Most of the episcopal statements I’ve seen so far have been…status quo.
The official statement from the USCCB is here. It strikes me as a verbal sort of head desk gesture. As in “Well, that happened. Thnx.”
Two other (out of many) of note.
The fact of the matter is that the law Pope Francis promulgated on Friday is cumbersome and unwieldy. It will require bishops to dedicate time and energy – sometimes enormous quantities of both – to a thankless project for which they didn’t really ask, and from which they cannot expect any measure of good will.
Most laity in most parishes don’t care either way, while the faithful who are devoted to the older forms of worship are highly motivated.
Now, they have their dander piqued.
The bishops of the world know it, and as they measure the potential gains against certain losses, may well decide that a new Inquisition to rid the Church of false conversos is not worth the effort.
The blog of an Atlanta Archdiocesan priest:
The Pope desires through this motu proprio to foster unity. It would be an understatement to say that is likely not going to be the result. And it might just reignite the always simmering liturgy wars in a time of religious decline in the West, with other urgent and pressing needs — evangelization, making disciples and retention of membership for one, and the fall out from the abuse crisis, the ongoing drama of financial scandals at high levels in the Church, residential school scandals in our neighbor to the north, and the seeming inability of the hierarchy in some places (Poland) to learn from the mistakes of Bishops elsewhere, among others.
Points highlighted, naturally, because I agree with them.
This is one more hassle for a bishop and diocesan staff. Not what many of them are looking for.
Secondly – consider the big picture. The really big picture.
As I have observed many times before, one of the negative outcomes of the Second Vatican Council was to turn the Church inward – ironic, since the whole purpose of the Council was to look outward, to enable the Church to engage more effectively with the world, a world so desperately in need of Christ. But by taking the stance that the primary road to better evangelization was to make substantive changes in Church practice, the Council pointed the way to decades of infighting and obsession with process and structure and, as always happens, power.
And so here we are again.
I’m not a “don’t stress the details” person – long-time readers know this. This is important stuff. But this move from Rome is off-putting, not just because of the poor historical and theological foundations and the impact on those directly involved, but because, well – is this really a problem?
Rome, of course, has the right and obligation to guide and yes, even restrict. That’s the back-and-forth, complicated, to be sure, but real – between what emerges from the breadth and depth of the Body and its head. It’s how popular devotions and saints’ causes develop, rise, and are approved or disapproved. Just a couple of months ago, Rome issued requirements for the leadership of “new movements,” with the intention, it seems, of reframing leadership functions in ways that they are not so dependent on – and subject to the dangers of – individual personalities.
So no, it is not inconsistent at all with Catholic practice to take things to the top and obey what comes from the top. I mean, of course not.
But nor is it inconsistent with Catholic practice to push, pull and question.
And so this is a legitimate question to pose – why this, why now, and how does it build up the Church for its fundamental purpose, which is to bring Christ into a hurting world in desperate need of His love and mercy?
As a an Eastern Rite Catholic I take a slightly different view of this change in the wind. I would not be surprised if it is about bishops feeling insulted or defied or whatever. From what I have gleaned in the past decades, those who find the TLM offensive are often arrogant and self-righteous about the “reform” of the liturgy. Of course, I have found some of the same on the TLM side. What I do keep seeing is so people having a need for something reverent, perhaps transcendent, perhaps Catholic?–which is definitely not the 99% of the many, many Novus Ordo masses I’ve been to in the past 50 years.
I think the real questions are the ones you ask: How do this show that we are “catholic” when what was valid for three centuries is now considered heretical by some bishops? Yep, there are definitely extremists among the TLM crowd, just as there are in the NO crowd. I, myself, am not interested in either and am grateful that (so far) the American Catholic bishops have not decided to (once again) persecute Eastern Catholics. But, who knows? What I do know is that there is such a hunger for the Good News and that the American Catholic bishops are not offering it (in general).
