Traditionis Custodes

So I think Traditionis Custodes deserves its own thread. I'm interested to hear what people think.

My own view is: About time. The Latin-mass community has been a schism in embryo for some time now. Playing footsie with them, hoping to convince them to return to full communion was never a good idea, and both the last few years and the reaction to the Pope's motu proprio have only confirmed the situation.

I could say much more, of course, but I'll leave some space for others, particularly John.

Thanks, Tim. I agree that it deserves its own thread. Let me begin by copying and pasting some of the material which was posted in the Current Catholic Issues thread.

Pope Francis Issues Restrictions on Extraordinary Form Masses of Roman Rite (ACI Africa)

Pope Francis issued a motu proprio on Friday restricting Masses celebrated in the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite. In the motu proprio, issued July 16, the pope made sweeping changes to his predecessor Benedict XVI’s 2007 apostolic letter Summorum Pontificum, which acknowledged the right of all priests to say Mass using the Roman Missal of 1962. In an accompanying letter to bishops explaining his decision, Pope Francis wrote: “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”...

Francis said that when his predecessors allowed the celebration of the Mass according to the form used before the reforms of Vatican II, they wanted to encourage unity within the Church. “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,” he wrote.

The pope said he was saddened that the celebration of the extraordinary form of the Roman rite has become characterized by a rejection of the Second Vatican Council and its liturgical reforms. To doubt the Council, he said, is “to doubt the Holy Spirit himself who guides the Church.” Pope Francis added that a final reason for his decision was a growing attitude of “rejection of the Church and her institutions in the name of what is called the ‘true Church’”...

Time to put the 'catholic' back into the Catholic Church (NCR)

What does the reaction to Traditionis Custodes, Pope Francis' motu proprio restoring the restrictions on the traditional Latin Mass that existed before 2007, tell us about the necessity of the document? And what about the prospects for ecclesial unity that Francis cited as his rationale for taking this decision?

It is important to distinguish between those who simply found the antiquity of the old rite a comfort in a fast-changing world, or those for whom the traditional Latin Mass offered an aesthetic that served to mediate the divine, and those for whom the Tridentine liturgy was a kind of ideological statement displaying their opposition to the Second Vatican Council.

It is often easy to spot the latter group: They have websites. And those websites, in recent days, have been spewing venom that unwittingly demonstrates how necessary Francis' decision was...

Cardinal Kasper Responds to Pope Francis’ New Motu Proprio on the Mass (National Catholic Register)

Cardinal Walter Kasper has said he believes the “overwhelming majority” of Catholic faithful are firmly against the Traditional Latin Mass and that some of its adherents scandalize them by believing it’s the only true Catholic Mass and rejecting the Second Vatican Council “more or less in its entirety”... Cardinal Kasper said he believes some faithful who attend the older Mass have turned Benedict’s efforts at reconciliation into division, and so struck at the “very heart of the unity of the Church”...

“I grew up and was ordained long before the Second Vatican Council, but I never found a rupture between the post-Trent liturgy and the post-Vatican II liturgy... Vatican II brought a reform of the Latin rite in the same way that Trent had done... the heart of the so called “old Mass” is preserved also in the so-called “new Mass”...

"I know many people are scandalized when they come to St. Peter’s in Rome early in the morning and see that on many altars priests celebrating the “old Mass” without any altar boy and no participation of the faithful. They turn to the empty basilica and say: “Dominus vobiscum”, “Orate fratres” etc. Some young priests come and want to celebrate the “Latin Mass,” but they don’t know Latin, whereas the great majority of their parishioners prefer to have the Mass in their vernacular language, so this brings division and quarrels in the parish and people leave...

"they use this position in order to reject the Second Vatican Council more or less in its entirety. In this way, the good intention of Benedict XVI becomes turned to its contrary. What was intended to contribute to reconciliation is turned into division, which refers to the very heart of the unity of the Church, and many Catholics are scandalized about this..."

The future of the liturgy (Tablet)

The Pope has decided to end a 14-year-old experiment in permitting two forms of the Roman Rite to exist side by side. Largely overlooked amid the sound and fury is that he has restored responsibility for ensuring liturgical unity in the local church to the bishops...

The new ruling, “brings the question of the form of Mass under the guidance of the bishop. With Benedict XVI’s guidance, a priest could decide {to celebrate Mass in the Old Rite} without reference to the local bishop. With Pope Francis, it is the life of the local church that is so important.” Now it is the bishop that is once again in charge of the liturgy in his diocese, and is able to ensure it is a source of unity rather than discord. “The unity of that local church really matters"...

>1 timspalding:

My initial reaction is not dissimilar to the views expressed in some of these articles. There is no problem per se with the old Latin rite being used in certain circumstances - the Church has always had a variety of different rites, and in recent times we have seen new rites such as the Zairean rite used as well as old ones such as the Ambrosian rite. The problem is that the old Latin rite is being used as a rallying point by people who are openly denying the teaching of the Church. Benedict XVI's well-intentioned permission for the use of the old Latin rite was intended to foster unity and inclusiveness, but unfortunately many of its proponents are misusing it to create division, confusion and scandal. As you say, it's about time the Church addressed the issue.

On a broader front, it's also an important signal that the local bishop should have a say in which rites are used in his diocese, rather than being undermined by a small minority of priests using a blanket exemption originating in Rome.

>4 brone:

I think if you read some of those articles, and indeed Traditionis Custodes itself, it's clear that the Holy Father, after "a detailed consultation of the bishops" and "having considered the wishes expressed by the episcopate and having heard the opinion of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith" (TC introduction), feels that the old Latin rite is being used by many of its proponents to "deny the validity and the legitimacy of the liturgical reform, dictated by Vatican Council II and the Magisterium of the Supreme Pontiffs" (TC 3.1).

Thank you John for the post, it still seems a little abstract, when you use terms like proponents and "having considered the wishes expressed" and are you implying that those of us who agree that the written documents of Vat11 and the Magisterium are infallable but disagree with the interpretation and implementation of some of these liturgical reforms. Because we certainly do disagree but have never felt alienated from Rome....JMJ...Marty

>6 brone:

Note I said "many but not all of its proponents". Traditionis Custodes has not banned the use of the old Latin rite, but has set some conditions and restored the authority to diocesan bishops. For those proponents of the old Latin rite who are not using it as a vehicle to challenge the authority of Vatican II and the Magisterium, there is still potential for its celebration. Note also that most of the bishops who have gone on record in recent weeks have indicated that they are not rushing to ban it but are allowing it to continue while they study the issue and consult stakeholders.

Not about Traditionis Custodes, but just a reminder that in some parts of the world, far from worrying about the old Latin rite, people are just trying to get their hands on decent local translations of the normal rite.

Relief as Catholic Church in Kenya, Tanzania Gets Approved Liturgical Books in Kiswahili (ACI Africa)

Barely a week after the Misale ya Kila Siku (Daily Missal) and the Misale ya Kiroma (Roman Missal) jetted into Kenya from Italy where they were printed, members of the Daughters of St. Paul who run the Paulines Publications of Africa have already sold thousands of copies of the liturgical books across the East African country and continue to receive orders of the copies from various Catholic institutions in the country...

The challenge for the two Liturgical teams was settling on the most appropriate Kiswahili translations given the variations of this language in the two East African countries. This, Sr. Nafula says, is one of the reasons that the liturgical books took long to get published...

Catholic Bishops in Kenya and Tanzania also wrote to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments requesting that African Saints be included in the translated versions. In the Misale ya Kila Siku and Misale ya Kiroma, the people of God in Kenya and Tanzania will celebrate 19 Saints and the Blessed people of African origin. “It is important for the Church in Africa to know their Saints apart from interacting with the universal ones. The new liturgical books provide for the celebration of these Saints. We also have a few Saints like Daniel Comboni who were not African but who had the spirit of Africa at the core of their various missions,” Sr. Nafula says... The Kiswahili Roman Missal also has illustrations prepared by African artists... “We even brought Kenyan musicians on board to work on the new musical notes that correspond with the translated phrases for Priests”...

I do some part time editing work with the Daughters of St. Paul and Sr Praxides Nafula, albeit only on English language books, not these Kiswahili liturgical texts. They are very professional and their vocation of communication is an important ministry within the Church.

>3 John5918:

My feelings mirror yours. But I would put in an argument that this isn't merely about a per-se acceptable form of the mass which has gathered schismatic people to itself. (I'm not saying you're saying that, but I want to make a more affirmative case.) The new mass isn't just a new variety, but the conscious choice of an ecumenical council, implemented by the council fathers. They changed it, and they changed it for specific reasons, which they detailed. That ought to have a lot of weight!

It is said that the mass cannot be wrong if it has such tradition behind it. This is after all the mass of many saints. And so forth. But this misses something. Nothing in the authentic tradition of the church can have been wrong for its time, but tradition develops, holding onto past stages can absolutely be wrong. Who today would say the Nicene Creed in its original formulation, without the final third asserting the Spirit was also God? Yet that too was tradition, and, as the central act of the first ecumenical council, must hold considerable weight. As for saints, what can have a greater weight of holiness than the mass of the early fourth century? (I see your post-Trent saints and raise you NINE doctors of the church!) But when, in 381, the First Council of Constatinople rewrote the creed*, obstinately holding onto the old one (as the "Pneumatomachi" did) became not merely quaint, but heresy.

I have a lot of sympathy for heretics. Whether we're talking about the Pneumatomachi or the Arians or those who denied Vatican I, it's not hard to see a lot of honest, holy people attempting to understand God as best they could. And there are decent arguments for all their positions. An Arian, for example, can point at (Ps-) Paul's assertion in Colossians that Jesus was the "firstborn of all creation," and say "Look! My beliefs are right there in black and white!" The line between orthodoxy and heresy does not subsist in having some good arguments. It subsists in denying Catholic teaching, and when the church gets together in an ecumenical council, debates and definitely solves a question, denying or ignoring that is the rejection of Catholic teaching.

So, sure, let's allow the old mass when staging Mozart, or whatever. Should someone make a movie about St. John Chrysostom, it can include the old Nicene Creed too. But more than 50 years after the Second Vatican Council, there is no ordinary reason to be saying the old mass.

Lastly, given the fact that, so far, almost all US bishops have declared a status quo, the Pope is going to regret leaving this in the hands of the bishops. Because the old mass is absolutely not going away in the US, whatever the Pope may want. And the unity of the Roman rite should not, in fact, be up to individual bishops' discretion.

---

*There is some debate if the council did it, or it was done in the aftermath of the council. In any case, Chalcedon made it an explicit part of its conciliar teachings.

>9 timspalding:

Thanks, Tim. Yes, broadly I agree with what you say. It's interesting how little many of those who plead "Tradition" actually appear to know know about both the diversity and the development of the Church's Tradition.

Part of that Tradition is that there were many different ancient rites - Sarum, Gallic, Ambrosian and Roman are four that spring to mind, as well as the Eastern rite. Some disappeared when the Tridentine rite came into force, others such as the Ambrosian survived, and new ones such as the Zairean rite emerged. But each of these rites was rooted in a living community, and were an authentic form of inculturation.

There is no "living community" for the Tridentine rite. I'm nearly 67 and my generation is surely the last which can actually remember the Tridentine rite - I was an altar server and eventually master of ceremonies so I knew the rite intimately. It was fun for the altar servers because there were lots of activities, or "jobs" as we referred to them in the sacristy before mass as we clamoured to be tasked with one of the more interesting ones, which were generally allocated by seniority. There were extra tall candles to light at a high mass, candles and the processional cross to be carried around, the thurible and the incense boat, lots of bell-ringing, the altar missal to be moved backwards and forwards for no apparent reason at different points in the mass, the humeral veil to be placed on and subsequently removed from the priest's shoulders, the plate to be stuck under people's chins at communion, etc - but pretty meaningless for the average person, and those who pine for the dignity of the solemn high mass of a Sunday conveniently forget the penance of the early morning weekday mass with a handful of parishioners in a cold church and a parish priest trying to rush through it as quickly as possible to get to his early morning cuppa and breakfast. Those who complain about the standard of modern liturgy need to recall that even at a Tridentine high mass many of the priests had no sense of either dress or ceremony - their vestments looked a bit like sacks of potatoes tied around their waists, and they performed the rite mechanically with no sense of occasion. As long as they held their fingers in the right position at the right time and said the right words all rubrics were satisfied and therefore it was valid, so who cared about the rest? The reality does not live up to the rose-tinted myth created by those who never experienced it.

Obviously the poor celebration of the Tridentine rite was not the main impetus for why it had to go, but as you say, there were good reasons why the Church decided that the time had come to supersede the Tridentine rite.

So, I'm sure you're the expert, but everything I read, the Zaire Use is not very divergent from the New Mass in general. Things like standing during the Eucharist and sitting during the Gospel—the latter being understood to signify high-attention, not disrespect—or moving the penitential rite slightly, strike me as small potatoes.

If it were officially restricted, that would be one thing. But it's approved.

>11 timspalding:

Yes, you're right, it's not that different, but just as with the Ambrosian rite it does shift some parts of the mass about and has some different words here and there, as well as having some divergence in the liturgical calendar. A bishop friend of mine was staying in a parish in Milan a good few years ago and was asked by the cardinal to bless a new altar stone while he was there. The cardinal had to send his own master of ceremonies to assist the bishop who was unfamiliar with the Ambrosian rite, but it all went off fine.

By what criteria does a bishop determine whether or not Traditional Societies and institutes "deny the validity and legitimacy of liturgical reform"?

Some useful tests of the society, and of its principle members, might be:

1. Do they deny the validity and legitimacy of liturgical reform?
2. Do they say only the old mass?
3. Do they write and talk about how the old mass was better, the new one cancelled or the old one "restored"?
4. Do they disobey the liturgical instructions of legitimate authorities?

There can be no doubt that the SSPX certainly do both. But these are not uncommon ideas in trad-dom.

I suspect a bishop will also be looking at whether the celebration of the Tridentine rite in certain parishes or locations contributes to unity and harmony within his diocese or whether it is a source of division and disunity.

>15 John5918:

Maybe where you are. But in the US the bishops are truly captive to the trads and their sympathizers. This is why most US bishops are doing nothing whatsoever. They're afraid of the blow-back.

John's in Africa, which was largely evangelized post-Vatican II. There would scarcely be a Catholic Africa if locals were expected to pretend to be 19c French peasants patiently ignoring mass in a dead, European language.

As far as the "vested interests," I'm pretty sure the decisions of an ecumenical council are not maintained solely because Big-Missal has the bishops in their pay.

>17 brone: The divisiveness regarding the Mass began with the Novus Ordo.

Do you think so? The liturgical movement began in the 19th century. There was widespread dissatisfaction with the liturgy as it was, ie the Tridentine rite. During the period leading up to Vatican II there were also a lot of other influences which were not specifically liturgical but which had a knock on effect, both internal - biblical exegesis, worker priests, Young Christian Workers (and the "see-judge-act" model), Catholic Social Teaching (which in its modern form is often dated to Rerum novarum in 1891), the re-emergence of Christian mysticism, the early beginnings of liberation theology, a missiology which began to emphasise dialogue, inculturation and incarnation - and external - "scrutinising the signs of the times" to use the words of Lumen gentium, times which were fast-changing.

a host of innovations that are still going on despite not bearing much fruit

It is certainly true that in the immediate aftermath of Vatican II there were "a host of innovations", some intentional, some unintentional (many priests have told me that though they welcomed the change, they were given little or no guidance as to how to implement it, but basically just told "say mass in the vernacular facing the people as from next Sunday"), and some of the innovations have indeed not born much fruit. But I think the period of real innovation passed many years ago. If there is a problem of poor liturgy today, it is not because of innovation but probably because of the lack of it. Many priests and parishioners are stuck in the same sort of rut that they had been stuck in with the pre-Vatican II rite - note my description of the Tridentine mass in >10 John5918: above. In recent years I have been to many masses, including in the USA, where presider and congregation have stuck strictly to the rubrics (ie no innovation) but the liturgy is lifeless and dead.

a cottage industry of vested interests from publishers to liturgists to "lay ministries" and clerical prestige

With all due respect, that doesn't make much sense. There have always been Catholic publishing houses, and most of the ones I know are struggling to make ends meet. There have always been liturgists, although we used to know them by other names - organist, choirmaster, master of ceremonies. There have always been a lot of liturgical ministries - altar servers, minor orders (porter, lector, exorcist, acolyte), as well as sub-deacons. As for clerical prestige, I would agree that clericalism still exists, as it always has done.

Just as a matter of interest, do you remember the Tridentine rite as it was before Vatican II, or are you coming to it as a more recent newcomer?

>18 timspalding: Africa, which was largely evangelized post-Vatican II

Yes and no. We've celebrated the centenary of the coming of modern-day Catholicism to Africa in many countries, including Sudan and South Sudan - St Bishop Daniel Comboni was active in Sudan in the 19th century and there are parishes in many African countries which date their foundation back to the late 19th and early 20th century. But I think you're right to say that Catholicism has hugely expanded since independent African countries began to emerge in the 1950s and what were formerly "mission territories" were raised to the status of local churches with their own indigenous hierarchy. The people certainly have no memory of the former Latin mass.

