Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Pope Francis Drops a Bomb on the Church
Friday, Pope Francis issued an Apostolic Letter “Motu Proprio” entitled, Traditionis Custodes.(TC)
This letter severely restricts the use of the traditional Latin Mass (TLM), effectively throwing Benedict XVI and his issuance of Summorum Pontificum (SP), under the bus. Pope Benedict XVI issued SP in order to help those faithful who “continued to be attached with such love and affection to the earlier liturgical forms which had deeply shaped their culture and spirit.” Apparently, Pope Francis doesn’t think that’s necessary anymore.
It will no longer be possible for any priest to pray the TLM at any time, but will now be dependent on having a benevolent bishop who will allow the TLM. Article 3 of TC is where we get gutted:
Art. 3. The bishop of the diocese in which until now there exist one or more groups that celebrate according to the Missal antecedent to the reform of 1970:
§ 1. is to determine that these groups do not deny the validity and the legitimacy of the liturgical reform, dictated by Vatican Council II and the Magisterium of the Supreme Pontiffs;
§ 2. is to designate one or more locations where the faithful adherents of these groups may gather for the eucharistic celebration (not however in the parochial churches and without the erection of new personal parishes);
§ 3. to establish at the designated locations the days on which eucharistic celebrations are permitted using the Roman Missal promulgated by Saint John XXIII in 1962. [7] In these celebrations the readings are proclaimed in the vernacular language, using translations of the Sacred Scripture approved for liturgical use by the respective Episcopal Conferences;
§ 4. to appoint a priest who, as delegate of the bishop, is entrusted with these celebrations and with the pastoral care of these groups of the faithful. This priest should be suited for this responsibility, skilled in the use of the Missale Romanum antecedent to the reform of 1970, possess a knowledge of the Latin language sufficient for a thorough comprehension of the rubrics and liturgical texts, and be animated by a lively pastoral charity and by a sense of ecclesial communion. This priest should have at heart not only the correct celebration of the liturgy, but also the pastoral and spiritual care of the faithful;
§ 5. to proceed suitably to verify that the parishes canonically erected for the benefit of these faithful are effective for their spiritual growth, and to determine whether or not to retain them;
§ 6. to take care not to authorize the establishment of new groups.
Pope Francis loves hanging out with Muslims and Lutherans and Pachamama but seems to hate those of us who love the traditional Latin Mass. One of the great injustices of this action is that there has been great growth in the TLM in diocesan parishes. The alleged ‘Pope of accompaniment and those on the margins’ has dumped us and sent us to the margins.
This is a big deal. There is a quote attributed to Pope Francis that he was not to be excluded that he will enter history as the one who split the Catholic Church. This makes it look like he is trying to do exactly this.
I am trying to find out if the TLM that I attend will still be offered this Sunday, and if so, where will it be held. Because apparently, according to TC 3.2, it can’t be held in the parish church.
Published in Religion & Philosophy
Since Vatican II will be debated with renewed interest from all sides in the wake of this papal edict, I’ve made familiarizing myself with the original documents and history a priority. Two quick points in overview stand out:
(1) Participating bishops, an overwhelming majority of which approved the core documents, sought “restoration” of the liturgy through the Novus Ordo because too often Catholics were perceived as not actively worshipping in the Latin rite. That is, too many approached the liturgy as a largely passive experience, when by traditional theology they should be actively engaged.
Though the TLM today deters progressivism and consequently consolidates various orthodox Catholics (leaving many other orthodox Catholics, including myself, to worship alongside their heterodox siblings in Christ), at the time of Vatican II most bishops agreed that the old rite was not ensuring right worship. It is a mistake to equate modern cultures surrounding the old rite with the cultures within the infinitely broader Catholic community that knew the same liturgy before Vatican II.
Furthermore, though the Latin rite was basically continuous for a thousand years, it had been modified at times. The bishops thought the addition of certain litanies, among other common features, failed to realize the “divine simplicity” which had always been intended for the liturgy.