All I can see is that this plays into the whole arrogance-of-the-bishops scandals of the last twenty years (yes, I know, thousands of years, but I just mean recently) and hurts what is left of the Catholic church in the States. I am happily Catholic and not part of “their” process. That’s the point–the bishops, once again, show themselves poor shepherds and self-centered rather than ministering to the flock, demanding one-size-fits-all liturgy (on a shaky theological foundation to boot). They are just reinventing the Trent they so despise. I wish they would focus on the reality of loving Jesus for a change :-).
Excellent
Amy – your instincts are good on this, I think. Our FSSP pastor (diocese not to be named) actually received a call from the diocese to assure him (and the parish) that nothing will change here. And he reports that many of his brother priests around the country have also received similar calls. To be sure, he (our pastor) has maintained a very positive relationship with the bishop and diocese. This is my sense of the FSSP, contrary to folks crowing that the “Trads” are hostile to the dioceses in which they reside.
The question is going to be mostly about whether those diocesan parishes where the TLM has been offered (not aware of it in our diocese per se) will be asked by their bishops to stop doing so. This is likely to cause much more disruption than unity. Or – more interestingly – whether new parochial missions of the FSSP and ICKSP, for example, will be welcomed into dioceses as smoothly as before. Perhaps not, but I think it’s the case for sure that the Pope and bishops supporting this move have over-played the hand by making the document a bit vindictive.
By significant contrast, Pope Benedict’s motu proprio was generous and expansive. I’ll just leave that right there…..
I just want to read other people’s comments.
[…] Worst, & Middle Case Scenarios in the Short Term – Christopher R. Altieri at The CWR Why This, Why Now, & How Does It Build Up the Church. . . – Amy Welborn The Motu Proprio & the Law of Unintended Consequences – Fr. Hugh […]
Re ” why this, why now” — from Fr. Dwight Longenecker:
“It cannot be denied that certain elements within the traditionalist movement have exacerbated the divisions in the Catholic Church. When traditionalists continued to despise everything about the Second Vatican Council they were not doing their cause any favors. When they mocked and dismissed not only Pope John XXIII and Paul VI but also John Paul II and Benedict XVI they promoted a sectarian mentality. When they made snide, self righteous attacks not only on the apparent abuses of the Novus Ordo, but also on those priests who celebrate the Novus Ordo reverently and traditionally, they made enemies of their allies.
Today’s restrictions on the celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass were imposed by the Holy Father in an attempt to quash this sectarian attitude and foster unity in the church, but unity is not the same thing as uniformity. The advantage of the Novus Ordo Mass is that it recognizes the need for, and allows variations in the styles of celebration which are obvious in a universal church. I wish the pope and his allies had not seen fit to quash this particular alternative, but that he would have encouraged traditionalists–the vast number who are good, devout faithful Catholics. I wish he had seen fit as a good pastor to critique the sometimes sectarian aspects while recognizing the strengths of the traditionalist movement and encouraging it to expand in joyful unity with the whole church.”
https://dwightlongenecker.com/the-popes-moto-proprio-what-next/
Unfortunately, Fr. Lo gene jet thinks that people who are traditionalist are invariably SSPX. The quote above is a good example. There are many traditionalists who adhere to V2 and the mentioned popes.
He defends the NO as if it was something that we need, when in fact the average NO (the one you’ll find in most parishes) is nauseating. Don’t get me wrong, I attend both TLM and NO. a reverent NO, for example the liturgy you see in Opus Dei, is beautiful. Unfortunately, they’re the exception, not the rule. And the corruption goes to the top. I’m writing from the Southern Hemisphere. If you want to see what we put up with, just tune in to the next (or any previous) Mass at Dunedin Cathedral (New Zealand). This is what is being patted in the back, as opposed to beautiful liturgy like the one you see in any traditionalist parish.
*Longenecker
Autocorrect miscorrection.