>20 brone:

There are also consequences for stagnation! But my point was not that there were no dodgy innovations, but that most of the new innovations stopped decades ago. It's had fifty years to settle down, which is a fair bit of time in human lifetimes if not in the life of the church, and it's working very well in most places most of the time, certainly a lot better than the Tridentine rite was working in its final years. It's been welcomed and accepted by the vast majority of Catholics, in keeping with sensus fidei. Can I ask you again whether you knew the Tridentine rite as it was or whether you are new to it?

you should'nt be allowed to move a fence until you can explain why it was put there in the first place

Do you honestly believe that all the bishops of the world along with two Holy Fathers (John XXIII and Paul VI), the periti, theologians, church historians, liturgists, etc didn't know the history of the liturgy in general and the Tridentine rite in particular, ie "why it was put there in the first place"?

>22 brone:

You are perhaps thinking only of fully cloistered orders? Most religious orders, however, have missions that relate to the world.

So, for example, the Daughters of St. Paul were originally known as the "Little Printing School of Typography" and focused on printed material. They now focus on both print and digital media because, ultimately, the charism was not about ink and lead, but spreading the gospel through new media. Similarly, shoeless begging is no longer really a workable project in western countries, so shoeless mendicant orders have adapted, without giving up their commitment to radical, evangelical poverty. At other times, religious orders have shifted their focus over time until the original mission was rather obscure; Vatican II called on them to think on their original, core charism.

>22 brone:, >23 timspalding:

Yes, I agree with Tim, "Most religious orders, however, have missions that relate to the world". Think about how many religious orders were founded for education and healthcare, which have been a major ministry of the church for centuries. In more recent times (but still founded pre-Vatican II) think of St Mother Teresa's Missionaries of Charity whose mission is to the poor and dying.

>22 brone:

I was simply challenging your blunt statement, "you should'nt be allowed to move a fence until you can explain why it was put there in the first place". I find it rather ludicrous to imply that the teaching authorities of the Catholic Church "moved a {liturgical} fence" without understanding "why it was put there in the first place" and without having prayed and discerned the reasons for doing so.

Unlike you I don't see "a lot of confusion and contradiction", I see a slow but steady trajectory, but even if I did see them, I wouldn't consider it as a negative thing. Working through these tensions is a healthy part of growth. The dead don't have any confusion or contradiction, the living do, and I trust our Church will continue to live and grow!

I'd still be interested in learning whether you knew the Tridentine rite.

Pope after operation: 'It never crossed my mind to resign' (Vatican News)

In this wide-ranging interview the Holy Father is also asked about Traditionis Custodes:

The history of Traditionis custodes is long. When first St. John Paul II—and later Benedict, more clearly with Summorum Pontificum—, gave this possibility of celebrating with the Missal of John XXIII (prior to that of Paul VI, which is post-conciliar) for those who did not feel good with the current liturgy, who had a certain nostalgia... it seemed to me one of the most beautiful and human pastoral things of Benedict XVI, who is a man of exquisite humanity. And so it began. That was the reason. After three years he said that an evaluation had to be made. An evaluation was made, and it seemed that everything was going well. And it was fine. Ten years passed from that evaluation to the present (that is, thirteen years since the promulgation {of Summorum Pontificum}) and last year we saw with those responsible for Worship and for the Doctrine of the Faith that it was appropriate to make another evaluation of all the bishops of the world. And it was done. It lasted the whole year. Then the subject was studied and based on that, the concern that appeared the most was that something that was done to help pastorally those who have lived a previous experience was being transformed into ideology. That is, from a pastoral thing to ideology. So, we had to react with clear norms. Clear norms that put a limit to those who had not lived that experience. Because it seemed to be fashionable in some places that young priests would say, “Oh, no, I want...” and maybe they don’t know Latin, they don’t know what it means. And on the other hand, to support and consolidate Summorum Pontificum. I did more or less the outline, I had it studied and I worked, and I worked a lot, with traditionalist people of good sense. And the result was that pastoral care that must be taken, with some good limits. For example, that the proclamation of the Word be in a language that everyone understands; otherwise it would be like laughing at the Word of God. Little things. But yes, the limit is very clear. After this motu proprio, a priest who wants to celebrate that is not in the same condition as before—that it was for nostalgia, for desire, &c.— and so he has to ask permission from Rome. A kind of permission for bi-ritualism, which is given only by Rome. {Like} a priest who celebrates in the Eastern Rite and the Latin Rite, he is bi-ritual but with the permission of Rome. That is to say, until today, the previous ones continue but a little bit organized. Moreover, asking that there be a priest who is in charge not only of the liturgy but also of the spiritual life of that community. If you read the letter well and read the Decree well, you will see that it is simply a constructive reordering, with pastoral care and avoiding an excess by those who are not...

Again he emphasises "Clear norms that put a limit to those who had not lived that experience", ie those who had never known the Tridentine rite, and the difference between a pastoral gesture and an ideology.

>26 brone:

Not a belief, no. But is the Church able to regulate the liturgy? No traditionalist doubted it when the new mass was promulgated. Rather, they asked that they be given a small exception, which was granted. Nor did any traditionalist doubt it when the right to celebrate the new mass was extended a bit by Pope John Paul and then drastically by Pope Benedict. Now that the celebration is restricted somewhat—although much less than it was after the Council—traditionalists are suddenly claiming the Church has no power over the liturgy. What an utterly bizarre notion.

>26 brone:

As Tim says in >27 timspalding:, I'm not sure how belief comes into this. As I understand it, Summorum pontificum simply made an exception for people who were "attached with such love and affection to the earlier liturgical forms which had deeply shaped their culture and spirit". It specifically adds that this is not about belief: "These two expressions of the Church’s lex orandi will in no way lead to a division in the Church’s lex credendi (rule of faith); for they are two usages of the one Roman rite." Note that a younger person who never knew the Tridentine rite as it used to be would be hard-pressed to claim that it "had deeply shaped their culture and spirit", and that those who claim that the extraordinary rite is somehow better or more authentic than the ordinary rite are moving towards the very division that Benedict XVI warns against.

A personal story that may or may not be relevant. In the 1980s I worked in a town in Sudan where there was an elderly Italian fidei donum priest who had been a missionary for more than fifty years, first in Palestine and then in Sudan. Most missionaries had been expelled from Sudan in the early 1960s. The country was pretty isolated from the rest of the world due to civil war, political and religious oppression, and basic logistical challenges and lack of communication facilities, and the few remaining indigenous priests and bishops were simply struggling to survive. Many went into exile, others were killed. So the reforms of Vatican II somehow passed the Sudanese church by. When new missionary priests began to arrive in the late 1970s full of enthusiasm for the Vatican II reforms, there was some tension between them and dear old Don Silvio, particularly with regard to the celebration of mass. He had no qualms about saying mass in the vernacular, as it was obvious to him that it would help the people to understand the mass, and he was a fluent Arabic speaker who appreciated the beauty and dignity of the classical Arabic translation of the mass, but a lot of the other liturgical practices were strange to him. Eventually he told the other priests, "I'm an old man, I've done it like this my whole life, and I'm too old to change. But if this is what the Church is teaching is best for the people, then you go ahead and do it the new way, but leave me to continue doing it my way". It was a pastoral solution which was appreciated by everybody. It had nothing to do with belief, no judgement on the new liturgy, but simply allowing an old man to continue to pray in a way that was familiar to him. Seems to me that this is the spirit of both Summorum pontificum and Traditionis custodes, but nearly forty years after old Don Silvio died peacefully of old age and lies buried next to the cathedral in that South Sudanese town, there are very few people left who can say, "I've done it like this my whole life, and I'm too old to change" with regard to the old mass.

>29 brone:

I think you're confusing papal documents and statements. It is the teaching of Vatican II which reformed the mass which is to be believed, and these various moto proprios are merely emphasising that. For the record I've just looked at Quattuor Abhinc Annos, the 1984 letter issued on behalf of Pope St John Paul II. Like the later ones from Benedict XVI and Francis, it emphasises, "That it be made publicly clear beyond all ambiguity that such priests and their respective faithful in no way share the positions of those who call in question the legitimacy and doctrinal exactitude of the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970", ie it is not about faith. It also states that all the bishops were consulted and, "On the basis of their replies it appeared that the problem of priests and faithful holding to the so-called 'Tridentine' rite was almost completely solved." Almost, but not quite completely, so, "in a desire to meet the wishes of these groups grants to diocesan bishops the possibility of using an indult". There was no clamour from bishops, priests and faithful for a return to the old rite then, and there isn't now - it is only certain very small groups, and increasingly these are groups of people who do not remember the old rite and have conjured up the desire to have it out of... where? (Incidentally, you haven't yet satisfied my curiosity as to whether you yourself remember the old mass or whether you have discovered it more recently). Note also, "This concession, indicative of the common Father's solicitude for all his children, must be used in such a way as not to prejudice the faithful observance of the liturgical reform in the life of the respective ecclesial communities." The liturgy has been reformed. It may develop further in the future, who knows, but it is not going backwards.

Not sure what Fatima has to do with the liturgy. The last time I did the pilgrimage to St James I used the Portuguese route and we saw footpath signs for a pilgrimage to Fatima. Might follow them next time, although I think I prefer the much older (more traditional) Camino to Santiago de Compostela. The Real Presence is certainly connected with the liturgy, and is often spoken about as far as I can see. The One True Church is still going strong, although she is being challenged from within by people who wish to replace her Mass with an outdated one which the Church left behind more than fifty years ago.

>31 brone:

Are you suggesting that it was the liturgical reform which has led to a decline in church attendance? I doubt if there is any real evidence to support that theory. I would suggest that it is part of much broader social and demographic changes.

I don't know Boston, but I remember being in Trenton, NJ, maybe 25 years ago. There too there had been loads of parishes, because each group of immigrants had built their own Catholic church - Poles, Irish, Italians, etc. By the second half of the twentieth century it was no longer sustainable, practical nor necessary to have all these competing parishes in a very small area, so they were gradually closing.

Incidentally, do you remember the old mass from the days before Vatican II?

>33 brone: panis angelicus to Put your hand in the hand

Sorry, I don't understand that one.

>31 brone:

Okay, but also, I think one might also consider that of the priests in service between 1950 and 2003, seven percent are credibly accused of sexually abusing children. And the hierarchy moved them around when the child rape got too obvious.

I understand you might have some sort of case, somewhere, maybe. But Boston is one of the worst places to have it. Not in America, but in all of church history. People will be talking about the rape and institutional disregard of Boston for centuries. You think Boston was a bastion of faith? No, it wasn't. If there were a just God, the Boston Archdiocese would have been wiped from the map, and what Catholics remained would have had to rebuilt it from scratch.

And, yes, I'm a Bostonian too. I wasn't a Catholic until after Sean O'Malley took over. So it's not my fault, but in an icky turn of fate, my father's childhood home was bought by the Catholic church. We later found out it was one of the places the archdiocese would stick child rapists, receiving minimal treatment and keeping them out of sight until things cooled down a bit. Yuck.

>36 brone:

Ah, I understand. Yes, I fully agree that "Panis Angelicum" is beautiful, one of my favourites in fact, and that "Put your hand in the hand" is one of the worst examples of a certain period of modern church music, but I draw different conclusions. There is good liturgy and poor liturgy whichever rite one is using.

I don't know how you remember the old pre-Vatican II mass (which is one of the reasons I wish you would answer the question about whether you do remember it or whether you came to it recently, because then we could compare experiences) but I recall that in most of the masses I attended there was no music at all, just a hungry and thirsty priest struggling to get through it as quickly as possible at 7 am in a cold, draughty and ill-lit parish church with a congregation of a couple of old ladies plus one young boy serving at the altar. On Sundays there was generally only one mass with singing. Even then we would never sing anything as accomplished as "Panis Angelicum". We struggled through the "Missa de Angelis", which was the only one we knew, and we belted out hymns like "Hail Glorious St Patrick", "Faith of Our Fathers" and "Full in the Panting Heart of Rome" as if it were a rabble-rousing singalong - indeed at Midnight Mass it often was, as much of the congregation would have had a wee bevy in the King George V across the road before staggering into mass. In those days Catholic parishes didn't have choirs or professional organists - that was an Anglican sport.

So yes, a solemn high mass in St Peter' in Rome, or Westminster Catheral, or your National Shrine in DC, or probably in a monastery or Brompton Oratory, would have been a beautiful occasion, but that was in no way typical of the old mass as it was generally performed. And similarly, if you go to one of those places today, you will not hear them singing "Put your hand in the hand" but you will hear them singing beautiful music, often including "Panis Angelicum".

I'll be the first to agree that in the early days of the liturgical reform some appalling "folk hymns" were written. But since then many professional liturgists and musicians have written extremely good music. St Thomas More Pastoral Centre in London was a leader, and I have sung a lot of their music over the years. Often it is based on plainsong-style chants, as are the Gelineau psalm settings. Even some of the later "folk" style music is extremely good, and often the lyrics are based on scripture rather than anti-protestant rhetoric. Taize is another source of excellent music based on plainsong chants, much of it in Latin. And of course English is not the only vernacular language into which the liturgy was translated. In Sudan our cardinal was a stickler for good liturgy and he himself composed some beautiful music for the ordinary of the mass in Arabic. Throughout Africa hymns and mass settings have been composed for the various local languages.

The problem in many parishes, at least in the UK, is the same now as it was with the old rite - Catholics didn't take music seriously then and they don't take it seriously now. Again we could learn from our Anglican brothers and sisters! There is any amount of good Catholic liturgical music available, but Catholics continue to sing rubbish like "Put your hand in the hand" because they don't know any better.

>40 brone:

Yes, those English saints are the household names I grew up with. I went to a primary school named after St Augustine (one assumes Augustine of Canterbury rather than Hippo), a grammar school named for Campion with houses and classes named after the likes of More, Fisher, Fox, Southwell and Clitheroe, spent my university years in the northeast of England surrounded by memories of Cuthbert, Oswald, Chad, Hild and Bede, was also exposed second hand to many of the old Irish saints, and of course St George, even though he probably never existed.

I love the old Anglican (and Methodist and other protestant) hymns, many of which have found their way into the Catholic liturgy over the years since we stopped burning and torturing each other. I especially love hearing them spontaneously sung in full four part harmony by not only a choir but also by ordinary parishioners, something which is not uncommon in Anglican churches but not, sadly, in British Catholic churches. I very rarely get to sing them these days, but there are still a few where I can remember the tenor line when the need arises, including Cwm Rhonda, Holy Holy Holy Lord God Almighty and O Little Town of Bethlehem.

And yes, you and I have different views within the broad umbrella which is our Church, and thank God for that diversity. But i would still be very interested in exploring the different experiences which have shaped those views. I've shared some of my experiences of the old mass as it was, and I'd love to hear you share some of your experiences of it.

>42 brone:

Sorry, I don't understand this post.

An interesting liturgical snippet from an article on primary evangelisation:

Catholic Priests in Kenya’s Hardship Missionary Territories Share Joy of Changing Lives (ACI Africa)

He gave the example of the Church in Malawi where, instead of the faithful beating their breasts as a sign of remorse during Holy Mass, they bow down instead. In Malawi, beating one’s chest is a show off.

In Uganda, people clap when a respectable person approaches. The same is replicated during the elevation of the body of Christs at Holy Mass, Fr. Luchidio said, and noted, “Clapping at this point makes sense in Uganda because it fits within their culture. It does not make sense for the same to be replicated at a Kenyan Diocese just because one went to Uganda and saw people clapping.”

Likewise, it is sensible for a Bishop in Kenya’s Maralal Diocese to wear a decorated hat made from an animal skin instead of a normal Mitre made from a piece of cloth. This, the PMS Kenya Director said, is to help with the enculturation of the Church within Maralal where skins are part of the people’s way of life...

I've been involved in primary evangelisation in isolated hard-to-access parts of South Sudan where most people still followed traditional African religions and many had never heard of the church nor Christianity. It can certainly be a hardship mission, trekking through the malarial swamps on foot for days, sometimes up to our necks in water infested with crocodiles, snakes and bilharzia, depending on local people to share food and accommodation with us. Friends and colleagues of mine used to work amongst the Maasai in Kenya, where the priests would spend only one week a month in the parish and three weeks trekking around the local villages, sleeping on goatskins on the ground in small houses made of local materials, and again relying on the famed hospitality of African people to share with them local food such as curdled milk and fresh roasted meat. But despite the hardships, it's a great life in many ways.

I encountered a different type of hardship when I met a lone Nigerian fidei donum priest in the Australian outback when I was on a speaking tour about 15 years ago. He was overjoyed to meet someone who had come from his home continent and, even though I had never been to west Africa, could identify to some extent with his culture and background. Poor bugger didn't want to let me go and kept producing "just one last cup of tea" to detain me for a few more minutes of conversation until my minders finally hustled me away into the ute to take me to my next speaking venue.

Back to Traditionis Custodes. I was chatting to an African archbishop, president of his nation's episcopal conference, over breakfast this morning and I raised the issue of the Tridentine mass. He is not aware of any celebration of the old mass in his country, nor of any requests for it to happen. Like me, he is old enough to remember the old mass as it was, and is not aware of any hankering for a return to it. He also reminded me (which I once knew but had forgotten) that after Vatican II the bishops' conference in his nation set up a pastoral and liturgical centre to ensure a smooth transition in the liturgy and to work on liturgical texts and music. All over East Africa we have been singing beautiful mass settings from that centre for many years now. I would say his experience would be fairly common throughout Africa. Resuscitating the old rite of the mass appears to be mainly a northern European and particularly north American sport.

>46 brone:

Yes, I think we often talk past each other. Different experiences in life lead to different world views, but we also come from two different cultures which on the surface speak the same language (English) but in fact have quite different usages of it, particularly when it comes to nuances and idioms.

