour the NO and the EF.  And this attachment to uniformity is problematic: it introduced Latinizations into the Eastern churches and just as much as it made people hold hands during the Our Father. On the ground, there's many chapels and churches which have different little customs in the EF - when exactly one stands, approaches the altar rail, etc. In well formed places, those who actually know the history and practices of the form, they're fine with variation.  Those that are not will try to convince you that you're a sinful modernist for not kneeling through the epistle.  But it cuts both ways: you're a sinful, rigid trad if you kneel after Communion.

Unity in spirit and theology, not uniformity of practice, is what should be sought.

Yeah I think that "do and think like me" attitude can be found among people all along the "trad to liberal spectrum" if you will. Some trads can seem to have that attitude but in certain respects I think you can see the same attitude among more liberal Catholics. Maybe the best thing is to have certain things that are universal or shared among all Catholics, while still allowing some degree of variation so that we all just don't become a bunch of rigid rule followers (regardless of whose rules are being applied).

Edited July 16, 2021 by Peace