I don’t get this critique of Fr. Longenecker. He “thinks that people who are traditionalist are invariably SSPX. The quote above is a good example.” Sure, he has sentences like “When traditionalists continued to despise everything about the Second Vatican Council they were not doing their cause any favors.” That might sound like he’s talking about traditionalists generally if there weren’t a sentence immediately preceding that reads: “certain elements within the traditionalist movement have exacerbated the divisions in the Catholic Church.” Does he invariably lump traditionalists in with SSPX when he says “the vast number who are good, devout faithful Catholics”? Or “I wish he had seen fit as a good pastor to critique the sometimes sectarian aspects while recognizing the strengths of the traditionalist movement and encouraging it to expand in joyful unity with the whole church”?
Thanks Amy, I have a great deal of respect for your views. Maybe cause we agree a lot! Ha! For those who beat up the TLM people for causing trouble with Unity I would like ask a few questions, because I, myself am not clear just what I am to be united to, when even the highest authorities of the Catholic Church cannot unite on one vision of the Second Vatican Council. You have the views of Popes Paul, then JPII, then Benedict XVI, and then something completely different and in disagreement with other popes, that of Francis. Francis does not believe VII is to be interpreted as a “hermeneutic of continuity” with everything in the past. He seems to be of the school that it was a rupture with what the church has taught in the past. So if the popes can’t agree on Vatican II how in all that is holy and good can anyone expect us lay people or priests to get it? Come on now! As far as liturgy goes, how in God’s green earth can anyone not see the the attack on unity when priests celebrate Mass so differently from one another? Even bishops do. We have priests who force their people to follow every little tittle of THEIR OWN liturgical preferences, yet they themselves do whatever they want to do!!! Seriously! Talk about being Parasitical, just go to one of these guys Masses. Since the changes we now have parishioners going from one parish to another because they prefer the quality of the one priest’s ability to entertain them over another priests lack of such ability. Seriously, this is true. This was a rare occurrence in the old Mass, because the ability of a priest to entertain had little to with the old Mass. We have a big problem with this! Gimmicks seem to sell when it comes to the new Mass! It shouldn’t be this way. It’s not fair to the priests and not really fair to Christ! It absolutely has no place in the liturgy when you think about it. But it happens all the time now. And it’s promoted with certain sites and philosophies. Amazing Parish is one of them. All it does is draw people from one parish to another without much gain in converts to the Faith. The Catholic Shuffle! Lastly, I do not understand how we can worry about unity concerning TLM people while at the same time promoting disunity with these national Synods like in Germany and now starting elsewhere. It seems hypocritical to say you desire unity, while at the same encouraging disunity. Am I wrong, or is brain too small to understand these complexities? Just saying! I can’t be in unity with pro-aborts, pro-sodomite marriage, etc… It’s just not going to happen with me. Truth is big thing with me, and few others I am sure. So there it is, all laid out.
Very little to add, totally agree. Absolute pure hypocrisy. I read some of the report from the Bishops here (France) regarding the recent Vatican inquiry into the current state of, let’s call it, the TLM movement. I was utterly flabbergasted, I found myself saying (yes, uncharitably) are they lying through their teeth, or do they simply not know about these vibrant parishes and very often excellent sermons. I sometimes wonder if there isn’t a tiny hint of jealousy in there somewhere. I read just this morning that people or leaving the Church in Germany in their THOUSANDS!! Anyway, let’s soldier on and above all love each other.
@Joshaurora, I’ve come to the conclusion that there will never be peace until those, like myself, who prefer the older mass and those priests who celebrate it, are declared a separate rite, governed by its own laws and norms, in communion with Rome. Then we could go about our business, worshipping God in the manner that nourishes us, fully Catholic, but largely unaffected by the usual antics in Rome.
Unfortunately, a number of the priests who celebrate the Extraordinary Form, such as my brother and another priest in a nearby parish, also regularly celebrate the Ordinary Form. So if there become two different rites, they would somehow have to be part of both.