But while commenting on my use of my native tongue, I note that you make no comment on the substance of my post, that there is no appetite for the old mass outside of very small groups in Europe and north America. You're also very coy about revealing where your love of the Tridentine rite comes from, whether from old memories (like mine) or from a more recent exposure to it.

I would challenge your "fifteen hundred years". The Tridentine mass was promulgated in 1570, so it actually lasted around 400 years. One can argue, of course, that it was based on earlier rites, but that is true of all Catholic rites, including the current normative one. The liturgy has never stood still and has constantly developed - that's the tradition of our church - except, perhaps, during that 400 year period post-Trent.

>48 brone:

Well, that is good news! Are you a member of the Librarything Railroad group (The LTR)? It's well worth a look. I'm not getting much real life railway action these days, waiting for an opportunity to get my hands on a steam locomotive again if we can find someone to charter it and persuade Kenya Railways to facilitate the ensuing bureaucracy, but I'm busy building my own Africa-themed model railway in a forty foot shipping container. I'm currently installing signalling so I'm thinking a lot about reds and greens! Mind you, on the railways on which I have worked the most important rule seems to be, "The fireman must continually make cups of tea for the driver... and do anything else the driver says!"

This week I'm in a meeting of the South Sudan Catholic bishops. We've had a session on Traditionis Custodes, as the bishops take note of every motu proprio that comes their way. However our archbishop commented at the beginning of the session that we don't have any issue relating to the old Latin mass and that this is only a problem in Europe and the USA (not using my word "sport" but the same idea!) and that this is not a problem for the majority of Catholics in the world. The priest presenting the topic actually delivered a general presentation on the power of the liturgy rather than Traditionis Custodes, including some of the ways that Vatican II has improved the sacred liturgy. He dwelt mostly on Sacrosanctum concilium, and the discussion focused on liturgical issues which concern us.

On the other hand, yesterday's presentation on Antiquum Ministerium, which institutes the lay ministry of catechist, generated a great deal of lively discussion as that is a topic of practical consequence for the African church.

>52 brone:

As one might expect, my experience has been very different to yours, although your description of a "rowdy" mass does call back memories of some Christmas midnight masses back in the old Tridentine days. I'm lucky that I don't frequent churches where the stations of the cross are hidden away nor where the tabernacle is in the yard. A little hyperbole there, perhaps? The singing is indeed an issue in English-speaking countries, but I have already mentioned above there is a lot of good liturgical music out there, whether from the Catholic stable or borrowed from our Anglican sisters and brothers, but Catholics just don't bother to find and use it. As I said above, we used to sing some pretty appalling hymns during Tridentine times. As for the overhead projectors, I have mixed feelings about them. Personally I don't like them very much, but we're in a technological age. Remember that the English translation of the liturgy changed just a few years ago and many of us still stumble a bit over the new words when our muscle memory wants to say the old words that we used for forty years. The projector saves the cost of keep replacing hymnbooks, and is good for newcomers and visitors who are not familiar with our liturgy. I'm often surprised to see people (including bishops and priests) apparently on their mobile phones during the mass, but in fact they are simply following the mass and the readings on an app rather than a book. Likewise priests and religious saying their daily office. It's all online now.

a certain enjoyment as to the discomfiture of ,their fellow Catholics of the Latin Mass. They imply that evil motives prompts these particular Catholics, hatred of Pope Francis, disdain for Vatican II, unease with women on the alter, the worst on right wing politics that makes a fetish of the unborn while ignoring the Church's social teachings

An accusation of schadenfreude? A little uncharitable, perhaps? I don't think anyone is implying anything about "all" of these "particular Catholics", but the issues you mention are openly and publicly espoused by a significant group of them. A careful reading of Traditionis Custodes (and the previous documents of John Paul II and Benedict XVI) shows that the old rite is not being banned but the Church is simply applying some restrictions to try to limit the sort of division and disunity that those particular people are fomenting. You don't have to look very far on the internet to find these right wing Catholic websites which propagate these views, and I'm happy to hear you dissociating yourself from them.

There's nothing wrong with having reservations about the liturgy. There was a huge groundswell of concern about the old Tridentine liturgy over the course of a nearly a century, which was part of the movement which led to the reform of the liturgy. And a lot of your complaints are basically about poor celebration of the liturgy. I agree. I am appalled at how badly it is celebrated at times, just as the old Tridentine rite was also celebrated very badly a lot of the time. Let's work to educate bishops, priests, deacons and laity about the liturgy. Let's support the liturgical commissions and pastoral centres of the dioceses and episcopal conferences. Let's push for our parishes to make use of the good music which is available.

The thing that surprises me, though, is that people who are unhappy with the liturgy of the Church want to return to an old rite which has already been superseded, for very good reasons discerned by all the bishops of the world with successive popes, and whose demise has generally been accepted and indeed welcomed by the vast majority of Catholics. I'm probably from the last generation that really remembers the Tridentine rite - I was chatting the other day to a priest who is just a few years younger than me and he has no recollection of it. There is a tendency amongst some of those who want to use the Tridentine rite to refer to the liturgy of the Church as the novus ordo, the new rite, but for anybody under the age of sixty it is not a "new rite", it is the rite, the only rite they have ever known. It is the normative liturgy of the Church. The generation of my old Italian missionary friend who just wanted to (and was allowed to) end his days using a format which he had used for his entire long life has now passed, and the generation of us who even remember the old rite is passing fast. The majority of the people who are agitating for the old rite have never actually known it and cannot make the same claim that he did (and generally don't do so as humbly as he did). I would like to see young priests learn and practice good liturgy rather than hankering for a past they have never known but merely view through rose-tinted spectacles.

>56 brone: Quid custodiet ipsos custodes?

The Holy Spirit, perhaps?

Always

>56 brone:, >57 John5918:

And I think I would add the sensus fidei, which is also the Holy Spirit, but working through the entire Church, not only the hierarchy. The Holy Spirit does not contradict herself, so when the teaching of the pope and bishops is welcomed and accepted by the vast majority of the faithful, as it has been in the case of Vatican II and most other recent teachings, that's a good sign. It's sad that a few US "culture warriors" see fit to resist the Holy Spirit, who blows as she wills, not as we will, but that doesn't negate the authenticity of the teaching.

>61 brone:

Yes, indeed, I agree that the "culture war" is very divisive, although I would describe it as being reactionary rather than progressive. I'm not sure, though, what "analytical marxists" have got to do with it.

Mexican archbishop abolishes FSSP parish, citing decree of Pope Francis (Catholic World Report)

Citing Pope Francis’ recent motu proprio Traditionis Custodes, the archbishop of Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico, has decreed the abolition of the local quasi parish administered by the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP), which has been celebrating the Mass and other sacraments according to the traditional Latin rite in the archdiocese since 2008. In addition to suppressing the parish, Archbishop José Francisco Robles Ortega has restricted the number of Masses permitted in the archdiocese, effectively eliminating Masses for weddings, funerals, and other events. He has also prohibited the FSSP from doing public masses at their pastoral house, and states that he will soon decide who will be permitted to celebrate the traditional Mass and provide spiritual care for the faithful, implying that the FSSP might be excluded completely from the archdiocese...

>63 brone: Most everything intellectual progressives say is an ambivalent form of Liberation Theology, they use the concepts of Marx in all of their analytics

I would suggest that liberation theology is a praxis theology which emerged from the grassroots, primarily in Latin America but forms of it have been seen (albeit not necessarily named) in Africa and elsewhere. It is very much rooted in scripture, both Old and New Testaments, in Catholic Social Teaching, and in the lived experience of the poor and marginalised. The Exodus story and the prophets play a prominent role, as I believe does Luke 4:17-21, "they handed him the scroll of the prophet Isaiah. Unrolling the scroll he found the place where it is written: The spirit of the Lord is on me, for he has anointed me to bring the good news to the afflicted. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to captives, sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim a year of favour from the Lord... Then he began to speak to them, 'This text is being fulfilled today even while you are listening.'"

What do you mean by "an ambivalent form of Liberation Theology", by the way?

the true goal of Communism... is to remove the Cross from St Peter's Basilica

While Communist nations have generally been atheistic, I very much doubt whether removing the cross from St Peter's is "the true goal of Communism". I think theoretical communism has more to do with the overthrow of capitalism and the liberation of the masses, while as an extant political system it has more to do with power, like most political systems.

>66 brone:

I have difficulty in following some of your posts. Is there a source for the words that you put in quotation marks? Who has declared the motu proprio to be "small-minded"?

I would also point out that "the faithful attached to the Old Rite" are now pretty much all dead, or at least there's just a handful of us still alive who remember it, and most of us were very happy to leave it behind and follow Mother Church into the new normative rite. Even referring to it as the "Old Rite" is an interesting piece of labelling. Maybe I would refer to the Sarum or Gallic rites, for example, as "old rites", as they long preceded the Tridentine Rite, which was propagated in 1570 and superseded by Vatican II. It was used for about 20% of the Church's two thousand year lifetime before being superseded like most of the other rites which came before and no doubt most of those which will come after.

>68 brone:

Can you give us citations for those quotes, please?

>70 brone:

Sorry, my question wasn't clear. I am, of course, aware of canon law, including #87.

I was referring to the comment you attribute to the head of the Congregation of Divine Worship, Archbishop Arthur Roche. Nice to see an Englishman in a high position in the Vatican, and a well-qualified one. I'm afraid "all over the public domain" doesn't tell me much. It certainly hasn't appeared in the news media that I monitor regularly, although I suppose it will be found on some of the right wing Catholic sites which I try to avoid if possible as they tend to lack charity, often containing a lot of fake news and hateful speech.

As for "conciliar speak", would it not seem natural that the Church should use a lot of language from her most recent most authoritative teaching council? After Trent and Vatican I expect the "conciliar speak" used a lot of language from those two councils respectively. But if you look at just about every teaching document that comes from the Church, it quotes not only the last council but many other councils, popes, saints, documents and of course holy scripture. The teaching and Tradition of our Church is a continuum, constantly developing and reforming but always in continuity with what came before.

Pope's Latin Mass decision hasn't affected his popularity, survey finds (NCR)

Pope Francis' decision in July to reimpose restrictions on the celebration of the older form of the Latin Mass appears not to have affected his standing among U.S. Catholics, according to a report released Oct. 7 by the Pew Research Center. About 83% of Catholics in the country have a favorable view of Francis, based on responses from 1,374 Catholics to a Pew online survey in September. Some 65% of the respondents said they had heard "nothing at all" about Francis' decision, which reversed a 2007 move by retired Pope Benedict XVI to allow priests to celebrate the form of the Mass used before the 1962-65 Second Vatican Council... Of the 35% in the Pew survey who had heard at least "a little" about the changes, 14% declined to give an opinion about them, 12% disapproved and 9% approved.

Francis' overall favorability numbers appear steady among U.S. Catholics. The last Pew survey, conducted in March, found 82% of respondents holding a favorable view of the pontiff. However, there continues to be polarization in the way Americans think about Francis. In the latest survey, 49% of Catholics who identified as Republican said Francis is "too liberal." Only 16% of Catholics who identified as Democrats said the same...

Hardly a surprise. It just confirms that only a tiny fringe group of Catholics have any interest whatsoever in the old Latin mass. If this survey were to be carried out worldwide rather than only in the USA it would find an even lower percentage of Catholics who either know or care about the latest instruction on the celebration of the old Latin mass.

Pope Francis approves further restrictions on Latin Mass to ensure adherence to Vatican II (NCR)

ope Francis has approved further clarifications regarding restrictions on the traditional Latin Mass in an effort to ensure that liturgical reform is "irreversible" and that liturgical celebrations adhere to the changes made after the Second Vatican Council. The clarifications, published Dec. 18, ban priestly ordinations and confirmations in the old rite and limit the frequency in which priests who receive a dispensation to celebrate the traditional Latin Mass can do so...

Roche, in an introduction to the new text, said that each norm has the "sole purpose of preserving the gift of ecclesial communion" with the pope. In explaining his original decision to reimpose restrictions on the traditional Latin Mass earlier this year, Francis lamented that it had become a source of division in the church. Since then, the decree has become a lightning rod for a vocal minority group of Catholics who still favor the traditional Latin Mass, many of whom also have expressed skepticism or even outright rejection of the reforms of Vatican II and of the legitimacy of Francis...

Vatican clarifies rules for the celebration of the Tridentine Latin Mass (America Magazine)

The Vatican’s Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has taken a decisive step to clarify the norms for “the correct application” of the motu proprio “Traditionis Custodes,” issued by Pope Francis last July, regarding the celebration of the Tridentine Latin Mass and pre-Vatican II Latin-rite liturgy. Today, Dec. 18, the congregation provided answers to the 11 most frequently asked questions bishops have sent to the congregation since the publication of the decree, explained Archbishop Arthur Roche, the prefect of the congregation... The answers are presented in the traditional format used by the Vatican: “responsa ad dubia” (answer to a doubt or question). That format normally entails a simple affirmative or negative answer, but in this case the congregation also provided explanatory notes for the bishops... He recalled that the aim of the motu proprio is “to continue in the search for ecclesial communion, which is expressed by recognizing in the liturgical books promulgated by Popes Saint Paul VI and Saint John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of the Second Vatican Council, the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.” He wrote, “every prescribed norm has always the sole purpose of preserving the gift of ecclesial communion by walking together, with conviction of mind and heart, in the direction indicated by the Holy Father”...

In June, Archbishop J. Augustine Di Noia, adjunct secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, identified three countries—the United States, France and the United Kingdom—where movements could be found that aggressively promoted the Tridentine Latin Mass... Archbishop Roche recalled that “it is the duty of the bishops, cum Petro et sub Petro, (with Peter and under Peter), to safeguard communion.” He reminded the bishops that “as pastors we must not lend ourselves to sterile polemics, capable only of creating division, in which the ritual itself is often exploited by ideological viewpoints. Rather, we are all called to rediscover the value of the liturgical reform by preserving the truth and beauty of the Rite that it has given us. For this to happen, we are aware that a renewed and continuous liturgical formation is necessary both for Priests and for the lay faithful”...

Interesting that apparently in only three countries (USA, France and UK) "movements could be found that aggressively promoted the Tridentine Latin Mass". Catholics in the other 192 countries appear to have no such tendencies.

Edited to add: Pope doubles down on quashing old Latin Mass with new limits (AP)

Pope Francis doubled down Saturday on his efforts to quash the old Latin Mass, forbidding the celebration of some sacraments according to the ancient rite in his latest salvo against conservatives and traditionalists. The Vatican’s liturgy office issued a document that clarified some questions that arose after Francis in July reimposed restrictions on celebrating the old Latin Mass that Pope Benedict XVI had relaxed in 2007. Francis said then that he was reversing his predecessor 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. The Vatican repeated that rationale on Saturday, saying the clarifications and new restrictions were necessary to preserve the unity of the church and its sacraments. “As pastors we must not lend ourselves to sterile polemics, capable only of creating division, in which the ritual itself is often exploited by ideological viewpoints,” said the prefect of the Vatican’s liturgy office, Archbishop Arthur Roche, in an introductory note to the world’s bishops...

>74 brone: Quash the Ancient Rite

If you read the documents you'll see that the Tridentine rite is not being "quashed" but the exceptional conditions under which it can be celebrated are being more tightly defined, and ultimately it is being left to the diocesan bishop to decide whether and how it can be celebrated within his diocese. Incidentally, I think it is a misnomer to describe it as "the Ancient Rite", as in fact it is relatively modern within the long history of the Church. There are existing rites such as the Ambrosian which are older, and there are many much more ancient rites which no longer exist, although elements of them have been reclaimed and included in the current liturgy of the Church.

After Vatican II the Church made a huge concession to older people who had been with the Tridentine rite their whole lives and found it difficult to adapt, as has been explained often, including in this thread. There are hardly any of them left alive now, nearly sixty years after the liturgical reform. Perhaps you and I are the last generation who remember the Tridentine rite being regularly celebrated, although you're curiously reticent about your early memories of it. So to describe a handful of people in just three countries who don't remember the Tridentine mass but who have relatively recently started using it as a focal point for resistance not only to the normal mass but to other elements of Church teaching, and who have themselves set up an "us and them" dynamic ("youse guys") as marginalised is rather tenuous, to say the least. I pray for unity.

>76 brone:

"Limiting" is not the same as "quashing". You appear not to have reflected on the reasons given for removing some of the exceptional concessions which were made by the Church to provide comfort for those few who found it difficult to adjust to the reformed liturgy, but which have now become a focus for disunity on the part of a small number of people who never even knew the older rite.

Why one earth should a priest be ordained or a person confirmed in an irregular rite, when the Church has a normative rite? Why should an aged priest who is permitted to preside at liturgy in the Tridentine rite because he was so used to it that he is uncomfortable with the normal rite then want to preside at mass in the normal rite the same day? Why should a bishop not be able to regulate who, how and when an exceptional liturgy is celebrated in his own diocese?

I'm sorry, but I see nothing "vindictive" in this. The Church regulates the celebration of liturgy. During my lifetime I have seen the Church make many liturgical regulations which affect a far greater number of people than the handful who are attracted to the old liturgy. I don't like some of them, such as the most recent changes to the English translation of the mass (there's a whole thread on that in this group), but none are "vindictive". You assign an uncharitable motive. "Francis has declared war " and is "spiritually abusive"? Hyperbole.

Look, we are Catholics. We accept the doctrine and liturgy of the Church. We may not like some of it, we may disagree with some of it, we may argue for reform of some of it, we certainly don't always obey all of it, we are sinners, but we don't go setting ourselves up in opposition to the Church. That's the protestant way of doing things, which leads to schism.