(2) Practices now commonly associated with the new rite are in contradiction to explicit instructions of Vatican II. Latin prayers, Gregorian chant, and pipe organs, for example, were to be given “pride of place” in the revised liturgy. Options for contemporary expression were to be considered by each bishop, and not for parochial priests to determine unilaterally.
Again, the explosion of irreverence after the council seems to be more due to pastoral failures than to changes of doctrine or canon law. Corruptions were hypocritically introduced in reference to the “spirit” of the council without regard for the letters of the law or for episcopal leadership.
The Latin Mass and the Novus Ordo could be practiced very similarly today if bishops dared to enforce Vatican II’s instruction. In some parishes, perhaps they are already more similar than one might expect.
I’ll reserve further thoughts about the council until I have fully read its documents, including Sacrosanctum Concilium (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy).
Aaron – good for you for going to the source documents of V2. I’m pretty sure the majority of Catholics have never read them. I opined previously on SC – you can read it here if you are interested:
https://ricochet.com/451661/archives/save-the-liturgy-save-the-world/
Anybody here old enough to remember the Pachamama Synod and the call for an Amazonian rite? Remember, chaos and confusion is a feature, not a bug, of this pontificate.
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2020/05/20/what-wrong-with-an-amazonian-rite/
Right on. As I said before, Pope Francis has a habit of addressing his perceived opponents without charity. He is selective about which sheep he shepherds.
Cardinal Mueller is also correct that those who prefer the old rite should recognize the good in the new rite (and ideally help to refresh it with orthopraxy so that both are beautiful).
I love Cardinal Arinze so, so much! I’ve watched him speak on other topics and, even while he’s chastising the foolish, he effuses great tenderness and joy. Now that’s a shepherd!
You might recall I was able to attend a Pontifical Solemn High Mass with Cardinal Arinze back in 2017:
https://ricochet.com/441337/archives/heads-up-to-catholics-in-ne-oh-nw-pa-and-sw-ny/
Interesting.
Well, not really. Pope Francis played it like a lawyer, sticking to the letter of the law while refusing its spirit. He didn’t absolutely ban the Latin rite, nor declare it invalid or faulty. Rather, he sharply restricted access and claimed he has done so to deter malpractice by heretical groups.
Furthermore, the Novus Ordo is in theory a development of the Latin rite, rather than an abrogation of it. If development of liturgy fell under the authority of St Pius V or the Council of Trent, then it is also subject to the authority of Vatican II and recent popes.
Though elements of the liturgy, such as the sacraments and the Lord’s prayer, are not subject to continuing papal authority, many other elements remain so under one’s pastoral guidance. Not every element of the liturgy is definitely enshrined for all time. Though our earthly liturgies are bound with liturgies in Heaven, they are not entirely the same.
Question for all y’all who seem to be fine with the pope’s Apostolix Letter. Do you really think with this action that he is feeding Christ’s flock? Was this really required?
And have y’all spent any time at a Latin mass parish or FSSP/ICKSP parish or even attended a Latin mass? And did you find that these people were causing disunity?
So that whole “feed my sheep” thing was just an offhand comment?
I guess in the same way that kindergarten is a development from calculus.
Do you really believe this Aaron? Have you ever heard of James Martin or Nighty-night Tobin and there LGBT masses. Or the German church? Or skateboarding priests?
I won’t be holding my breath to see these heresies restricted.
Not one person here has approved of it.
I said he “claimed” that reasoning, not that it was well reasoned or right. Forgive me for being too lawyerly with my words sometimes.
The Pope’s letter contains legitimate concerns. As Cardinal Mueller stated, his action is so extreme in response that one doubts, with consideration of the Pope’s prior actions, that ulterior motives are not involved. But in charity we should at least address the Holy Father’s claims.
