Let’s do an Occam’s Razor on this new Motu Proprio.
It seems pretty simple to me:
A number of bishops wanted the tools to restrict celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass, and Pope Francis gave it to them.
There you go.
I mean, we can talk history, ecclesiology, theology and liturgy all day long, but that’s about as basic as it gets or needs to be. I was there. Well, not literally, but I can tell you that this generation of clergy and church activists – now maybe from their late 60’s on up – were formed in a way that they cannot envision a healthy Church in which the TLM is still a part. At all. I mean – it’s inconceivable and ridiculous in that generation’s minds. It’s almost as if they can’t believe they’re still having to deal with this, amiright?
What is striking, if not at all surprising, is the, shall we say, flexible use of various concepts in this document and letter, since that flexibility is characteristic of most people in positions of power and yes, of this papacy.
In short: a papacy that, in words, emphasizes synodality, accompaniment, listening, dialogue outreach to the margins and consistently condemns “clericalism” – has issued a document that embodies a rigid approach to the issue, and then restricts, limits and directs more power, ultimately, to Rome.
And shows no evidence of actually “listening” to anyone except bishops who are annoyed by the TLM and TLM adherents who conveniently fit the “divisive” narrative.
Shows no interest in generously and accompanying those who find nourishment in the TLM and may find themselves at the margins because of it.
Shows no interest in exploring any fruits of this aspect of Catholic life or even posing the question of how the “Spirit might be moving” in it.
*****
There are a number of concerning and odd aspects to this document – but they are of a piece with what we’ve come to expect: presentism, catchphrases and a lack of engagement with theology, tradition or history at a deep level.
But perhaps the most startling is the demand that TLMs not take place in “parochial churches.”
§ 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);
No one seems to really understand what this means. It’s pretty terrible if it means what it seems to – you’re not supposed to have the TLM in a parish church?
But it’s expressive of the gist of the entire document: push TLM goers out of the mainstream. To, yes, the margins.
(So when they are on the margins again, does that mean they can get priority? Because they’re on the margins?)
And here’s the injustice of this, really:
In the United States, at least, there has been great growth in the TLM in diocesan parishes. Not everywhere – because of course, it’s dependent on bishops – but it’s certainly there. And it’s been emphasized over and over again that this is a good thing, and it’s certainly what’s implied in Benedict’s original decree. Mutual enrichment and all that. And thousands of Catholics, many of them young with growing families, have been faithful to this – and have engaged their interest and followed their pull to the TLM by sticking with diocesan and approved religious orders’ celebrations of the Mass and communities.
And now they are being told – nice try. You did what you were told, but that actually wasn’t what we wanted all along. Keep going. Maybe you can rent out the VFW social hall and have Mass there. Or, cemeteries. Cemeteries are nice.
Because, unity!
Oh, and because, pastoral, too. Much, much pastoral.
I have a lot of thoughts on this. First of all, you are right that as a woman in her late 60’s I wouldn’t ever go to an ad orientem Mass. I remember the first time I actually saw what was going on with the priest turned towards us and I had this deep feeling of wow because of it.
This document strikes me as wrong-headed because it sends a message to non-uniate churches that if they come into union with the Roman Catholic Church they could lose a previously allowed liturgy. We don’t all have to worship in lockstep in order to please God.
I contacted my brother who says both Masses daily, and he said it doesn’t affect priests who are already allowed to say the Latin rite Mass. (And no, I don’t go even when my brother is saying the Latin rite, but we still love and respect each other, and I go to his Novus Ordo Masses.)
I also live in a diocese where the bishop has turned over one church at either end of the diocese to the St. Peter order for Latin Mass, and where priests who are students can probably say whatever Mass they want in the privacy of their own homes.
But it sure isn’t going to be helpful in ecumenical dialogues.
I hear a lot of pain in this post ..but at the same time the tone strikes me as very critical of the Holy Father and the Church. This in my opinion is at the heart of the troubles with the TLM: rejection of authority, disrespect for the Church and basically building your own “true” Latin Church…and doing it with some arrogance…anyone who listens to or deals much with EF folk can attest…as does this article itself..
Are you aware that the FSSP priests accept the authority of the Holy Father and operate (as they always have) with the permission of the local bishop? As do the ICKSP. This action will likely alienate faithful clergy and laypeople who have “played by the rules” now since before Summorum Pontificum. Not sure how this promotes “unity”. In fact it will drive people away. Which may well be part of the motivation of some bishops anyway. No place for them in the Church. How ironic, for those who preach “tolerance” at the drop of a hat.