>1 timspalding: Francis is overstepping his bounds. The Latin Mass adherents have never been in schism…that’s just what this current modernist pontiff wants you to think.

>79 brone:

Thanks, yes, as a cradle Catholic, let me also wish everyone a happy and holy Christmas and a peaceful and blessed new year.

US bishops should help Latin Massgoers understand purpose of Francis' new restrictions (NCR)

The Dec. 18 publication by the Congregation for Divine Worship of responses to questions (or dubia) sent to them about Pope Francis' motu proprio Traditionis Custodes, restricting the use of the traditional Latin Mass, added a bit more ammunition to those who insist on engaging in battles about liturgy. I wish they would stop. They won't. The responses, like the initial document, invite us all to remember that our liturgy is always in some sense in relation to our ecclesiology, perhaps even an expression of that ecclesiology. In this regard, it is notable that the most vocal opposition to the pope's restrictions are found in the English-speaking countries where opposition to the pope on other grounds has been most pronounced — countries like the United States...

In the letter accompanying the responses, Archbishop Arthur Roche, prefect of the congregation, wrote: "It is sad to see how the deepest bond of unity, the sharing in the one Bread broken which is His Body offered so that all may be one (cf. Jhn 17:21), becomes a cause for division. It is the duty of the Bishops, cum Petro et sub Petro, to safeguard communion, which, as the Apostle Paul reminds us (cf. 1 Cor 11:17-34), is a necessary condition for being able to participate at the Eucharistic table"...

People take their worship very seriously... In that sense, and only in that sense, all the hullabaloo about Traditionis Custodes is a good thing: At least they care! But what, exactly, is the focus of that care if it becomes so malicious against the successor of Peter? Go to the website Rorate Caeli, or to Father Z's blog and read what is published. Check the comments...

I wish to focus readers' attention, however, on the second part of the quote above, the part about bishops needing to "safeguard communion." In the reporting of the pope's decree, and of these clarifications from the congregation, it is important to recognize that the problem was never with the vast majority of those members of the laity who, for whatever reasons, find themselves drawn to Mass in Latin. The problem was always a problem with bishops and clergy for whom the old rite became an expression of an ideological rejection of the Second Vatican Council...

>82 brone:

I don't think it's either charitable or useful for us to use such terms as "youse guys" and "namby pamby elite". The Church I work with in Africa is neither namby pamby nor elite, and would not recognise the sort of division which "youse guys" implies. Neither does it understand why people would want to use the Tridentine rite. In any case, we are talking past each other. I genuinely don't understand where you are coming from (perhaps because I, like the vast majority of Catholics in the world, am not immersed in "sound American principles", whatever those might be), and from your posts it seems clear that you don't understand where I'm coming from, nor indeed where the Church is coming from.

It would help me to understand if you would answer two simple questions. These are not loaded questions nor trick questions, and don't have any hidden agenda, just a genuine attempt to get some insight into your point of view.

1. What are your memories of the old Tridentine Rite as experienced before Vatican II? I have shared some of my memories of it in this thread and would be willing to revisit them if it helps.

2. What is it that attracts you to the Tridentine Rite here and now as we come into 2022?

Let me also give what might be considered a "thought experiment". Most English-speaking Catholics today can only really remember one version of the mass, the translation that we used for forty years until it was replaced about ten years ago by a revised translation. It's the one we grew comfortable with during virtually our whole adult lives. We knew it off by heart, and could recite it without thinking, through muscle memory. Many, many Catholics were unhappy when it was changed, and there's a whole LT thread on it: Thoughts on the new translation of the Roman Missal? I don't like the new translation for a number of the reasons discussed in that thread; not only is it simply unfamiliar but also I find it a clumsy English translation, with too much ecclesial language in it. As one South Sudanese priest said apologetically as he explained it to his Sunday congregation, it is "Latin English", not "English English"!

So what did we do? Did we demand that the old translation should still be used in selected parishes? Did the Vatican give formal permission for this to take place in exceptional circumstances under certain conditions? Did we insist that ordinations and confirmations should take place in the old translation? Did we demand that newly-ordained priests who never experienced the old translation, who do not speak English and who have never studied English should be allowed to preside at mass in the old translation without any formal preparation? Did we set up the SSPVI (Society of Saint Paul VI) to resist the changes to Paul VI's liturgy? Did we mount vitriolic online attacks on Pope Francis for introducing the changes? Did we question whether the pope has the right to amend existing liturgies ("old customs and rights") and propose that "one does not have to obey him" and "it would be licit to resist him"? It all sounds rather ridiculous, doesn't it?

No, we did what most Catholics have always done. We grumbled a bit, some of us complained to our bishops (some of whom agreed with us as they also thought it was a pretty poor translation), we stumbled over the words for a few years until we eventually memorised them, occasionally a rebellious priest would change a word here or there ("cup" instead of "chalice" as a translation of calix is one I've heard from time to time) or a rebellious parishioner would deliberately mutter "And also with you" instead of "And with your spirit" - and we knuckled down and got on with it.

Incidentally one could use the same example for all the other "Ancient Rites" which the Church replaced with the Tridentine Rite, which has now itself been superseded. The list of defunct rites includes the Sarum rite, Celtic rite, Durham rite, and various other pre-Tridentine rites which were superseded by the Tridentine rite in 1570. No doubt many Catholics were unhappy when their familiar rites were replaced. C'est la vie.

Archbishop Roche on ‘Traditionis Custodes’ and Its Guidelines: ‘The Liturgical Possibilities Are in Place’ (National Catholic Register)

The promotion of the traditional liturgy has been “curtailed but does not characterize discrimination,” Archbishop Arthur Roche has said in Dec. 22 comments to the Register. “What is important to realize now is that the Holy Father has spoken,” the prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments continued. “The liturgical possibilities are in place; the challenge is to get on with it without licking one’s wounds when no one has been injured”...

>85 brone:

I really have no idea what you are talking about, but happy Christmas anyway. I would not say that the Holy Father attempting to counter error and disunity by tightening conditions for the celebration of the mass using an irregular rite constitutes "whining", although perhaps some of the responses by a small number of Catholics could be so described if you choose to use such a word. Was the Council of Trent "whining" when it introduced a new liturgical rite to replace the older "traditional" rites? Is the Holy Father one of your "you gentlemen"?

Any chance of helping the conversation forward by responding to the two questions I asked in >83 John5918:?

>87 brone:

What d you mean by the "traditional sacraments" and "the Mass of all time"? Are you not aware that the rites of the sacraments and the mass have varied and changed throughout the history of the Church? What "battle" is this? What "restoration" of the Church are you speaking of?

Cardinal Blase Cupich publishes policy implementing Traditionis custodes (Vatican News)

Shortly after the Congregation for Divine Worship responded to questions regarding Pope Francis' Motu propio, Cardinal Cupich implements a policy that goes into effect 25 January -- an opportunity to express the unity of the Church and to offer a 'concrete manifestation of the acceptance of the Council's teaching'...

Cardinal Cupich explains in a cover letter accompanying the new policy that he began a consultation process as soon as Traditionic custodes was published. “Liturgists as well as those priests and leaders of religious communities” ministering to communities who “attend Mass celebrated in the earlier form” were among those consulted, he writes. Most of the priests and faithful in the Archdiocese “always celebrate the Mass” with the new rite, he admits. However, he asks Chicago’s parish priests to “to be aware of the developments surrounding Traditionis custodes”, and says they need to be able to answer questions about it... In continuity with Pope Francis’ own desire, Cardinal Cupich states the hope that this policy will foster a renewed understanding of the “foundations of the liturgical renewal”... the Archdiocese’s liturgy office will be providing materials and support to priests in providing “liturgical catechesis and formation” so the faithful “can come to a better understanding and deeper acceptance of the restored and renewed liturgy that is part of the precious heritage of the Second Vatican Council”...

Here's an interesting quote, which I have only just come across, from Pope Pius XII in his 1947 encyclical MEDIATOR DEI , ##63-64:

Clearly no sincere Catholic can refuse to accept the formulation of Christian doctrine more recently elaborated and proclaimed as dogmas by the Church, under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit with abundant fruit for souls, because it pleases him to hark back to the old formulas. No more can any Catholic in his right senses repudiate existing legislation of the Church to revert to prescriptions based on the earliest sources of canon law. Just as obviously unwise and mistaken is the zeal of one who in matters liturgical would go back to the rites and usage of antiquity, discarding the new patterns introduced by disposition of divine Providence to meet the changes of circumstances and situation. This way of acting bids fair to revive the exaggerated and senseless antiquarianism to which the illegal Council of Pistoia gave rise. It likewise attempts to reinstate a series of errors which... the Church, the ever watchful guardian of the "deposit of faith" committed to her charge by her divine Founder, had every right and reason to condemn...

Of course the Holy Father was speaking about particular errors current at that point in time, but there are echoes of today's situation where certain elements within the Church "hark back to the old formulas", "in matters liturgical would go back to the rites and usage of antiquity, discarding the new patterns introduced by disposition of divine Providence to meet the changes of circumstances and situation" and try to revive "exaggerated and senseless antiquarianism". The liturgy of our Church has evolved and developed over the centuries, and it is not a new thing for popes to champion that development and to express their frustration at those who not only resist change but also question the teaching authority of the Holy Father and the bishops.

>91 brone:

It had always been my hope that in the Catholic Tradition group we could have charitable, courteous and rational conversations which would constructively deepen our understanding of the faith, even where there is disagreement. It seems we are far from that aspiration.

these grown men have to have cupich's permission to say even one mass

As you're no doubt aware, every priest in the world has to have the permission of a bishop or a religious superior to preside at any public mass. Obviously this is far easier to obtain, and indeed becomes routine, for those celebrating the normative liturgy than for those wishing to celebrate an irregular rite in exceptional circumstances where certain further conditions have to be met.

New policy requires all Chicago clergy to get permission to celebrate Latin Mass (NCR)

Beginning Jan. 25, 2022, all clergy in the Chicago Archdiocese will need the archbishop's permission to celebrate the Tridentine Mass, according to a new archdiocesan policy that Cardinal Blase Cupich promulgated on Dec. 27... "My intention in sharing this policy is to encourage you to reflect on the duty we each must assist our people in this moment of Eucharistic revival by rediscovering the value of the liturgical reform in the rites given to us by the Second Vatican Council," Cupich wrote in an accompanying letter to priests...

Do you think everyone at Latin Mass is an ideologue? You might be wrong (NCR)

Many, including Pope Francis himself, have expressed concerns that parishes that celebrate the Latin Mass tend to attract reactionaries who are opposed to progress and give rise to insular communities. As much as this is often the case, and I applaud Francis for taking this step, my experience has shown me that there are other, more nuanced reasons people are drawn to the Tridentine Latin Mass. Yes, many are drawn to it for ideological reasons. But the Latin Mass is also a haven for those who feel misunderstood or outcasted for their unconventional personalities and aesthetic sensibilities...

"There's something to the idea that personality typing impacts the way one chooses to worship," says Catholic psychologist Ellie Rose..."When considering the Traditional Latin Mass," she continues, "I wouldn't be at all surprised to find more introverts there for one thing, as the disposition is geared towards interiority and silent prayer. … Whereas the ordinary form of the Mass seems to emphasize the communal aspect of worship much more..."

Among the many neurodivergent people I know who are drawn to the Latin Mass are people who are on the autism spectrum. "Autistics tend to like regularity and order; they also tend to easily get sensory overload," said Legionaries of Christ Fr. Matthew Schneider, who writes frequently about his own experience on the spectrum. "As such, a Mass that is predictable in that it follows the rubrics closely and one without loud music is generally preferred," he said. "I personally find this often in ordinary form Mass celebrated strictly according to the rubrics without loud music or other distractions. But depending on the person and the parishes around them, some autistic people better find this in extraordinary form"... Francesca Dante, a Catholic who has Asperger syndrome, says she's drawn to the Latin Mass due to the "routine, ritual, limited variation, little requirement to participate outwardly and possibly because it may be less crowded"...

many Catholics who experience their queerness more as a spiritual or aesthetic sensibility don't find their experiences implicated in the construal of gayness as either an identity category or a moral condition. This reflects the concerns of the many self-proclaimed "liturgical queers" or "liturgiqueens" — one of whom I spoke to, Albertus Jung, told me he "only attends the TLM." Grant Cook, co-host of the Contra Gentiles podcast, says that "as a gay person who doesn't necessarily feel like I fit into a strict binary between totally masculine or completely feminine, I feel like Latin Mass gives me the opportunity to forego all of the social politics involved with more contemporary services. The fact that Latin Mass is structured, so reverently and pointed, so wholly towards God, means that I can remove the things I struggle with in my sexuality and gender from the equation for just a minute and experience God in a way that I haven't elsewhere. It's not about me." In addition to attracting queer people, the Latin Mass can serve as a safe haven for those whose characteristics or sensibilities are more generally out of the ordinary. Sarah Sparks, a gay Catholic who has written about how the Latin Mass helps her as someone who is deaf, told me that she is "accustomed to people being perplexed by me, partly because of my sexual orientation considered alongside other aspects of my life. One of the gifts that has come from my sexual orientation and other aspects of difference in my life is that I don't worry much about what other people think of me."

Parishes that celebrate the Latin Mass can indeed attract people with reactionary ideologies. The restrictions Francis put into place in the recent motu propio will hopefully curb this tendency. But I would caution detractors of the Latin Mass to take a step back and look at the other reasons people are drawn to this particular liturgy. Those who feel outcasted or alienated from parishes that only celebrate the ordinary form, including myself, deserve to have their sensibilities and experiences taken into account. As someone with neurodivergent tendencies whose experience overlaps with those quoted in this article, I can only hope that the recurring back and forth in the liturgical wars will be a provocation to all parishes to work on creating more inclusive liturgical and social environments.

A thoughtful piece from the NCR. I find it interesting to see the variety of people attracted to the Tridentine rite - gay, introvert, autistic, Asperger, those who feel "outcasted or alienated", etc - and their reasons are understandable, and probably don't include questioning the authority of the pope. I rather feel though that what they are reacting to is not the current rite per se, but simply the bad liturgy which is to be found in many parishes (just as there was bad liturgy in many parishes during the pre-Vatican era). All of the things they yearn for can be found in the current liturgy if it is sensitively and well celebrated. It can also be celebrated in Latin for those who find that useful - indeed the normative liturgy is Latin, translated into vernacular languages. Everyday liturgy was very poor in the pre-Vatican era, and is still very poor in the current era. Plus ca change!

brone, I'd still be interested to hear what attracts you to the Tridentine rite.

>94 brone:

Well, yes, there was bad liturgy pre-Vatican II and there is plenty of bad liturgy now. What are your memories of the pre-Vatican II mass? And since you think that the experiences of some of those who currently favour the Tridentine rite is "babble", what is it about the Tridentine rite that attracts you to it? Simple questions which could root our conversation in real life rather than "babble". But I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss the contents of the NCR article, which includes real Catholics sharing their real experiences of the Tridentine liturgy, something which you seem to be reluctant to do.

>96 brone:

No, I don't believe in ultramontane plots, and I'm aware that a huge percentage of Catholics across the world and including the USA quite happily participate in the ordinary rite of mass. Is it 98%? I haven't seen figures, but I would have no reason to doubt that one.

I'm not sure why you link a range of social justice issues with liturgical developments in the mass, as the two are different. Nor do I understand why you think Christ was wrong. One can say that Christ instituted the mass at the Last Supper, but he did not do it in Latin nor in a particular liturgical rite, whether Tridentine or otherwise. The current mass contains his words of institution, Hoc est enim corpus meum and Hic est enim calix sánguinis mei, as well as other elements which have been used in the mass since very early times, such as the four actions of taking bread, giving thanks, breaking it, and giving it to be eaten, and the eucharistic prayers still contain elements such as praise, thanksgiving, intercession, anamnesis and epiclesis, and, as you rightly point out, "Jesus, his saints, and his Blessed Mother", definitely "in the public arena" as they are proclaimed in a language that everybody can understand at every mass.

yet we recognized the right of those who attend the latin Mass to each his own we yanks say

I'm not sure that when the Church changes the liturgical rite anyone has a right to continue with the defunct one. What about the Sarum and Celtic rites? Was there a "right" for individuals to continue with them after the Church had promulgated the newer Tridentine rite in 1570? This is not the first time in history that the Church has introduced a new rite which supersedes and replaces the old one(s). It was through pastoral concern, not the recognition of a right, that Popes John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis allowed a limited and exceptional concession for the defunct rite to continue to be used in exceptional circumstances.

But it's worth pointing out that those who wish to attend the Latin mass still have that option, or "right" if you wish to use the word, as the normative language of the current rite is Latin. "The use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites” (Vatican II, Sacrosanctum concilium, #36). "Except in the case of celebrations of the Mass that are scheduled by the ecclesiastical authorities to take place in the language of the people, Priests are always and everywhere permitted to celebrate Mass in Latin" (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Redemptionis Sacramentum, # 112). There is no need to seek a defunct rite.

What attracts you to the defunct Tridentine rite as opposed to the ordinary form of mass celebrated in Latin?

saints I think we can agree on

No problems with Maximilian Kolbe (one of my favourites, in fact), John Paul II (although I agree with you that it was rather fast-tracked), Dorothy Day and Juan Diego. Fulton Sheen is not widely known outside the USA, so I can't really comment on him.