As I said in my first comment on the letter, it disturbed me. But, like we are commanded by God to honor our parents, we are called to honor the chair of St Peter. If my father was a jerk and a fool, it would remain my duty to charitably hope for his conversion and seek some goodness in his actions. Similarly, we must hear a pope out and continue searching for some good no matter how many times he fails us, while openly acknowledging his faults and offering him the charity of filial correction.
I don’t blame you for being angry. This is a gross and grave offense. It affects you particularly, as a celebrant of the old rite. Pope Francis is apparently acting opportunistically, uncharitably, and foolishly.
The action is, however, within his authority. The next pope may undo some of the harm and establish protections against future acts of legalism. Please don’t mistake my calm for apathy.
God will bring good from the events. Already, it has prompted me to dedicate myself to study of old encyclicals. It has prompted stout-hearted orthdox cardinals to speak up in a solidarity which might serve the Church years from now. What the Lord will do with our prayers is anyone’s guess, but He’s working on the problem.
Yes, I’ve been to several Extraordinary Form Masses at St. Margaret Mary’s in Oakland, which is an ICKSP parish. I found them quite reverent and beautiful, especially the music. I was just visiting, so I can’t say I’ve spent enough time with the parishioners there to form an opinion of them one way or the other.
I’m all in favor of keeping the Latin Mass available for anyone who wishes to attend it.
This statement is widely disputed. The canon lawsuits will likely long outlast their inspirer.
What Aaron said.
Here’s a question for the enterprising Catholics here: Why can’t a church rent a space, set up a separate altar, and perform the Latin Mass there? It’s not in a parish, it’s in a rented building.
Also, has anyone thought about cleaning up the Novus Ordo? If people can make it worse via bad changes, it can be made better by good changes. As I said before, make a heresy-seeking orthodox missal and launch it!
The “reform of the reform” has been around since at least the days of Benedict XVI (2005).
In 2007 B16 wrote Sacramentum Caritatis, a post-synodal apostolic exhortation on the Eucharist that dealt partly with the celebration of the mass and some of the abuses therein. Yet, abuses continue to this day; at a great frequency from my observation.
I don’t think Francis cares at all about the liturgy. A few years ago, Cardinal Sarah – then Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship – encouraged priests to pray the mass ad orientem, but this was quickly quashed by Pope Francis. And Pope Francis has allowed demon idols into St. Peter’s, even accepting a demon idol bowl during a mass he served in St. Peter’s.
So yes, people think about it, but the bishops do nothing to enact the cleaning up you ask about.
The copy and paste template for the bishops.
This is a very good point. Our priests celebrates a NO mass in English and Spanish on Sunday mornings, and then the TLM in the afternoon.
It’s not clear to me whether or not the Vatican would include personal parishes among the parochial parishes forbidden as places of TLM worship. But perhaps a small ethnic personal parish would be willing to host a TLM. In Bishop Paprocki’s diocese, that personal parish was already dedicated to TLM and so is licit.
I doubt a newly rented space with a consecrated altar for the purpose of TLM would be licit. That is in effect a new church/parish.
Though my novus ordo parish still has far to go, it does incorporate Latin prayers and centuries-old music into the mix, hosts a pipe organ, and celebrates with reverence. I have hope for “reform of the reform.”
It is good that the priest faces the faithful during the consecration. For one, it is more edifying for those baptized “priest, prophet, and king” to understand the sacrament. Also, the priest acts “in the person of Christ” when he says “This is my body given up for you.” We should look at Christ, as He looks at us, offering His body both in the form of the Eucharist and in the face of the priest. Jesus faced His apostles during the Last Supper. Any good bishop will tell you that they are as much sinners in need of salvation as we are. We too may look into the eyes of Christ.
I understand your impatience, but that’s what it is — impatience. Do you really think the Church marched in lockstep after every council? I’m sure many lifetimes passed before full clarity was brought from council teachings. And even then, some people (even clergy) continue to dissent. Gnostics, Pelagians, Arians . . . abound both inside and outside the Church.
I think the Catholic church is just lost. The Left won there just like everyplace else. Same for my denomination.