I am aware that over the course of this past year the priests at my FSSP parish served not only the people of our growing parish (grown by over 50 percent in the past year) but also those of parishes around us who were simply and patently abandoned by their clergy during the pandemic. This action is simply thumbing a nose at those faithful clergy because they wish to celebrate that which, as Pope Benedict said, continues to be sacred because it always was.
More disturbing to me personally is the simply brutal suppression this seeks to enact. And, by the way, it is not un-Catholic to be critical of the Holy Father. I pray for him daily, and walk by his photo every day I walk in to the church for Mass. At an FSSP parish. One can love the Pope and also be critical of his actions.
In other words, pray, pay, and obey.
Sure – all three of those are very Catholic things to do.
‘rejection of authority, disrespect for the Church and basically building your own “true” Latin Church… and doing it with some arrogance…’
In a nutshell that describes the train wreck Pontificate of Jorge Bergoglio, or as Father Rutler described it, incoherent and dangerous.
Fr. TKW:
There is nothing wrong with criticizing the Pope or the Church per se unless we are to accord those institutions unconditional perfection, which faith certainly does not. The scope of their inerrancy is decidedly narrow: faith and morals. Authorizing/restricting a particular form of the liturgy is neither of those.
There is nothing wrong with being angry with the Pope. Anger per se is not sinful, and Popes screw up and hurt people just the same as you or I.
For what it’s worth, I’ve known lots of regular TLM attendees, and in my experience the display of defects you mention is rare. Your office, of course, would give you quite a different perspective from that of a layman, so there’s that.
The generalizations you make in your response, especially the phrase “anyone who listens to or deals much with EF folk can attest,” demonstrates the very arrogance you claim to lament.
“A number of bishops wanted the tools to restrict celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass, and Pope Francis gave it to them.” BAM! BAM!
I’d add that bishops here in the USA are probably salivating at this ‘great news’ from the pope. This affords them the full authority to control the priests in their farms. Priests like Fr. Altman and many others will now be silenced and sacrificed for the sake of ‘unity.’ And it just so happens that as the 16th Sunday in OT comes this weekend, the Lord reminds us all about shepherding and pastoring the flock per His guidance and instructions. And woe to those who fail to do so. Is this moto poprio a shepherding action? Not by any means IMHO.
Rigidity, discourse, deafness, etc., have all sadly been the m.o. in this papacy. Along with fluff verbiage that does not quite connect with traditions. And the hierarchy wonders why the migration away from Catholicism i.e., Europe, USA, etc.
This moto poprio is more like a spanking to those children who are deemed to be defiant and disobedient in some sense instead of getting and staying in line some who just bow and bow to anything.
Jesus prayed, “that they will be one” and no doubt he was speaking about the internal church he established.
So the pope is giving full authority to the local bishop to restrict the Mass but any expansion (to a local hotel, I guess) requires that the bishop get permission from Rome.
These people only want to dialog and be pastoral if they don’t have enough power to force their way.
Thanks Amy for this commentary. The fact is, that this action is likely to increase, not decrease, desire for access to the usus antiquior. Truth and Beauty cannot be suppressed.
No parish churches would seem to imply only shrines, chapels, oratories, perhaps mission churches–marginal in the dioceses. And, clearly this is meant as merely a temporary accommodation, since in due time the faithful are supposed to return to the one expression of the Roman Rite, the missal of Paul VI, according to the will of this pope. Another trap badly set.
They have been badly advised, if the bishops think that pushing this to the margins will make it go away. Generations have been denied the justice of experiencing the patrimony of the Church (see Benedict’s motu proprio….). Once you have experienced the Banquet, you are unlikely to be satisfied with the Picnic Lunch. Truth and Beauty cannot be suppressed – for ever, or even for long.
Trads pushed themselves do the margins by some of their great heresies:
1. Latin is more powerful than the vernacular because it is the language of the Church (Jesus was killed by Roman Soldiers).
2.The TLM is the “mass of the ages” and is mystically more powerful than the vernacular…somehow.
3. Speaking the Mass in Latin is dogmatic (some) and it can never be undone.
Note: The First Mass was in Latin, not Hebrew.
Trads pushed themselves do the margins by some of their great heresies:
1. Latin is more powerful than the vernacular because it is the language of the Church (Jesus was killed by Roman Soldiers).
2.The TLM is the “mass of the ages” and is mystically more powerful than the vernacular…somehow.
3. Speaking the Mass in Latin is dogmatic (some) and it can never be undone.
Note: The First Mass was in Hebrew, not Latin.
Not sure if this is “tongue in cheek” or not, but anyway….