Our problem with the Progressive Church

There is no "Progressive Church", there is only the Church, and within it there is no "our" and "their". We are all part of it. Wishing you a peaceful and blessed new year.

Indeed, God bless all those who take an interest in the liturgy of the Church. But a truce implies a war. This is not a war, simply some Catholics seeing the Church and the world through different lenses, and at least on my part, trying to understand where the other person is coming from. Or at least that's how it should be. There should be no division within the Church, although there is plenty of room for diversity.

In terms of truces, I often think of the Christmas Day truce of 1914. The real truth of it has probably been obscured by time and legend, but something important happened on that day as young German and British men and boys somehow, even if only subconsciously, were aware that killing our fellow human beings is not right, and certainly not in keeping with the coming of the Prince of Peace. The aftermath of that truce, when the military and political leaders took back control from the ordinary folk, became one of the bloodiest wars in history. May we always empower those who seek nonviolence, and restrain the vested interests of the establishment, nationalists, populists, the military-industrial complex, religious and political ideologies, the privileged and dominant classes, and all those who use violence as a means or an end.

No division but mucho disagreement.

>101 brone:

Yes, disagreement is often part of diversity. Long may it flourish!

If only Francis would act with the same harsh criticism to Red China and it's brutal treatment of Catholics as he does against Catholics who wish to attend a Mass in latin.

Cardinal-designate calls liturgical tensions a 'tragedy' (NCR)

Cardinal-designate Arthur Roche, prefect of the Dicastery for Divine Worship and the Sacraments, described as a "tragedy" the tensions within the Latin rite of the Catholic Church over the way the Mass is celebrated. In a wide-ranging interview broadcast June 16 by Vatican News, the cardinal-designate said the tensions are "partly" due to having had two versions of the Roman Missal -- those from before and after the Second Vatican Council -- in use in the church at the same time... "It's a tragedy that there is this controversy today, the so-called 'battles' over liturgy," he said, "because the Eucharist is, by its nature, the sacrament that unites the entire church"... Still, the cardinal-designate said, the church must find a way to counter "one of the problems, challenges, of our age," which is "the growth in individualism and in relativism, that 'I prefer this.' Well, the celebration of the Mass is not something to be a matter of personal choice. We celebrate as a community, as the entire church and the church throughout the centuries has always regulated the form of liturgy that it has come to believe is more pertinent for a particular age"...

>105 brone:

Hasn't the Church always "eliminated" outdated liturgical rites whenever it has introduced a new one? After the Council of Trent were ordinary Catholics allowed to pick and choose which rite they celebrated?

Worth remembering that the Latin Mass has not been "eliminated", and in fact Latin is still the normative language of the liturgy. A priest who knows Latin can preside at the Eucharist in that language without any restrictions. All the old Latin chants (and Greek - let's not forget Kyrie eleison) can be used, as can Eucharistic Prayer 1, which is based on the old Eucharistic Prayer. Bells can be rung and the church can be full of the beautiful smell of incense. All that is missing are a handful of outdated prayers, and a number of peripheral actions - I remember as a young altar boy how we had to ceremonially cart the missal backwards and forwards during the mass, and help the priest don and doff the humeral veil and cope. Latin has actually had a bit of a revival musically, with the Taize community producing some beautiful and moving chants based on plainsong.

You've never told us why you are so enamoured with the old Tridentine rite, and I would genuinely be interested to know. Is it because of your memories of it from your childhood (like mine), or did you discover it later in life? What do you find in a Tridentine Latin Mass which you don't find in a normal Latin Mass? I think I've agreed with you in the past that there is some rubbish liturgy around these days, but I've also pointed out that in my memory there was plenty of rubbish liturgy around pre-Vatican II. Most of the things which I've heard proponents of the old rite say they like can be found in a well-celebrated liturgy regardless of what rite and what language are used, although I'll be the first to admit that you won't necessarily find them in an average parish mass, just as you wouldn't have found them in an average parish mass back in pre-Vatican II days. So unless one has an ideological agenda, the question should not be which liturgical rite but rather how can we improve the liturgy regardless of the rite used. More liturgical education for bishops, priests and laity might be the way to go.

>107 brone:

No, because these rites belong to a particular geographic or cultural community. The Tridentine rite was the universal rite, not the rite of a particular community, so when a new universal rite was introduced for the universal Church there was no need to keep a defunct universal rite.

I'm intrigued that you think these rites have anything to do with a "progressive fold". I think you often view the Church through a very narrow lens.

I'm probably wasting my time as you seem determined not to share your own experience of the Tridentine rite, but let me repeat once again my question. You've never told us why you are so enamoured with the old Tridentine rite, and I would genuinely be interested to know. Is it because of your memories of it from your childhood (like mine), or did you discover it later in life? What do you find in a Tridentine Latin Mass which you don't find in a normal Latin Mass?

>109 brone:

"America is {maybe} a particular, Geographic and cultural community" but it is not an ancient Catholic community which has had its own liturgical rite. It survived very happily using the universal rite of the Church, and there appears to be no reason why it should have exemption from the universal rite of the Church today. But actually America is not a monolithic geographical and cultural community. It is a whole continent with vast differences across it, a federal country where each state is different in many ways. It is only a very small number of US Catholics who are demanding exemption from the universal rite. They do not represent US Catholics as a whole, as is clear from the statements of many of your bishops and a reading of the US Catholic press. And even if there were to be a consensus that the USA deserved to have its own rite, as the Congolese achieved with the Zairean rite, it would have to be a rite which actually represents the culture of the country. Is Latin part of US contemporary culture the way Lingala is in Congo?

If you would try to explain your experience we might understand it. And don't underestimate the experience of growing up a Catholic in England. We were a small minority, a much smaller percentage than Catholics in the USA, in a country which (unlike the USA) has an official state religion which was not sympathetic to Catholicism. Until relatively recently there were actual discriminatory laws, and it would have been impossible to have a Catholic head of state or prime minister - how privileged you are to have had Kennedy and Biden. We were made fun of, called derogatory names, there was discrimination in employment practices in some parts of the UK, and Catholicism was associated with terrorism and unpatriotism due to the fact that many Irish are Catholics and that 400 years ago a Catholic named Guy Fawkes tried to blow up parliament. In most of the country they now burn an effigy of Fawkes on 5th November, but the town of Lewes still burns an effigy of the pope. Apart from a few aristocratic families from pre-reformation days, Catholics were largely poor and working class. You know, the myth of American exceptionalism is largely just that - a myth.

you would just throw the invincible ignorance card back at me

I'm trying to understand you, but you appear not to want to be understood. That's your choice, but don't blame others for it. Don't try to make yourself a victim by assuming that everyone is against you. It makes you look foolish. You're better than that, my friend.

Pope Francis Pens Letter on Liturgy After ‘Traditionis Custodes’ (National Catholic Register)

In the letter, Pope Francis called for liturgical formation beyond the academic environment to be accessible to all Catholics, in order to revive a sense of wonder at the mystery of the sacrifice of the Mass... In the 15-page apostolic letter, Desiderio Desideravi, the Pope said he wanted “to invite the whole Church to rediscover, to safeguard, and to live the truth and power of the Christian celebration.” “I want the beauty of the Christian celebration and its necessary consequences for the life of the Church not to be spoiled by a superficial and foreshortened understanding of its value or, worse yet, by its being exploited in service of some ideological vision, no matter what the hue,” he said in the document, published on June 29, the Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul. The title of the letter is taken from the Latin text of Luke 22:15: Desiderio desideravi hoc Pascha manducare vobiscum, antequam patiar — In English, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer”...

It addresses, I think, an issue which brone and I have agreed on - that there really is some appalling liturgy going on and something needs to be done about it.

Edited to add: Catholics need better understanding of the Mass, pope says (NCR)

The "sense of mystery" and awe Catholics should experience at Mass is not one prompted by Latin or by "creative" elements added to the celebration, but by an awareness of the sacrifice of Christ and his real presence in the Eucharist, Pope Francis said... "With this letter I simply want to invite the whole church to rediscover, to safeguard and to live the truth and power of the Christian celebration," the pope wrote. "I want the beauty of the Christian celebration and its necessary consequences for the life of the church not to be spoiled by a superficial and foreshortened understanding of its value or, worse yet, by its being exploited in service of some ideological vision, no matter what the hue"...

While his letter offered what he called a "meditation" on the power and beauty of the Mass, Francis also reiterated his conviction of the need to limit celebrations of the liturgy according to the rite in use before the Second Vatican Council. "We cannot go back to that ritual form which the council fathers, 'cum Petro et sub Petro,' (with and under Peter) felt the need to reform, approving, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and following their conscience as pastors, the principles from which was born the reform." The liturgical books approved by "the holy pontiffs St. Paul VI and St. John Paul II," he said, "have guaranteed the fidelity of the reform of the council." Although the post-Vatican II Mass is celebrated in Latin and dozens of vernacular languages, he said, it is "one and the same prayer capable of expressing her (the church's) unity." "As I have already written, I intend that this unity be reestablished in the whole church of the Roman rite," he said, which is why in 2021 he promulgated Traditionis Custodes (Guardians of the Tradition), limiting celebrations of the Mass according to the rite used before the Second Vatican Council... it is essential to recognize that the Mass does not belong to the priest or to any individual worshipper, but to Christ and his church...

Full text: Apostolic Letter Desiderio desideravi, on the liturgical formation of the People of God

I am struck by the following paragraph:

I do not see how it is possible to say that one recognizes the validity of the Council — though it amazes me that a Catholic might presume not to do so — and at the same time not accept the liturgical reform born out of Sacrosanctum Concilium, a document that expresses the reality of the Liturgy intimately joined to the vision of Church so admirably described in Lumen gentium. (31)

>112 brone:

I can join you in those sentiments. I'm glad that it has been written and about what it contains, and both sad and a little mad that it needed to be written. But I think it is an immensely positive letter focusing on unity, and let's hope that after everyone reads and internalises its message some of the divisiveness can now be left behind. It reinforces my view of this pope as a wise and holy pastor.

Why Pope Francis wants everyone to read Vatican II’s liturgy document (Aleteia)

In his new letter, Pope Francis repeatedly refers to Sacrosanctum Concilium and its importance in understanding the liturgy... However, it is a document that is often under appreciated and insufficiently read by the lay faithful. To help correct that trend, Pope Francis references the document 14 times in his short letter... In summary, if you want to fully understand the reform of the liturgy and the desires of Pope Francis and his last few predecessors, read Sacrosanctum Concilium.

>115 brone:

I would beg to differ. I think that rather than assaulting anyone or anything, this letter is a plea for unity and for a deeper understanding of liturgy.

What Vatican II said about creativity at Mass (Aleteia)

Pope Francis lamented "wild creativity" at Mass, an issue the Second Vatican Council also brought up in Sacrosanctum Concilium... The ars celebrandi cannot be reduced to only a rubrical mechanism, much less should it be thought of as imaginative — sometimes wild — creativity without rules... While many priests and parishes during the past 50 years have experimented with the liturgy in various ways, such creativity was never intended by the Second Vatican Council... It’s true that after Vatican II some parts of the liturgy were adjusted, but these adjustments were made with the authority of the bishops, and changes were only made with careful research. Furthermore, any “innovations” needed to grow “organically” from the previous Missal... While Pope Francis does not want the Church to fall into a “rigid” formalism, he also does not want individuals in the Church to add or subtract from the Mass...

Pope Francis' new apostolic letter is about more than 'liturgy wars' (NCR)

Pope Francis' apostolic letter about the sacred liturgy Desiderio Desideravi, which he issued last week, is a remarkable document. As he states in the opening paragraph, this is not an exhaustive treatment of such a rich topic, but his insights are profound and speak, or should speak, to us all... we see the Holy Father continuing to invite the church to bestir itself, prodding us to engage the mystery that is at the heart of all we do... Francis was crystal clear in this new letter on the reason for his insistence on the priority of the Vatican II rite: "The problematic is primarily ecclesiological. I do not see how it is possible to say that one recognizes the validity of the Council — though it amazes me that a Catholic might presume not to do so — and at the same time not accept the liturgical reform born out of Sacrosanctum Concilium"... It is remarkable that so much of the so-called "liturgy wars" are not about the place of the liturgy in salvation history, but about human tastes and stylistic preferences... This understanding of the liturgy as a gift, first and foremost... Francis said, "When the Church loses its pastoral nature, when a bishop loses his pastoral nature, it causes a political problem. That's all I can say"... it was Benedict XVI who emphasized the importance of gratuitousness in any Catholic economic and political models worthy of the name Christian. Benedict wanted to achieve the same in liturgy but he misjudged the intentions of certain collaborators intent on putting the Vatican II liturgical toothpaste back in the tube... We can make his concluding words our own: "Let us abandon our polemics to listen together to what the Spirit is saying to the Church. Let us safeguard our communion. Let us continue to be astonished at the beauty of the Liturgy. The Paschal Mystery has been given to us. Let us allow ourselves to be embraced by the desire that the Lord continues to have to eat His Passover with us. All this under the gaze of Mary, Mother of the Church."

>119 brone:

Not sure what that has to do with Traditionis Custodes, but can you cite a source for 'bishops and clergy and progressive laity consider processions in honor of the Blessed Sacrament, The Blessed Virgin, and Patron Saints as ostentatious of a "post tridentine triumphalism"' so that we can all see who these individuals are and read what they actually said?

Pope Francis wants to end the liturgy wars. I fear his new letter on the Eucharist won’t help (America Magazine)

You will know that we are Christians by our love, but you will know that we are Catholics by our fights. Sadly, one of the things Catholics fight over is the Eucharist... Francis is clearly saddened by those who reject the reforms that the council found absolutely necessary. The pope does not see the pre-Vatican II liturgy as equal to the reformed liturgy, which was meant to be the liturgy of the entire church. “I intend that this unity be re-established in the whole Church,” he writes. “We cannot go back to that ritual form which the Council fathers, cum Petro et sub Petro, felt the need to reform”... Francis does not want the Eucharist to “be spoiled by a superficial and foreshortened understanding of its value or, worse yet, by its being exploited in service of some ideological vision, no matter what the hue”... The letter is a heartfelt cry to end the liturgical wars and enter into the mystery of Christ’s death and resurrection...

The pope has allowed himself to be distracted by dissenters, focusing on the concerns of a small but vocal minority opposed to the reforms of the council. This makes the letter of little interest to the vast majority of Catholics who do not oppose the reforms, but need to be drawn deeper into the mystery of the Eucharist. Sadly, there is much ignorance among Catholics (including bishops and priests) about the Eucharist... Francis, we need another letter, one that helps the average Catholic understand and participate in the Eucharist.

I think that last paragraph is important. It echoes my own view that the vast majority of ordinary Catholics just get on with life in the Church and are probably slightly bemused at the tiny minority of dissenters who are much more vocal and get far more publicity than their numbers warrant.

>122 brone:

Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI offered dissenters an opportunity to remain in unity, as a pastoral gesture. That offer was abused by some and was used as an ideological platform to increase division. Francis is reminding us of the teaching of the Church, in this case expressed particularly in the dogmatic constitution Sacrosanctum concilium. If this was only about a handful of Catholics who like the Tridentine rite for aesthetic reasons it would not be so divisive, but unfortunately many of your fellow travellers (not you yourself, of course) are using it as a way of rejecting the teaching of the Church as expressed in Vatican II, while of course claiming that they don't reject Vatican II. It is fortunate that they are such a tiny minority, really only in two or three countries in the world, but unfortunate that they are so vocal and visible and so dismissive of the teaching of the Church.

Perhaps if you would deign to tell us why you prefer the Tridentine rite it would be possible for us to have a sensible conversation about this?

What's BIP, incidentally? I've googled and found Bureau d'Information Protestant, but I doubt that's what you're referring to. I much prefer the Jesuit motto which you often use, Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam, AMDG.

>122 brone:

You contradict yourself there when you say John Paul II and Benedict XVI "never caused dissent", and then you go on to name a group of people whom you say did dissent. Your dismissive "but they had little to complain about" could equally well be applied to the current dissenters.

>124 brone:

No disagreement with you there, although I wonder what is the point of stating this truism. Benedict is pope... emeritus. I'm in contact with several bishops who are emeritus, but they're still bishops and mostly still active.

Thinking about Benedict once again reminds me of how pointless and misleading is the narrative that tries to define people in the Church using political terms. Benedict is often hailed as "conservative", yet his resignation from the papacy was a more radical move than any pope for 400 years.

Indeed, we can agree that Catholics have a sense of humour, one that is usually self-deprecating.

>128 brone:

Do you really think describing an archdiocese as "his little fiefdom" is constructive or charitable? And if you'd like to have a conversation about it rather than just posting a cryptic soundbite, can you give us a link where we can read about it?

>130 brone:

If you're not prepared to share with us where you learned about Cardinal Cupich's dastardly deeds and let us see the background and context to this hot news, how do we know it's not fake news? Shared perfectly innocently, of course, as is much of the fake news that abounds. For what it's worth, I'd never heard of ICKSP, so I've learned something new already.

Edited to add: I've googled it and found that "An integral part of the institute’s charism is the use of the traditional Latin liturgy of 1962 for Mass and the other sacraments" (link), which potentially sets it at odds with the teaching of the Church expressed in Sacrosanctum concilium, Traditionis custodes and Desiderio desideravi. As for what you post in >128 brone:, I see only unconfirmed rumours on social media (Twitter, Reddit, Facebook), nothing from any official sources. But I'm sure you can direct us to an official statement so we can read what is actually happening before we jump to any conclusions and make any rash judgements.

