TRADITIONIS CUSTODES

[Nihil Obstat]

Fair comment, I thought, from Janet Smith yesterday (yes that Janet Smith).

 

This was the comment I made to my traditionalist audience on a page I assist in moderating.

 

[Ash Wednesday]

Well, I didn't know who Janet Smith was until just looking her up now, but she has a point. (I've probably seen her before but my brain can be swiss cheese.)

"Dialog, tolerance, mercy and accompaniment" is conditional. But hey, maybe someday Lefebvre will get a statue and postage stamp like Luther did. 

[Nihil Obstat]

10 minutes ago, Ash Wednesday said:

Well, I didn't know who Janet Smith was until just looking her up now, but she has a point.

One of the best parts of social media, I think, is that I can be quasi-friends with a bunch of famous-within-niche-interests people like Janet Smith, Thomas Pink, or Pater Edmund Waldstein.

[Peace]

4 hours ago, Ash Wednesday said:

It's fine, there are plenty of "which liturgy" debates out there and I don't even attend the TLM exclusively at all. Mostly I'm just sympathetic to liturgical freedom and don't like the idea of people having their hand forced about what liturgy they attend. I know some people feel strongly enough that they want to see the Novus Ordo banned but I don't think that would be prudent treatment of the faithful at all.

In general I'm in favor of freedom too. I mean not elephants and clowns at Mass or what have you, but some degree of freedom as long as its good and proper.

But yeah now it seems that a bunch of the "Say the black, do the red" folks see the value in allowing for liturgical diversity now that they are the odd man out.

It's a tricky situation I think. The pope certainly has the right to restrict the TLM if he believes that this is in the best interest of the Church. If that is his judgment then faithful Catholics are to obey (although people should be allowed to voice their disagreements and respectfully advocate for the changes that they believe are best).

The thing is, there really is no way for Pope Francis to restrict the TLM and take the Church in the direction that he thinks is best, without the folks who have a strong affinity for the TLM feeling some kind of way about it.  If tomorrow PF turned a new leaf and became a trad, made the TLM the lex orandi, and restricted the NO, all of the trads on this site and around the world would rejoice, and all of the liberals would be moaning and complaining about how the world is so unfair. It's just the way it goes, but the Pope has the right to move in the direction that he thinks is best in either case.

Me, I'd just be like "OK, PF thinks a return to the TLM is best. Time to go to Barnes and Noble and pick up a book or two to learn latin." I guess at some level I can't relate to the strong attachment that certain people have to this form or that form, whether it's TLM, NO, Eastern rite, or whatever. I'm just perfectly happy that the Mass is celebrated, and that I am able to participate.

Edited July 17, 2021 by Peace

[fides' Jack]

8 hours ago, Ash Wednesday said:

I won't touch the subject of the SSPX with a 10 foot pole. I've seen too many good Catholics otherwise getting along fine completely fall out over the subject. I've listened to both sides of the argument about what their status is and decided the subject is above my pay grade anyway. I don't expect a pop quiz about them when I die.  

I've come to believe this is the correct position to take.  

I also have the same attitude toward the idea that popes/bishops are automatically ousted from their offices when they are heretics.  It's above my pay grade.  Many saints have argued in favor of that idea, which would make many of our spiritual leaders (not naming any names) no longer our spiritual leaders, and thus automatically lose their authority in the Church.

It will all come out.  This situation will not last long.  By the time it's all figured out (15 years or less, imho), it'll only be a situation of the past and not something to confuse us, any longer.  The world will be a better place, and much holier.

[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.