Long term? It won’t matter. Most will choose one or the other, or will be forced to choose by the bishop who waives goodbye to the TLM crowd as they shuffle off to the jurisdiction of the ordinary placed in charge of their new-old rite. Again, in the long run, the clearer the division in jurisdiction, the happier everyone will be. But certainly bumps along the road getting there.
Why this? The motu propio states it was made in response to the wishes of the episcopate. But the way the bishops respond to it will reveal a truth about the survey. If most of them continue with the status quo, then it would be fair to infer that only a select few bishops have demanded these regulations.
One small group of US bishops are lobbying Rome and the USSCB to cease discussion of a teaching document on Eucharistic coherence. Several of them have publicly expressed the opinion that the USSCB is motivated by politics. This viewpoint is fueled, no doubt, by the memory of several pastors who explicitly supported Trump in the previous election. The most notable of them was Cardinal Viganò, who also publicly opposes Vatican II and has denounced Pope Francis on many occasions.
Which brings us to, Why now? Consider the proximity in the timing of the issuance of the motu propio with the mobilization of efforts to prevent the issuance of the teaching document. Are the restrictions on the TLM related to these efforts? Are the priests and worshipers who love the TLM, but not particularly fond of Cardinal Viganò and his campaigns caught in the crossfire?
La pandemia ha fatto esplodere la sana informazione a grandissimi strati della popolazione mondiale di tutti e cinque i continenti dell’esistenza e della non abrogazione della Messa cattolica pre innovazioni conciliari sui quali non oso pronunciarmi certo io, che sono alla ricerca della verità e non sono in grado di donarla ad alcuno. Certamente ho professato in modo aperto e leale perchè pubblico il mio compiacimento per la scoperta della libertà di recarmi ad una Messa in latino appena finite le proibizioni alla deambulazione nel mondo reale, sopportando di dover resistere davanti ad un pc. Scoprire di essere stata prevenuta con un Motu Proprio per fermare ogni possibile richiesta al Vescovo è vera e propria persecuzione artata traendo informazioni per rivoltarle contro a chi non tradisce e agisce nell’oscurità. Un massone deve riunirsi in segreto; perchè opera con il male, un cattolico agisce come figlio della Luce davanti agli altri affinchè risplendano le sue opere buone e sante..
I don’t pretend to know what is in the heart of every Catholic who attends the former Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite but there is a lot of garbage on the internet from people, both layman and priests, who claim to champion the ancient Mass and very many hateful accusations launched by them personally against Pope Francis since long before this Motu Proprio right up to and including that he is the false prophet that was prophesied in the Apocalypse.
Some in recent days have tried to dismiss this as just the work of ‘internet provocateurs’. But this is not 1996 anymore where the online world was only participated in and viewed by a few fringe people in dial up chat rooms. Now the internet is everywhere and is the place where the vast majority of the human race learns the news and develops their impressions of what is going on in the world and it is not unfair at all to judge a group of people by what its members put on the internet.
If there are people of goodwill out there attached to the ancient Mass this may help us heal the liturgical divide. If enough bishops decide to leave well enough alone and to move very slowly or not at all to shut down the ancient Mass in their dioceses this might be the one thing that might finally pierce the complete and total tone deafness of Rome with regard to the wounds caused by the liturgical disasters that came out of the era of the Second Vatican Council.
Vatican II was a lifetime ago now and many of the readers of this blog either weren’t born then or have no living memory of it. We are tired of hearing about it and we want to move on.
Eric,
There is enough garbage on the internet from people of all sorts of opinions about the “Latin”-rite liturgy. A hard part of Christian life is living with the dissonance of what one believes versus what one’s bishop proclaims and practices (not always the same thing).
Also, even though the Second Vatican Council was a “lifetime ago”, it is worthy of study and understanding. I sure hope you don’t believe the same about the First Council of Nicea, which was almost 1700(!) years ago :-) .
This post from Cardinal Mueller is a good discussion of this topic. I just wanted to post the link here for completeness.
https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2021/07/19/cardinal-mueller-on-the-new-tlm-restrictions/