I think “Trads” – whatever that perjorative label actually means – believe that the Mass that organically developed over 1900 years actually in fact was a divine development. That each development was in continuity as the Holy Spirit guided the Church – essential continuity. Not until the 1960/1970 “reform” did the liturgy radically rupture with what had come before. Not an organic development, but the work of committee. Ostensibly- and overtly – to be more palatable to the modern world and other ecclesial groups outside the Church. A Mass that neither St Ignatius of Loyola, nor St Francis, nor St Catherine of Siena, nor St Teresa, nor….. would recognize as Catholic.
The Mass that was the public and liturgical face of the Church for centuries did in fact form saints and nourish the life of the faithful. And – the Novus Ordo Missae simply does not capture the mystery and beauty of the Usus Antiquior. It just demonstrably does not do so. Could it be that this loss of mystery and central sense of the Sacrifice of the Mass has had something to do with the decline in Eucharistic devotion, for example, over the last 50 years. Hmmmm.
Now, groups gathered around the TLM are growing. Rapidly. You would think, if the bishops (and Pope?) were really interested in reaching the world, they would look deeper into why this is. Rather than attempting to end it.
And the first Mass was in Aramaic, btw.
In Jesum per Mariam
Darin
Thanks for this, Amy. You mentioned VFW halls and cemeteries. Well, oddly enough, the Immaculate Heart of Mary Oratory in San Jose that I attend has been inadvertently positioned for this new development. During COVID for a number of reasons, we lost our host church, even though we are the center for the traditional Latin Mass in the diocese. So we have been worshipping in a parking lot at a Knights of Columbus hall, and now in a former thrift store. But we are in a precarious position because the out-of-fashion shopping mall is being torn down next year. We were hoping to build or buy our own church, but the new regulations make me suspect that plan will be denied. May God provide!
And don’t forget about accompaniment.
Oh, and dialogue – mucho dialogue.
It is not just the Latin Mass being restricted: “At the same time, I ask you to be vigilant in ensuring that every liturgy be celebrated with decorum and fidelity to the liturgical books promulgated after Vatican Council II, without the eccentricities that can easily degenerate into abuses. Seminarians and new priests should be formed in the faithful observance of the prescriptions of the Missal and liturgical books, in which is reflected the liturgical reform willed by Vatican Council II.”
Say goodbye to Fr Clown Mass as well.
http://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/letters/2021/documents/20210716-lettera-vescovi-liturgia.html
Perhaps, though this is nowhere near an equivalence. Clown “Mass” is undeniably a liturgical abuse. Made possible by the Novus Ordo Missae and its lack of rubrical clarity (“or”, “may”, “similar words”….) and purposeful alteration of language to de-center the essential nature of the Mass as a Sacrifice. Note that even the Pope has to clarify what “fidelity to the liturgical books” means. Wonder why that is.
The much more subtle and more insidious abuses likely persist every day unnoticed by the faithful, because they have been swimming in the water for so long they just accept the changes as “better” than what came before. Thing is – do they even know what they have been missing? Some of us have found out.
While fighting rigidity & clericalism +Francis became ridgid & clerical. Focusing his Pontificate on establishing dialog, synodality, accompaniment & mercy in his final days he brutally rejects this legacy, crushing 1000s of his flock – because he can, effective today.
At the same time, the stock of the SSPX will rise especially since +Francis personally gave them faculties for Confession & Marriage bypassing local Bishops. They have Apostolic Succession & valid orders. The SSPX has never been declared by the last 3 Popes, 2 living and one a saint, to be in schism; only pundits made such declarations. To the contrary, their orders are recognized as valid w/ Apostolic Succession.
The net result if no compromise is reached or desired will be the SSPX will become the next Orthodox – valid orders & Sacraments w/out a Pope. Curiously, Traditionis Custodes was promulgated on the 958th anniversary of the Great Schism of 1054. If the SSPX were to become a Church Suri Iuris, it would be the 5th or 6th largest over 100x bigger than the bottom third by population. This impacts a great swath of Catholic humanity.
I am not a TLM Catholic, but this document is jarring.
Actually and shockingly, In his preface to the motu proprio, the pope notes the schism of the SSPX: “ The faculty — granted by the indult of the Congregation for Divine Worship in 1984[2] and confirmed by St. John Paul II in the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei in 1988[3] — was above all motivated by the desire to foster the healing of the schism with the movement of Mons. Lefebvre.”
How many of the Bishops Pope Francis is supposed to have listened to were appointed by Pope Francis himself?
What are the chances of someone being promoted to the episcopate if he is know to have any sympathy towards the TLM?