How excessive restrictions on the Latin Mass could push away some ordinary Catholics (America Magazine)

This article is described as "part of The Conversation with America Media, offering diverse perspectives on important and contested issues in the life of the church", and thus I assume it doesn't necessarily reflect the views of America magazine. The author is actually an editor of Coumbia, the Knights of Columbus' magazine.

But on reading the article I'm not sure what his point is. What he says, and with which I fully agree, is that the Mass is already available in Latin without any restrictions, and that many of the familiar parts of the Tridentine mass are allowed to be incorporated into the liturgy, again without special permission. He seems to be saying that the problem is only that some bishops have over-reacted and banned all Latin masses, which is something strange that I was not aware of. But I might add that the problem also involves people who refuse to accept the Latin mass in anything but an unaltered Tridentine form, rather than taking advantage of the Latin mass which is freely available.

>133 brone:

"The beef" is about using words like war, attacks, elites, traditionalists and thus creating unnecessary divisions. We are all Catholics, the Church has a universal liturgy which can be freely celebrated in Latin or in vernacular languages. Nobody has any objection to people flocking to the Latin Mass, which is still the normative language of the Church's liturgy; the issue is that a small group of "elite" Catholics (to use your words) is rejecting the Church's universal liturgy, whether in Latin or any other language, and trying to revert to an obsolete liturgy which has been superseded. I'm still trying to understand why you prefer the Tridentine liturgy to a normal Latin mass, but so far you have continued to decline to enlighten us.

>135 brone:

Is that a quote? Where does it come from?

Earlier generations held slavery to be sacred. Also "holy war" crusades/jihads, the castration of young boys to sing in the church choir, torturing and killing people who did not convert to Christianity, burning of women labelled as "witches", the idea that the sun goes around the earth, and a whole load of other things which have now been superseded in the Church. Thank God.

Do you think this is the first time in the 2,000-year history of the Church that the liturgy has been reformed and the earlier liturgy superseded? Are we still using the exact same language and format as Jesus did at the Last Supper, or the early Christians in their house masses and masses at martyrs' shrines, or the Desert Fathers and Mothers, or the Gallican Rite of the first millennium, or the Celtic Rite of the early middle ages, or the 11th century Sarum rite? All were superseded in form, although the mass itself didn't change. Same is true of the Tridentine Rite.

Are you willing yet to tell us what it is about the Tridentine Rite that attracts you as opposed to the normal Latin mass?

>137 brone:

If I knew where it came from I wouldn't have asked, would I? Why are you so reluctant to be helpful to your fellow Catholics? I'll try googling it.

Yes, it's terrible what is happening in Nigeria. Almost certainly there are statements from Islamic leaders, but they don't get much publicity. There are a lot of interfaith initiatives going on, but again a lot of it is local and under the radar. As you're following events in Nigeria so closely, I'm sure you're aware of the work of "the imam and the pastor", Christian Pastor James Wuye and Muslim Imam Muhammad Ashafa. You may also be aware of the relationship between Cardinal Dieudonné Nzapalainga and Imam Oumar Kobine Layama in nearby Central African Republic. Less well known, but equally important, is the role played by Sheikh Musa Kilee, the Kadi of Acholi Muslim District, and his predecessor, in peace negotiations with the Lord's Resistance Army under the auspices of the Acholi Religious Leaders' Peace Iniitiative, led by Catholic Archbishop John Baptist Odama and including all the major faiths in the area, including African traditional leaders. The LRA was a violent extremist group in northern Uganda which claimed Christian roots. I'm currently writing Archbishop Odama's official biography, so this particular interfaith initiative is very much on my mind.

Incidentally the current President of Nigeria, Muhammadu Buhari, is a Muslim who was endorsed by Christian leaders.

As for mea culpa, I recall an ecumenical visit of Sudanese church leaders to South Africa about twenty years ago. We had on our agenda a meeting with a well-known progressive imam, but a number of our bishops and other Christian leaders were reluctant to meet him. We persuaded them to give it a try. As we walked into his office, his first words to them were, "I'd like to apologise for what some of my people have done to some of your people". Our bishops were totally disarmed (the tea and large buns which he gave them might have helped!) and had a very constructive conversation with him about extremism within Islam, but also acknowledging that the militant Islamists are a small minority who are not representative of the faith as a whole, much the same as militant extremists in any religion, including Christianity. That particular South African imam continued to engage with the Sudanese church for some years.

Edited to add: Ah, I've googled and found your elusive quote. It's from Summorum pontificum. Now why would it have been so difficult for you to have told us that? In my view such uncooperativeness is not helpful nor charitable in a conversation amongst Catholics.

In a recent letter, the Prelate of the Opus Dei movement expressed "one of the many reasons for my joy":

In different countries, with different languages ​​and customs, it has been wonderful to experience, once again, unity amid diversity. The unity of the Work, as a participation in the unity of the entire Church, is based above all on the Eucharist and is expressed – it should be expressed – especially in fraternity. How forcefully Saint Josemaría exhorted us: “Love one another!” A love that consists in understanding, being genuinely interested in each person, praying for one another, and living a spirit of service. A unity that necessarily is open, which expands in apostolic zeal. All this is a gift from God and also the responsibility of each and every one...

I'm no great fan of Opus Dei, but these are certainly inspiring words: "the unity of the entire Church, is based above all on the Eucharist", a point the Holy Father has often emphasised. And exercising a "love that consists in understanding, being genuinely interested in each person, praying for one another... A unity that necessarily is open" could be a good bit of advice for us in this LT Catholic Tradition group. Let's try to understand each other - and to help each other to understand.

>140 brone:

I am a fan of Catholic teaching. Sumorum pontificum made it clear that the 1962 mass could be celebrated as a pastoral exception for those who had been using the Tridentine rite all their lives and found it very difficult to adapt. I was happy with that, as I am with many pastoral exceptions in the Church. I have spoken earlier of people I actually knew who found that transition very difficult. However I am also a fan of unity in the universal liturgy of the Church. There is virtually nobody left alive who can claim that the Tridentine mass was what they had been used to all their lives - old folk like me (and presumably you, although you refuse to confirm or deny it) only knew the Tridentine rite for a few years in our youth, and for most of our lives have used the normal mass.

Who has told the Bishop of Savanna, GA, to stop using Latin Mass? Are you referring to the Tridentine/1962 rite, or are you referring to the normal Latin Mass, which as far as I know is still the universal norm for the Church? Can you cite a reference for this claim so we can read exactly what is happening and not risk this being distorted fake news?

"Bullies from Rome" is hardly the way to speak about the teaching authority of our Church. Are these the same "bullies" who oppose abortion? Talk about "grouchy old men" - almost everything you write comes over as the words of a "grouchy old man".

I would love to see the youth of your country, and of the world, experience the beauty of the universal liturgy of the Church, which we have both agreed is often celebrated very badly, which is one of the reasons why the Holy Father wants to educate bishops, priests and laity about liturgy. But going back to the 1962 missal rather than the 1970 one, whether in Latin or in vernacular, does not solve the problem of bad liturgy.

Are you still not willing to share with us what you appreciate in the 1962 Latin missal which you don't find in the 1970 Latin missal?

>137 brone:, >138 John5918:

Continuing the off-topic topic of Christian-Islamic relations, I just came across this story about a Catholic diocese in Uganda: Diocese of Kasese to Extend Clean Water to Islamic Secondary School (AMECEA). Access to clean water crosses religious boundaries. I've also just remembered a case of a Catholic church which was destroyed by forces of Sudan's Islamist military dictatorship during the liberation war. After South Sudan became independent, a group of Muslims led a fund-raising campaign to rebuild the church.

>142 John5918:

And more examples, from the Nuba Mountains area of Sudan. A group of Muslim soldiers stand respectfully in silence as a Catholic bishop celebrates mass under a large tree. The previous evening the bishop's party had likewise stood respectfully in silence while the Muslims prayed, before joining them for the iftar, breaking the Ramadan fast at sundown. A Muslim leader encourages the Christians to be more faithful in sharing their faith. A different Catholic bishop meets two Muslim imams who are being persecuted by the Islamist regime because they live peacefully with their Christian neighbours; "They accuse us of being 'bad Muslims', but we are the good Muslims!" I was present and witnessed all of these events personally.

>143 brone: Either Roche or Cupich

So you don't actually know whether it was a Vatican official or a US cardinal, the latter incidentally having no authority or influence over the Diocese of Savannah as the dioceses which fall under his metropolitan area include Belleville, Joliet, Peoria, Rockford, and Springfield, but not Savannah. Surely you're not spreading rumours and fake news? Or merely ignorance of the facts?

In fact if you look at the website of the Diocese of Savannah (here) you'll see that Bishop Parkes has not been told to stop using the 1962 missal, but the Vatican has responded to his own request for "permissions for specific parish churches in our diocese". The Vatican response names the "specific parishes", and the bishop states, "I am grateful to the Dicastery for granting the above permissions" and continues, "I am also aware that the eventual cessation of these Masses will be difficult for many of the faithful in our Diocese. Please know of my pastoral concern for you. Along with Fr. Allan McDonald (Bishop’s Delegate for Mass in the Extraordinary Form), the Priests who celebrate these Masses will accompany the attendees in the coming months as the transition is made to Mass in conformity with the decrees of the Second Vatican Council." I don't see any reference to "bullies from Rome" nor "grouchy old men" in the bishop's statement. Again, rumours, fake news and inciteful language which could inflame a disagreement, in contrast to the bishop's desire to seek unity. Shame on you.

An Important Papal Contribution to the Eucharistic Revival (National Catholic Register)

The central question, Pope Francis says, is how do we learn to pray and live the liturgy? What formation is needed so that we may conform ourselves to Christ and abide in communion with him?...

Most supporters and attendees of the pre-conciliar form of the Latin Mass, however, would say that they, just like Pope-emeritus Benedict, absolutely accept the validity of the Council and its liturgical reforms but object to the post-conciliar liturgical abuses, craziness and iconoclasm that took place supposedly in the name and spirit of the Council, what Pope Francis himself calls “imaginative — sometimes wild — creativity.” Such changes, which were neither approved by the Council or by Paul VI and John Paul II, are, they assert, a total betrayal of the Council’s vision and seem to be a far bigger threat to its liturgical reform than love for the pre-Conciliar liturgy. Most who attend the traditional Latin Mass say they do so out of desire for consistent liturgical reverence and fitting Eucharistic piety — not because they reject the Council and its authentic liturgical reforms, but only the false and foolish mutations pretending to have the Council’s mandate...

That's an important second paragraph. I understand it completely and sympathise with those who, like myself, are concerned about some of the appalling liturgy that has taken place, the "wild... liturgical abuses, craziness and iconoclasm", understandable perhaps during the transition years immediately after Vatican II, but less justifiable now, sixty years on. However what nobody has yet been able to explain to me is why some of those who are appalled at bad liturgy think the only solution is to go back to the old superseded rite. Why not seek and campaign for good liturgy under the current rite, whether that be in Latin or in the vernacular? Why not have Latin masses under the current rite rather than Latin masses under the old rite? I am truly baffled, and nobody has yet been able to explain it to me. I once again ask our most vocal proponent of the old rite in this group, brone, what is it that you find in the old Latin rite which you don't find in the new Latin rite?

Cardinal Gregory issues norms to implement pope's 'Traditionis Custodes' (NCR)

Cardinal Wilton D. Gregory of Washington promulgated liturgical norms July 22 for implementing Pope Francis' apostolic letter "Traditionis Custodes" ("Guardians of the Tradition")... Effective Sept. 21, celebration of the Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal can take place on Sundays in three nonparochial churches in the archdiocese: Chapel of St. John the Evangelist Parish in Forest Glen, Maryland; the Franciscan Monastery of the Holy Land in Washington; and St. Dominic Mission Church in Aquasco, Maryland. Gregory, in a letter to priests serving in the archdiocese, said that "it is clear that the Holy Father's sincere intention is to bring about greater unity in the church through the celebration of the Mass and sacraments" according to St. Paul VI's 1970 Roman Missal, "which was the fruit of the renewal in the liturgy" called for by Vatican II...

According to the archdiocesan norms, all celebrations of Mass on Christmas, the Triduum, Easter and Pentecost Sunday "are to use exclusively" the liturgical books promulgated by Sts. Paul and John Paul, "either in the vernacular or in Latin"... In addition, the norms also require that all other sacraments be celebrated using the liturgical books promulgated by Sts. Paul and John Paul. "These rites may be celebrated in Latin," the norms said...

So just to be clear, these guidelines are not restricting the celebration of the mass and the sacraments in Latin using the 1970 missal. They are only restricting (but not completely banning) the use of the obsolete 1962 missal. The cardinal has also appointed a senior priest "to act as his delegate in the pastoral care of faithful who wish to celebrate the Eucharist using the 1962 Missal."

And here is an egregious example of one of those "wild liturgical abuses". "Imprudent" indeed, and obviously not approved by the archdiocese.

‘Imprudent’ priest uses inflatable mattress as altar during mass in sea (Guardian)

Father Mattia Bernasconi, 36, from the archdiocese of Milan, said he had planned to hold Sunday’s ceremony among the trees by the beach in Crotone, southern Italy, after he had been helping with a week-long summer camp for high school students organised by Libera, an anti-mafia organisation. However, having failed to find shade from the searing heat, Bernasconi said a nearby family offered the use of the inflatable mattress and the priest took to the water, conducting the service with everyone – himself included – in swimsuits. After photos went viral this week, the local Catholic archdiocese called for “liturgical decorum and respect”...

Pope Francis to Canada’s Jesuits: ‘When there is conflict the liturgy is always mistreated’ (CNA)

“When there is conflict the liturgy is always mistreated,” Pope Francis said... “In Latin America thirty years ago there were monstrous liturgical deformations. Then they moved to the opposite side with a backward-looking intoxication with the old. A division was established in the Church.” The pope went on to tell the gathering of 15 Jesuits in Quebec on July 29 that his actions with regard to the liturgy have “aimed to follow the line taken by John Paul II and Benedict XVI, who had allowed the ancient rite and had asked for subsequent verification.” “The most recent verification made it clear that there was a need to regulate the practice, and above all to avoid it becoming a matter, let us say, of ‘fashion’ and remaining instead a pastoral question,” Francis said. “I look forward to the studies that will refine the reflection on the theme that is important: the liturgy is the people of God’s public praise”...

the pope also spoke about tradition and doctrine. He said: “The vision of the doctrine of the Church as monolithic, to be defended without nuance is wrong. That is why it is important to have respect for tradition, the authentic one.” Pope Francis then made a distinction between “tradition” and “traditionalism.” He said that “tradition is the living memory of believers,” while “traditionalism instead is the dead life of our believers.” “We must take the origin as a reference, not a particular historical experience taken as a perpetual model, as if we had to stop there. ‘Yesterday it was done like this’ becomes ‘it always has been done like this.’ But this is a paganism of thought! What I have said also applies to legal matters, to law,” the pope said.

Pope Francis praised the Canadian bishops for acting in unity with one another, saying that “miracles … can happen when the Church is united.” “This Canadian experience is an example of a united episcopate. When an episcopate is united, then it can deal with the challenges that arise,” he said. “Of course, there is no point hiding it, there are some who work against healing and reconciliation, in society as in the Church. Even last night I saw a small traditionalist group protesting, and saying that the Church is something else. … But that is the way things are,” he added. The pope cautioned that “one of the worst enemies” of Church unity today is “ideology”...

>150 brone:

Good grief, you do talk rubbish sometimes. What on earth is that all supposed to mean? Once again you disparage people rather than addressing issues.

I've stopped even pretending to read that member's posts.

>152 MarthaJeanne: Same here.

It is really off-putting. I read what John has to say, with interest, however.

>155 brone:

Thanks. This is very apposite, and would appear to fit with Pope Francis' thoughts on the development of doctrine. The wisdom of the past lights the way for truth now and in the future. That's why we Catholics look to both Scripture and Tradition, unlike many protestants who base themselves only on Scripture. Any chance of telling us where that nice quote comes from?

>156 John5918: Past experience lays a bet on 'no chance'.

https://www.crisismagazine.com/2022/the-papal-push-to-keep-latin-alive#:~:text=H...

>158 MsMixte:

Thanks. Interesting. A very divisive article which starts with a falsehood in its first paragraph: "Did not Vatican II—and now Traditionis Custodes—make clear that Latin is obsolete and that an undue interest in it is a sign of pathological nostalgia". Actually, no; "the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites" (Vatican II's Sacrosanctum concilium, 36). Can't get much clearer than that. Latin is still the normative language of the Roman missal and Latin mass can be celebrated anywhere, any time, without any restrictions, although it does seem it is not very popular with the rank and file and doesn't get celebrated too often these days. The "pathological nostalgia" is not referring to those who want a Latin mass, but rather those who want a Latin mass according to the defunct 1962 missal instead of the current universal Latin Roman missal.

The 1962 missal was not revised because it was in Latin (and indeed it was replaced by a new Latin missal), but because, as SS34 states, "The rites should be distinguished by a noble simplicity; they should be short, clear, and unencumbered by useless repetitions". Unlike most of those who want to see the return of the 1962 rite, I'm old enough to remember it and its Tridentine predecessor, and as an altar server and eventually MC, I was intimately involved with it (NB: brone refuses to tell us whether they remember it or not, but if they do, I'd be interested to hear their memories of it), and it certainly wasn't "unencumbered by useless repetitions". Its proponents are dishonest, or perhaps simply ignorant of the facts, when they fail to see that the Latin mass is still there; it is only a particular missal which has been superseded.