[…] And shows no evidence of actually “listening” to anyone except bishops who are annoyed by the TLM and TLM adherents who conveniently fit the “divisive” narrative. Shows no interest in generously and accompanying those who find nourishment in the TLM and may find themselves at the margins because of it. Shows no interest in exploring any fruits of this aspect of Catholic life or even posing the question of how the “Spirit might be moving” in it. Amy Welborn-Traditionis Custodes | Charlotte was Both (wordpress.com) […]
This is shocking, and judgemental. Extremely unfair, and controlling for all the wrong reasons. If people find the Latin Mass more spiritual then that can only be a good thing. Why stop people.
Really? Occam’s razor?? I would recommend a careful reading of Sacrosanctum Consilium and the concept of active participation. While the usus antiquor has a rich theological content, it is hardly pastorally relevant since no one speaks and very few people can understand Latin… (BTW I do and I think Aquinas’ office of Corpus Christi is truly sublime and moreso in the original Latin). Let us not forget the origin of the term “hocus pocus”, the Latin of the words of consecration. Rather than focus on a perhaps beautiful but IRRELEVANT form
of worship, I suggest putting all that money used to buy the trappings that go along with this movement and giving it to the poor.. And as Francis honestly said…. the young priests who are looking for tutoring in the Latin mass should instead work on thier pastoral skills.
Ah, active participation. Participatio actuosa – better translated actual participation – is not at all limited in the usus antiquior, unless you measure it by how much the people talk. It’s interesting that for the most part attackers of the classical rite seem to object to the silence of the Mass more than anything. If there isn’t constant dialogue, the people aren’t actually or even actively participating? Can you pray without talking out loud? Can you meditate on the mystery of the Sacrifice without talking out loud? Can you offer up your own sacrifices with the Sacrifice of Calvary in the quiet of your heart? Can you give everything within your heart to God while quietly kneeling as the priest offers the sacrifice to God, with and for the people? As for speaking Latin – there are hand missals, you know, that print everything in Latin and English (or Spanish, or French…..).
As to the origin of “hocus pocus”, I suppose you refer to the common understanding of the mystical happenings at the altar when the priest would say “hoc est enim Corpus Meum”. Which he would have said quietly, by the way, not loudly for all to hear. Not sure your point. Are you saying the faithful didn’t know this was Jesus because the priest was speaking in Latin?
And as to the perjoratives you cast out at the end, this “irrelevant” form of the Mass (which apparently then was irrelevant for the last several centuries, and centuries before in essentially the same form….) is somehow more costly than any typical parish worship? Do you actually have data to back that up? And if you are generally discounting the role of taking care that our worship of God is due by justice to be the best we can give, I guess I’ll just disagree with you on that one. Or that a parish cannot offer the classical rite AND take care of the poor. Pretty sure that’s a non-starter as well.
Finally – pretty low blow to suggest that just because a priest is dedicated to offering the usus antiquior he lacks in pastoral skill. In fact, at our FSSP parish our priests cared for far more than their own parishioners during the pandemic, when many priests in surrounding parishes quite actually abandoned their people from the Sacraments. It’s a dangerous game to play making your suggestion.
I’ve heard these arguments before, and will again. If you really want to know why people are drawn to the usus antiquior – and they are, in great numbers, and many young people and families – there are good resources out there. I recommend highly “The Traditional Mass” by Fr. Michael Fiedrowicz.
You say it’s irrelevant. I disagree. I personally receive much spiritual benefit from this Mass. One thing you can say about the “TLM”, no one leaves it thinking it was about them.
LJFK – indeed. There is no question whatever Who is the focus of the usus antiquior. Or that the Mass is a Sacrifice AND a community gathered at the altar for one singular purpose. Or that the Eucharist is indeed the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus. Certainly the focus is not the priest, nor the priest’s clever repartee, nor the music director, nor….
One other note in response to Mr Madden’s post – to accept that the usus antiquior has “rich theological content” yet is “hardly pastorally relevant” is an indictment of the pastoral leadership rather than the Mass. Somehow that rich theological content managed to form countless saints and evangelize the planet. Not to mention a solid majority of American Catholics (in particular) don’t even believe that the Eucharist is ACTUALLY the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus. I would venture to say that 0 percent of those assisting at the usus antiquior hold this view.
Having to hold mass outside of a consecrated church seems like a punishment but it goes back to another ancient tradition of celebrating Christ’s love and sacrifice in the catacombs.
From https://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2021/07/roundup-of-major-reactions-to.html#.YPYDjy1h10t , by Peter Kwasniewski, Ph.D. :
Amy Wellborn, “Traditionis Custodes” (Charlotte Was Both) [This one wins the prize for the most succinct analysis of the hypocrisy of the motu proprio.]
I saw that! I’m flattered…