I do regret that I was only able to study Latin for one or two years at grammar school before having to give it up when I selected the science stream for O-levels. It's a beautiful language, and I think its grammar and vocabulary help us with many modern languages. It was only when I studied Arabic later in life that I really understood what the subjunctive tense is; a couple more years of Latin would probably have given me that knowledge twenty years earlier!

>157 brone:

Once again it would be really helpful if you would cite a reference for quoted texts so we can read them in context. I'm still trying to understand why you are so deliberately unhelpful to your fellow Catholics seeking enlightenment. I've tried googling but it's rather tedious, and considering that you have already copied and pasted it from somewhere it would be a lot quicker and easier if you would just paste the reference as well as the text. I think it's from John XXIII's 1962 Apostolic Constitution Veterum Sapientia. Is that correct? And as I've noted above, Vatican II did indeed preserve the Latin mass, not altogether surprising since it was the same pope who wrote Veterum Sapientia who initiated the Council and oversaw the development of Sacrosanctum concilium. Don't forget that it was all the bishops of the world who rejected the original draft on liturgy and came up instead with the Sacrosanctum concilium that we know and love, cum Petro et sub Petro, not some small imaginary cabal of anti-Latinists.

And on a slightly different tack:

Is Latin more effective in driving out demons? An exorcist responds (CNA)

“In the first place,” said the priest, who is also a liturgy professor, it’s important “to establish a theological principle: exorcism is a sacramental celebration of the Church and, therefore, receives its efficacy from the prayer and faith of the Church”... "it is Jesus Christ who confronts Satan, the rebellious spirits, in an exorcism while in that same ritual the victory of Jesus Christ over sin and death, over the devil, is proclaimed,” he said... The Spanish exorcist stressed that “the ritual of 1614 is neither better nor more effective, nor is the ritual of 2000 better or more effective”...

In His Encyclical Venitatia Splendor, The Pope had one objective, the condemnation of errors in moral theology, that leads to the rejection of the Church's teachings on the existence of evil acts and universal norms. He insisted that such norms are "universally valid to all people of the present and the future as they were in the past" Under the present head of the JPII institute Archbishop Palia has published a collection of essays by Sigred Muller, one of which we get a peek into the window of the Academy's new approach to Moral Theology. Which is, "new developments" (where have we heard that before?) in Moral Theology. " such theories are not faithful to the Church's teaching when they believe they can justify, as morally good, deliberate choices of kinds of behavior contrary to the commandments of divine and natural law. These theories cannot claim to be founded in Catholic Moral Tradition".... Come on guys you just made him a Saint why throw him under the papalmobile....JMJ....

>161 brone:

Did you mean Veritatis Splendor by John Paul II in 1963? Your main quote is from #75. My understanding is that the main thrust of VS is a critique of utilitarian philosophy. I'm sure that today's theologians are well aware of VS and of the pitfalls of which it warns.

Once again I ask, who is the "you" who "just made him a Saint"? Was John Paul II not canonised by the Catholic Church, and are you not one of "us", ie a Catholic? Surely you mean "we just made him a saint"?

I'm a little confused about the relationship between the John Paul II Institute and Sigrid Muller, whom I believe teaches at the University of Vienna. Can you clarify?

But you forgot to cite a reference for where you discovered this little gem. Your last line gives a clue, "throw him under the papalmobile". Surely no coincidence that someone called E. Christian Brugger has just published an article entitled Throwing St. John Paul II Under the Bus in a publication called "The Catholic Thing". Don't you think the author and the publication deserve credit for their work? And since you presumably agree with the article, don't you think it would be enlightening for the rest of us to be able to read it and, who knows, perhaps learn something new?

I'm also wondering why you post this in the "Traditionis custodes" thread, which is about liturgy, not about moral theology? Would it not have been more relevant to, say, "Current Catholic Issues"? Or a new thread on moral theology if that is your interest?

From the Daily Beast:

"Trad-Caths are a generally white, upper middle-class, urban crowd with a fetish for the “classical” church. In particular, they love the Latin Mass, a ritual which brings no added closeness to Christ—who spoke Hebrew, Aramaic, and possibly Greek. But trad-Caths balk at the suggestion that Christ can be viewed as a historical figure.

Trad-Caths universally glamorize the church before the Second Vatican Council—also known as Vatican II—a conference in the 1960s in which the church belatedly endorsed some modern, liberal policies in the hopes of bringing itself out of the cruel and bloody Middle Ages.

One representative passage from the Documents of Vatican II expounds that “some nations with a majority of citizens who are counted as Christians have an abundance of this world’s goods, while others are deprived of the necessities of life and are tormented with hunger, disease and every kind of misery. This situation must not be allowed to continue.”

Those lines are official Catholic doctrine, but if recited today on Fox News they would be derided as rampant globalism. And they certainly fly in the face of the “America First” doctrine of the Trump-era nationalist right.

And as noted by the Times, some trad-Caths even ascribe to the idea of sedevacantism (this group loves inventing fancy nonsense-words) which holds that all popes since the Second Vatican Council are illegitimate. Other trad-Caths simply refer to themselves as “postliberal,” an ideology advancing no original ideas of its own but instead standing upon a rejection of modernism and liberalism."

https://www.thedailybeast.com/im-a-cradle-catholic-i-dont-want-christian-nationa...

('Trad-Cath' meaning Traditional Catholic)

>163 MsMixte:

Thanks, yes, sadly there are a few of these divisive, often near-schismatic, Catholics who have an elitist attitude that they are the "true Church" and the rest of us are not, seeing themselves as "elite Catholics", to use a term frequently seen in this forum. While they often claim to be more faithful to the teaching of the Church than the rest of us, they tend to ignore or oppose Catholic Social Doctrine, much of which is not really new, although it is only in recent times (since Pope Leo XIII's Rerum novarum in 1891) that it developed into a named body of doctrine, now with its own equivalent to the catechism, The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church.

We used to have a sedevacantist posting regularly on this forum, but I haven't seen anything from them for a long time. I hope and pray that they are keeping safe and well. I was struck by how they never seemed to be able to express anything in their own words, only to copy and paste from one or two select conspiracy theory type websites, although if I recall correctly they did cite the websites so we could read for ourselves.

The comment about the language of Jesus reminds me of something I just posted today on the "Francis" thread about an Iraqi nun whose mother tongue is a dialect of Aramaic. “We speak Jesus’ language”, she says proudly.

And I love the part where the article says, "Putting aside the gold, dogma, and abuses of power, there’s one crucial element of the faith—central to Jesus’ teachings—that the new trad-Caths seem to completely miss: compassion. A child raised in the faith usually understands the simple concept of compassion". Yes! Amen!

Edited to add: Rereading what I wrote about compassion, I just remembered an incident from many moons ago when I was teaching First Communion catechism to a young boy from one of the old aristocratic Catholic families which survived the reformation in England. After a couple of lessons on Jesus' teaching about love and compassion, this seven year old scion of nobility looked at me and said, very seriously, "Well, I understand what you're saying, but one has to make a profit, doesn't one!" In its own way this probably sums up why many Catholics of a certain political persuasion shun Catholic Social Doctrine - capitalism trumps doctrine! Or as Jesus might have put it, mammon has been chosen over God.

I predict one of the next "evolving dogma's, doctrines," will be that the Resurrection of our Saviour does not belong to history, that it is incapable of proof, it is a subjective notion they will say evolving in the "Christian Consciousness". I do not believe it but if I did believe it, I should cease to be Christian....JMJ....

>165 brone:

I doubt whether your prediction will come true, but then most of your posts strike me as unduly negative and pessimistic. Given a "Glass half empty, glass half full" dynamic, I tend towards the latter.

Vatican's liturgy head to Latin Mass convert Shia LaBeouf: Let's talk (NCR)

The head of the Vatican's liturgy office says he would welcome a conversation with Hollywood actor Shia LaBeouf, who recently cited the traditional Latin Mass as motivation for his conversion to Catholicism. "I'd like to know why he thinks that, what is his experience of the celebration of the Mass," said English Cardinal Arthur Roche. "That's what priests do; we try to talk to people"... Roche said he was unfamiliar with LaBeouf and the news of his conversion, but said that when it comes to high-profile Latin Mass supporters who publicly extol it as a superior form of liturgy, he hopes they will encounter the same reverence in the liturgy's ordinary form (or Novus Ordo), which has been continually updated since the Second Vatican Council, which took place 1962-1965. "The Mass should be celebrated with great dignity," Roche said. "It isn't just something, a trait that belongs to the missal of 1962. It belongs to the reform." During the interview, Roche also said that he believes much of the resistance to Francis, as has been expressed by a number of Latin Mass adherents, is rooted in opposition to the reforms of the Council... "Reform of the liturgy was an enormous, long preparation prior to the council and the council is the highest legislation that exists in the church," he said. "Once that legislation comes into effect, it's a very serious matter." "You disregard that and you're really putting yourself sideways towards the edges of the church," he added. Roche warned against those reluctant to embrace the reforms of Vatican II, describing them as "not only dragging their feet but stubbornly opposing what the church has decreed." "And that's a very serious matter," he continued. "In the end, people have to ask themselves, 'Am I really a Catholic or am I more of a Protestant?' "

Like the good cardinal, I had never hear of Shia LaBeouf, though I grant that it is a striking and unforgettable name! Also like the good cardinal, I would love to have a conversation with proponents of the Tridentine rite about why they prefer it to the ordinary form of the Latin mass, but our main proponent here on LT is very coy about sharing their personal experience of the liturgy. In this very short comment, the cardinal has made some powerful and key points about the teaching of the Church and those who oppose it.

Pope: Liturgy must look to God without being worldly (Vatican News)

In an address to an Italian association of liturgists, Pope Francis warns against “worldly” approaches to the liturgy, saying liturgy must be directed to the Mystery of Christ while remaining close to daily life... The Pope noted that fifty years corresponds to “the ecclesial season of this liturgical reform”: following the initial phase marked by the publication of new liturgical books, "we are now in a period of deepening acceptance of the reform." This process, he said, requires not only time but also “passionate and patient care,” “spiritual and pastoral understanding,” and ongoing formation... The Holy Father noted, too, that the academic work of liturgists cannot be separated from the pastoral and spiritual dimension of liturgy, saying that liturgical formation must reach the people of God. In this regard, he held up the model of Romano Guardini, a German priest and scholar who, among other notable accomplishments, was able to spread the "achievements of the liturgical movement" in a way that was accessible to the ordinary faithful... Finally, the Pope insisted that progress in the understanding of the liturgy and the art of celebrating it “must always be rooted in tradition.” At the same time, he warned of a worldly spirit of going backward (IT: “indietrismo”, literally: backwardness). Going back to the roots, he said, does not mean going backward, but instead means allowing true tradition to lead one forward. He cautioned liturgists to carefully distinguish between tradition and “traditionalism,” warning that “today the temptation is ‘backwardness’ disguised as tradition”... Pope Francis reminded his audience that the study and promotion of liturgy “must be imbued with prayer and the living experience of the Church that celebrates, so that liturgical ‘thought’ might always flow, like a vital sap, from the lived liturgy”...

>170 brone:

Or you could give us a link to it so that we can see it. Or you could tell us why you prefer the Tridentine rite.

Please stop saying "anti-Latin mass" because it is simply not true. There are no restrictions on the celebration of the Latin mass in the ordinary rite. The only restrictions are on celebrating the Tridentine rite.

>172 brone:

As far as I know there is no Amazon Rite, bu I could be wrong. There is a Zaire Rite, which was approved by Pope John Paul II. And there is a normative or ordinary rite which is primarily in Latin and then translated into vernacular languages, but which for some reason you don't like, even though you won't tell us why.

As someone new to the faith and a young adult let me share my personal experience on these matters. I'm involved in many young adult groups in my area and network with young adults all over the state of Maryland. I'm also good friends with some members of an Ordinariate church and Byzantine rite church. Many young people I talk to, who regularly attend Ordinary Form, love and respect the TLM and think that it should be made MORE available. I do not sense any sort of elitism or "true church" mentality at all among them; they are loving and understanding people; they just want to worship in as reverent a way as possible through a liturgy reverently celebrated. What's making it difficult for us is that it's becoming harder and harder to find reverently celebrated liturgies which is why some of my friends joined the Ordinariate. My girlfriend and I are having a hard time deciding where to go on Sunday. At this point our three options are 1) travel far to a church we know is respectful of the Liturgy 2) go to an Ordinariate church or 3) go to the TLM (which is pretty far for us aswell). The reason for this is the new priest at our home parish is rolling out some pretty horrible changes and our young adult leader has been speaking with him to try and reach a compromise but without any success.

I don't want to stir up anything; I'm just reporting the situation younger devout Catholics are going through.

We fly to thy protection,
O Holy Mother of God.

>174 DeVilbiss:

Thanks for this thoughtful post, and welcome to the Catholic Tradition group. You're certainly not stirring anything up, and your contribution is very helpful.

I'm very sorry to hear that in your local parish the priest is inattentive both to good liturgy and the voice of parishioners such as yourself. I think one thing we have all agreed on in this thread (and a point that Pope Francis has made) is that there is some very bad liturgy going on, and there is a great need for more catechesis on the liturgy for bishops, priests and laity. You're right that "it's becoming harder and harder to find reverently celebrated liturgies" in some areas, although globally I'd say they're probably still far more common than the outlandish ones which tend to grab the attention.

When you refer to "TLM", is that the "Tridentine Latin Mass", or "The Latin Mass" celebrated according to the ordinary form? I ask because for me that's at the root of the tension that's arisen. The Latin mass is freely available, celebrated according to the ordinary rite, although it is not used very often. That you "just want to worship in as reverent a way as possible through a liturgy reverently celebrated", I fully understand. Me too. I can find those reverently celebrated liturgies in a variety of languages. Because of where I live and work it's often Arabic or Kiswahili, but I've experienced such liturgies in English, French, German, Spanish, Latin and other languages, just as I've also experienced poorly celebrated liturgies in various languages including Latin (I'm old enough to remember the Tridentine Rite before Vatican II, and I can assure you it was often very poorly celebrated).

So for me, what we all agree on is that we "want to worship in as reverent a way as possible through a liturgy reverently celebrated" and the question is how to go about it. We want good reverent liturgy, whatever language it is celebrated in. Latin is one of the languages in which the mass is allowed to be celebrated (indeed it is the normative version which is the source of all the translations into the vernacular) and there are no restrictions on its use, so for those who wish to have mass in that language, those priests who are able to speak or understand it should be willing to do so - a mass where the priest is just mouthing a language with which he is not familiar is usually not very reverent, and I have experienced it in a number of languages. Where there seems to be disagreement is from those who feel that the only way to get this reverent liturgy is to go back to the defunct Tridentine rite rather than to use well the current ordinary Latin rite, and that's the issue I am trying to understand.

>175 John5918: And at least to me, a mass celebrated in a language which the PARTICPANTS do not understand, is not reverent. It's ritual, but not understanding. It would be like me going to Poland, and listening to a sermon or mass in Polish (I don't speak Polish).

Latin was used because it was a 'universal' language, which all scholars spoke, wrote, and understood. This is no longer the case.

" those priests who are able to speak or understand it should be willing to do so - a mass where the priest is just mouthing a language with which he is not familiar is usually not very reverent, and I have experienced it in a number of languages. "

>177 brone:

Yes. The Latin mass celebrated according to the ordinary rite of the Church. So what I am still trying to understand is why there is a felt need to celebrate it according to the defunct Tridentine rite. So far nobody has explained that to me.

>179 brone:

Thanks for the correction, yes, de facto it still exists, and I imagine a celebration of it would be valid albeit usually illicit. But you haven't answered my question (again). I am genuinely curious to understand why those who are unhappy with poor liturgy (as I often am) (a) feel that mass in Latin is more reverent than a well-celebrated mass in their own language, and (b) choose the irregular Tridentine Latin Mass rather than the ordinary Latin mass. Can anyone help me here?

>181 brone:

In other words, you won't gladly tell me. How do you expect anybody to understand your position if you refuse to explain it? This is not about labels or prominent priests, it's a simple question as to why you prefer the Tridentine Latin mass to the ordinary Latin mass.

>175 John5918:
Hi John,
When I'm talking about my young adult friends having a great respect for the TLM I mean the Traditional Latin Mass, or the Extraordinary Form. I didn't know Latin Masses in the Ordinary Form existed; never heard of them before. When I google them all the results I get are for the TLM instead.

>183 DeVilbiss:

Thanks for that. I think that is why there needs to be more catechesis on the liturgy. The 1970 missal was promulgated in Latin, and then translated into many languages. The ordinary form of the mass is permitted in any language, including Latin. Sacrosanctum concilium encourages the continued use of Latin. Many of the papal masses in the Vatican are celebrated in Latin. So for people who want a reverent Latin mass, it is permitted, without having to resort to the extraordinary form. I'm trying to understand why that option is not being used more widely. But I suppose the fact that it is difficult to find this on google is a sign that at the moment most of the discussion and controversy is dominated by the Tridentine mass and, sadly, some of its adherents for whom it is an ideological issue, which is what appears to concern the Holy Father.

>185 brone:

Yes, again something on which we agree. The Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults (RCIA) had fallen into disuse for many centuries but reinstating it was one of the many reforms of Vatican II.

With a few moments to spare this evening I just did a little random Googling, and found the following:

A Short and Sound Rundown of the Latin Novus Ordo (Reverent Catholic Mass)

In 1963, when the bishops at the Second Vatican Council (“Vatican II”) issued their instructions on the reform of the liturgy, they did not, as most people think, forbid or otherwise discourage the use of Latin at Mass. In fact, the opposite is true: they decreed that while the vernacular (e.g., English) could be allowed for few parts of the Mass, Latin would remain the language of the Mass: “The use of the Latin language...is to be preserved in the Latin rites...A suitable place may be allotted to the vernacular in Masses.... Nevertheless care must be taken to ensure that the faithful may also be able to say or sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 36 and 34, December 4, 1963). Seeing that the Council’s instruction was largely being ignored, in 1974 Pope Paul sent all the bishops of the world a booklet of the Latin chants of Mass parts that clearly “pertain” to the faithful, and encouraged the bishops to put them to use. Sadly, these instructions continued to be ignored. So, in revising the Roman Missal in 2000, Pope St. John Paul II added a specific norm, or law, to it: “No Catholic would now deny the lawfulness and efficacy of a sacred rite celebrated in Latin... Gregorian chant should hold a privileged place...It is desirable that they {the faithful} know how to sing at least some parts of the Ordinary of the Mass in Latin...” (2000 General Instruction of the Roman Missal, 12 and 41). Pope Benedict XVI was also well known for advocacy of Latin at Mass...

Latin Mass today? (Fr Coulter)

Desiring to celebrate Mass in Latin, one doesn't have to resort only to the traditional (Tridentine) Rite. The Mass we celebrate after the conciliar reforms can also be in Latin! Here are a few resources to help priests and laity celebrate the Novus Ordo (Vatican II) Rite in Latin...

The Order of Mass (The Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite) in Latin can be found here.

All of these confirm what I had thought was common knowledge within the Church, but apparently not. The ordinary form of the mass in Latin is there for all to see and to use freely; indeed Vatican II stipulated that “The use of the Latin language is to be preserved". Catholics who favour a reverent Latin mass can have it without any controversy, in the ordinary form. If priests are not celebrating Latin masses in the ordinary rite where there is a demand for Latin, then they and their bishops should be asked why, and should be challenged to do so, but there is no need to revert to the Tridentine rite.

Just thinking randomly while I'm doing some work in a Ugandan diocese, and three simple questions came to my mind.

1. Does the Holy Father (and his immediate predecessors) celebrate the Eucharist in Latin on a regular basis?
2. Does he use the extraordinary Tridentine rite to do so?
3. Are his Latin masses using the ordinary rite reverent and respectful?

I believe the answers are yes, no and yes respectively, but I'd be interested to hear from others.

A friend and I were in Rome in July 1972, and we were able to obtain tickets to a papal mass in St Peter's. That in itself was an adventure, as we had to enter the palace between Swiss guards, to request the tickets.

At the mass itself, we were standing near a group of nuns with whom we had no common language. They each had a service booklet, and when they saw that we didn't, they insisted on giving us each one. I still have mine. It is titled "Solennita degli apostoli Pietro e Paolo : Santa messa celebrata da Paolo VI nel nono anniversario dell' incoronazione." I should add that those around us were speaking in a wide variety of languages, and a nearby balcony held members of various diplomatic missions.

The service was mostly in Latin, with things like readings and prayer biddings in other languages. (The booklet includes Italian translations.) Comparing the first few pages with online resources, this was the ordinary rite and not the Tridentine one.

The whole experience was amazing and I can certainly bear witness that it was reverent, respectful, and very worshipful. The feeling of worshiping together with the whole world-wide church was just overwhelming.

We all have rights within the church as baptized and that is not merely priests, bishops and consecrated persons who get to have their voices heard. A large crowd of Catholics marched in Wash DC yesterday and tens of thousands followed the event online. They carried banners quoting BXVI " What earlier generations held as sacred remain sacred" and 'save the Traditional Latin Mass'. The Marchers said Rosaries on their route from one suppressed church to another. It is ordinary everyday catholics who face down the might of the progressives in the church, you can bet there wasn't a bishop or cardinal in sight....JMJ....Our Lady of Good Remedy Pray for Us.

Laws, even invalidating and disqualifying ones, do not oblige when there is doubt about the law. The decision of many US bishops immediately following the TC publication, gave blanket permission for existing arrangements is a perfectly reasonable exercise of their prerogatives under the Apostolic Letter. A diocesan bishop, when ever he judges that it contributes to their spiritual good is able to dispense the faithful from universal and particular disciplinary laws issued for his territory or his subjects by the supreme authority of the Church. Bishops beware Francis will remove you in a heartbeat if he feels threatened by nagging rigidity Ask those who disagreed with his china virus mandates ....AMDG....James the Greater Pray for US.

A nice little video showing the Tridentine mass using the 1962 missal in Ireland in 1967 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzDo4XQDUi8

A reminder that poor and/or irreverent liturgy is a perennial human phenomenon, not linked to any particular era, language or liturgical rite.

I smiled at the part where everybody is crowded at the back of the church when there are empty pews at the front. It seems to be a very Catholic habit (at least in UK and Ireland) that we always like to sit at the back!

>198 brone:

You forgot the citation. Code of Canon Law 14. The remainder of your post appears to be an opinion expressed in Traditiones Custodes in light of Canon Law in July 2021 by the Latin Mass Society of England and Wales. I haven't read the whole thing, but actually what Pope Francis has done in Traditiones Custodes is indeed to put the ball back in the court of individual bishops to make exceptions in their own dioceses rather than having a blanket exception imposed on them by Rome.

>199 John5918: "a very Catholic habit" Not just Catholic. This seems to be frequent over a wide range of denominations.

A completely irrelevant fact about Latin which I learned from watching a clip of QI on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjIDYqrWs08) is that a Finnish radio station broadcasts the news in Latin once a week, and a German radio station once a month.

>195 brone: We all have rights within the church as baptized

Indeed we do. We also all have responsibilities, one of which is to remain in unity with the Church and to respect the teaching of the pope and bishops.

But your insistence on individual rights is interesting. In most of your posts you insist that you are not at odds with the Church, but that you simply choose the extraordinary Tridentine rite as a result of the poor and irreverent liturgy that you currently experience in your local parishes, although you consistently refuse to tell us why you don't seek good and reverent liturgy, whether in English or Latin, in the ordinary rite. So which is it? Are you seeking good and reverent liturgy, or are you trying to prove a point by asserting a right to be different that you believe you have?

We also all have the right to the Eucharist, which is at the very centre of our faith, and compared to which the issue of liturgical rites is rather peripheral. However, due to some of the rules which the Church has made over the centuries (particularly that priests must be male and celibate) large swathes of the global Catholic population, perhaps even a majority, do not have regular access to the Eucharist. Neither the world nor the Church are perfect, and we have to live within that tension, focusing, selflessly and self-sacrificially if necessary, on the common good rather than trying to assert my own individual rights.

>206 brone:

My understanding is that it's not the rite which is "deficient and harmful to the spiritual life of the faithful" but the attitude that an individual Catholic has the "right" to ignore at whim the universal ordinary rite of the Church. There are other permitted particular and extraordinary rites such as the Ambrosian and the Zaire rites. If a priest were unilaterally to decide to regularly celebrate the Zaire rite in Milan or the Ambrosian rite in Kinshasa in a parish church in public on a Sunday I suspect they would soon learn from the local bishop that extraordinary rites have limits and restrictions placed on them. The extraordinary Tridentine rite is no different in that respect. It has not been banned but restrictions have been placed on where and when it can be celebrated in each diocese. As far as I am aware, there are no restrictions on celebrating the ordinary rite in Latin, which again leads me to wonder why the proponents of "The Latin Mass" appear to reject the celebration of mass in Latin according to the universal rite and to insist on celebrating it according to an extraordinary rite.

I think your characterisation of previous popes and ancient rites is inaccurate. Where would you find the Gallic, Celtic or Sarum rites still being celebrated intact, for example, or for that matter the rites described in the Anaphora? And while the Tridentine rite built on, developed and was in continuity with earlier rites, just as today's universal rite does, it existed in its own right for only 400 years, not 1,000, and only in the last quarter of the two millennia of Christianity, ie it is relatively modern. Many aspects of earlier rites continue in the current ordinary rite, including Eucharistic Prayer 1 from the Tridentine rite and Eucharistic Prayer 2 from a much more ancient tradition.

Needed: a new liturgical movement (The Tablet)

It is time to look away from the neuralgic battle over two Missals and think over a far longer time span about the very nature of liturgy as it has matured in centuries of reflection and magisterial teaching. We should return especially to the works of the liturgical movement that stretched between St Pius X and St John XXIII...

This is from the hard copy Tablet, 8 October 2022. It is online but I think you have to register to read it free of charge.

>209 brone:

Ah, so you finally come into the open about not respecting the teaching of Vatican II? This is the teaching of the Church, whether you like it or not, and I think this is the point which Pope Francis, as our pastor and teacher, is constantly making. Catholics follow the doctrine of the Church, as transmitted through Tradition and the magisterium. If you think Vatican II is out of date after 60 years, what makes you think that Vatican I isn't out of date after 150 years or the Council of Trent after 400 years? Or indeed the New Testament after 2,000? What is a "virile" Catholicism in a Church where more than 50% of her active members are women? Maybe "fertile" would be a better metaphor? I see a lot of confusion in your post.

>211 brone:

That whole post is innuendo and disparagement without one iota of fact in it. If that's your opinion, can you offer some rational factual support for it? And does it have any relevance to this topic, Traditiones Custodes?

>213 brone:

You are missing the point. Nobody denies that the Latin mass has been around since very early times, and it is still around, as Latin is the normative language for the universal rite promulgated by Pope Paul VI, as recommended by Vatican II. The question which you consistently refuse to answer is why you favour a rite which has been superseded (as have many other rites during the last 2,000 years) instead of happily celebrating mass in Latin according to the current universal rite of the Church.

Pope Francis clarifies two points of ‘Traditionis custodes’ (Vatican News)

Pope Francis has unequivocally reiterated two precise points of Traditionis custodes. The motu proprio was released in July 2021, and redefined the norms regarding the use of the 1962 Roman Missal by restoring authority over these celebrations to the bishops... These concern the use of parish churches and the possibility of establishing personal parishes for groups celebrating according to the 1962 Missal, promulgated by Pope John XXIII before the Second Vatican Council; and the use of the 1962 Missal by priests who were ordained after 16 July 2021, in other words after the publication of the motu proprio... The rescript reiterates—beyond even the most remote possibility of misunderstanding—that the two cases in question are "dispensations reserved in a special manner to the Apostolic See." Bishops are obliged to seek authorization from the Holy See...

Francis stiffens restrictions on pre-Vatican II Mass (The Tablet)

Vatican permission will now be required for parish churches to celebrate the older form of the Mass...

Traditionis custodes: Cardinal says only Vatican can dispense from certain obligations (CNA)

The head of the Vatican’s liturgy office said Tuesday that dispensations from two of the rules in Traditionis custodes can only be granted by the Vatican, not by the diocesan bishop. The Feb. 21 rescript (a form of official clarification in response to a question or request) from Cardinal Arthur Roche said Pope Francis had confirmed that a dispensation to use or erect a parish church for the celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass in a diocese is “reserved in a special way to the Apostolic See.” Permission for a priest ordained after July 2021 to celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass can also only be granted by the Vatican, the document states. The rescript says that Roche’s office, the Dicastery for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, exercises the authority of the Holy See to uphold or dispense from these two obligations...

The steely determination of Pope Francis to implement his critical Mass reforms (The Tablet)

Pope Francis is prepared to face down those who continue to promote a Church within a Church... The reforms of the Second Vatican Council provide the foundation stones for this pontificate and Francis has called the path of liturgical reform begun by the council “irreversible”. While it allows for some exceptions, the latest legal act underlines Pope Francis’ steely determination to ensure the liturgical books promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II are what these popes and the Council fathers intended them to be: the unique expression of worship in the Roman Rite... Pope Paul VI, who oversaw the reform of liturgy, envisaged that the old form of the rite would only be celebrated by aged and sick priests... In a letter accompanying Traditionis Custodes Francis said that the concessions granted by John Paul II and then by Benedict had been “exploited” by traditionalists to “encourage disagreements” in the Church and “expose her to the peril of division”... Pope Francis had become concerned about how the older form of the liturgy was being used to undermine unity in the years since his election. The restrictions... were primarily designed to stop it from becoming a “club” or being used to create an “alternative church”. Traditionis Custodes seeks to prevent the creation of a parallel Church by ensuring that Masses in the pre-conciliar form are not celebrated in parish churches, and that bishops consult Rome before newly ordained priests are allowed to celebrate the older form of the liturgy... “Dispensations are not meant to undermine universal law. What we have seen in the case of Traditionis Custodes is that some have used the power of dispensation to undermine the effectiveness of the papal universal law”...

Some of those who attend these Masses are sceptical of the reforms of the Second Vatican Council and deeply opposed to the Francis pontificate. The celebration of the liturgy goes to the heart of the council’s vision, underlined by the principle lex orandi, lex credendi: how we pray is how we believe. Sacrosanctum Concilium, the constitution on the sacred liturgy, was the first document produced by the council, which the council fathers voted in favour of by a majority of 2,147 to 4. It expresses the desire for a liturgy which promotes the active participation of all believers, which in turn is reflected in the council’s constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, and its recovery of the biblical and early priesthood of all believers. While some in the Church, including some bishops, have not been happy with all the changes to the liturgy in the years after the Council, there is no doubt the council fathers wanted significant reforms. An ecumenical council is the Church’s highest authority. This is one of the reasons why the Pope has taken such a tough line on those who insist on continuing to celebrate the pre-1962 liturgies as if the Second Vatican Council never happened. “If you don’t follow the council or you interpret it in your own way,” Francis said in 2021, “you do not stand with the Church”...

The resistance to liturgical reform is not widespread, but neither is it going away...

Cardinal Cantalamessa warns against losing sacredness of liturgy (Vatican News)

Cardinal Raniero Cantalamessa, the Preacher of the Papal Household, delivers his fourth sermon for Lent 2023 to Pope Francis and Roman Curia... Cardinal Cantalamessa warned against distorting the beauty of the liturgy "with arbitrary and bizarre improvisations," and "called for "maintaining the necessary sobriety and composure even when the Mass is celebrated in particular situations and environments."

Those who oppose the current Catholic liturgy often choose to ignore the fact that the Church teaches against all abuses of the liturgy, whether those be the use of the superseded Tridentine rite by self-styled "traditionalists" or the "arbitrary and bizarre improvisations" by some "progressive" Catholics.

Pope Francis Says Traditional Latin Mass was Being Used in an Ideological Way (ACI Africa)

During the question and answer session, Pope Francis said he was concerned about a “reaction against the modern,” or what he calls in Italian “indietrismo,” which translates in English to “backwardness.” “It is a nostalgic disease,” he said... “After all the necessary consultations, I decided this because I saw that the good pastoral measures put in place by John Paul II and Benedict XVI were being used in an ideological way, to go backward. It was necessary to stop this ‘indietrismo,’ which was not in the pastoral vision of my predecessors”... “And,” he added, “I know the resistance to its decrees is terrible. There is incredible support for restorationism, what I call ‘indietrismo’ (backwardness), as the Letter to the Hebrews (10:39) says: ‘But we do not belong to those who shrink back.’” “The flow of history and grace goes from the roots upward like the sap of a tree that bears fruit. But without this flow you remain a mummy,” he said. “Going backwards does not preserve life, ever.” “You must change, as St. Vincent of Lérins wrote in his Commonitory when he remarked that even the dogma of the Christian religion progresses, consolidating over the years, developing with time, deepening with age,” he said.

Is it too late for liturgical reconciliation? (Tablet)

I share Benedict’s view that the older form is ritually richer than the reformed version of the liturgy. But the fact that it has its own inbuilt weaknesses, as he well knew, is something that is rarely admitted today by its enthusiasts. There were solid reasons why the Fathers of the Council, in an astonishingly swift display of unanimity, called for a reform, even though they themselves had been spiritually nourished all their lives by the “Latin Mass”. In practice, as they knew from experience, there was considerable ritualism – casuistic/legalistic rubricism to be precise – that led some priests into a crippling scrupulosity. As a young adult growing up in Cork I was aware of the impoverished participation in the Mass on the part of the lay faithful. For many decades before the opening of the Second Vatican Council, various ways had been sought to promote better participation, such as publishing Latin Missals for the faithful with a parallel vernacular translation. Accretions to the rituals of the Mass introduced in the Baroque period no longer chime with contemporary culture: at best they are theatrical, at worst alienating. Slavish adherence to the rubrics can induce mere ritualism. The truly magnificent celebration of High Mass and Solemn Pontifical Mass risked (and risks) becoming a spectacle – supremely beautiful but still a spectacle. The ritual richness of the TLM can, understandably, also foster elitism and a sense of superiority – and not the required humility, reverence and gratitude that is of the essence of the celebration of the Holy Eucharist in either form. Pope Benedict’s hope was not that the reformed form of the Mass (whether celebrated in the vernacular or in Latin) would be replaced by a return to the pre-Vatican II liturgy but that it would learn from – and be enriched by – the intrinsic dynamism of pre-conciliar rituals, which more powerfully evoked its sacred character... But Benedict also hoped that the adherents of the older rituals might in turn learn from the reformed ritual – not least in terms of its noble simplicity (when celebrated with strict adherence to the reduced rubrics), its dialogical dynamic, and its liberating emphasis on the Word of God...