Pope Francis Reviewing New Apostolic Constitution to Cement ‘Traditionis Custodes’

[Akita Suggagaki]

I'm sorry, Erose, but I must say this - painful as it is to say, of this Holy Church in our time - such conflation of "the Holy Mass" with "a prayer" is another bitter fruit of a "dumbing down" of the Faith that has come upon the Church like a giant tsunami flattening the whole City of God into a pancake. Our whole concept of prayer itself - once recognized by St. John Vianney as "prayer is nothing other than union with God" - but is trivialized today by modern clergy and prolific popular writers and speakers, beyond recognition by those saints and the holy faithful who have grasped it truly in its essence and supernatural substance.

I was pierced to the heart once to hear from a priest, from the pulpit, describe prayer as "hanging out with Jesus for a while". And who said that the Catholic Church can't be relevant?
Jesus is not "our buddy" - He is our Lord, our God, our King. The Mass is not merely "a prayer" - most certainly not the kind of prayer that too many Catholics imagine it to be.

You make it sound almost like we (especially the laity) are not worthy to pray.

 

[jas3]

Which it did improve relations, and I guess now they are in full communion? I think?

The question (and any answer given to it) is a little controversial, but from the research I've done they have always been in "full communion" and reject the notion that there is such a thing as "partial communion" - you're either in or you're out. That is not the same thing as being "in a canonically regular position," which they would agree they are not.

As far as improving relations, Pope Francis granted them faculties for hearing confessions and performing marriages, so relations have improved somewhat. How those relations will progress given Traditionis Custodes and this year's apparent expansions of it remains to be seen.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I don't think so here. But if you spend time in the Catholic feeds on Facebook and Twitter, you will find that there is a TLM-only crowd that do reject the reforms of VatII. I've even see it referred to as the Devil's Council. Pope Francis isn't wrong with his assertion. Now what percentage of the TLM crowd is TLM-only? Well that is the question. We all know from experiences that those who scream the loudest are represented as being more than who they are. Just take the alphabet soup crowd, which make up about maybe 1 to 2% of the population, but seeing the political power they hold, you would think that they were 20-40% of the population. The same holds here.

Well, I think numbers are nearly impossible to determine but I might try to find some. I mean among Catholics we have the spectrum from those in name only and don't even go to church, to those who go every day, to those who want women priests to those who reject Vatican II.

That is why I tow the line even when I might disagree. "To doubt the Council is to doubt the intentions of those very Fathers who exercised their collegial power in a solemn manner cum Petro et sub Petro in an ecumenical council, and, in the final analysis, to doubt the Holy Spirit himself who guides the Church. Again from Letter of the Holy Father to the Bishops of the whole world, that accompanies the Apostolic Letter Motu Proprio data “Traditionis custodes” (16 July 2021) | Francis

 

[Erose]

I'm sorry, Erose, but I must say this - painful as it is to say, of this Holy Church in our time - such conflation of "the Holy Mass" with "a prayer" is another bitter fruit of a "dumbing down" of the Faith that has come upon the Church like a giant tsunami flattening the whole City of God into a pancake. Our whole concept of prayer itself - once recognized by St. John Vianney as "prayer is nothing other than union with God" - but is trivialized today by modern clergy and prolific popular writers and speakers, beyond recognition by those saints and the holy faithful who have grasped it truly in its essence and supernatural substance.

I was pierced to the heart once to hear from a priest, from the pulpit, describe prayer as "hanging out with Jesus for a while". And who said that the Catholic Church can't be relevant?
Jesus is not "our buddy" - He is our Lord, our God, our King. The Mass is not merely "a prayer" - most certainly not the kind of prayer that too many Catholics imagine it to be.

At what point in my posts did I give you the idea that "hanging out with Jesus for a while" is my definition of prayer? Just because there are some who (I agree with you) see prayer as nothing more than chit-chatting. I (like you) do not accept this definition.

But just because you have some modernist, poorly defining prayer, doesn't take away the fact that the Mass whether the NO or TLM is a prayer; it is THE prayer of the Bride to her Spouse. As the Church says the Pinnacle of Prayers, with the Divine Office being second only to the Mass. Other devotionals and sacramentals (including the Rosary) are not on the level (for lack of a better word) as the Mass.

I don't believe that those who had a hand in changing the Liturgy had bad intent. There intent was to get the laymen in the pews to "take part in the sacred action, conscious of what they are doin, with devotion and full collaboration." Which I believe they were successful. What they did not have control of was the unfaithful priests and lukewarm Catholics, which have gave the impression that it is the new Liturgy that is creating this irreverence.

I do believe that at least in the West, that the clergy and the laity have not done a very good job of instituting the reforms of Vatican II. If the documents of VatII were used as a manual for these reforms from the get-go; I think (speculate) that the Church would have been in a better place. But of course it is in other regions of the World. The NO has not hurt the African dioceses at all. Some would say it unleashed them.

God I pray that the next pope is from Africa. The rest of the Church needs what they have.

 

[Erose]

The question (and any answer given to it) is a little controversial, but from the research I've done they have always been in "full communion" and reject the notion that there is such a thing as "partial communion" - you're either in or you're out. That is not the same thing as being "in a canonically regular position," which they would agree they are not.

As far as improving relations, Pope Francis granted them faculties for hearing confessions and performing marriages, so relations have improved somewhat. How those relations will progress given Traditionis Custodes and this year's apparent expansions of it remains to be seen.

I wonder if a concession will be made for them. I'm assuming that it will. It is just odd, because as far as I can tell this hasn't happened before. But I'm still studying the history of the development of the Mass.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

This was interesting.
YOUR RESULT IS:
You Are a Divine Office (Moderately Traditional) Catholic

What Kind of Catholic Are You?

In the spectrum of Catholicism, where do you fall? Take our quiz - which covers issues like Vatican II, Marian devotion, and married priests - to figure out how you relate to the church.

www.beliefnet.com

 

[narnia59]

. So are you saying that the Novus Ordo is not this? I agree with you this is what the Mass is, we can go in even greater discussion on this matter. Heck there are entire books on this topic. My question is to you then is the Novus Ordo not this?

Do those here who favor TLM reject the reforms of Vatian II?

These would seem to me to be the relevant questions.

It's become increasing clear that Pope Benedict's vision for allowing the TLM did not bear the fruit he had desired.

Instead, we have an almost cult-like group that's grown up around the TLM. Tell-tale signs -- dismissing our current Catechism in favor of the Catechism of the Council of Trent (even though Pope Benedict himself was responsible for our new catechism), believing that the Norvus Ordo is greatly inferior to the TLM or even not valid, a dismissal of Vatican II, and a willingless to abandon Christ's Church if they can't have the TLM. Most definitely not the fruit Pope Benedict was looking for and it's becoming increasingly clear to me why Pope Francis has taken these steps. And it really is a shame for the whole Church.

 

[jas3]

I don't believe that those who had a hand in changing the Liturgy had bad intent. There intent was to get the laymen in the pews to "take part in the sacred action, conscious of what they are doin, with devotion and full collaboration." Which I believe they were successful. What they did not have control of was the unfaithful priests and lukewarm Catholics, which have gave the impression that it is the new Liturgy that is creating this irreverence.

But I'm still studying the history of the development of the Mass.

I am still studying it as well, but with all due respect, I don't think you can read about the coordination of the Rhine group, the way Cdl. Ottaviani was silenced while defending the traditional liturgy, the way the Preparatory Commission for the Liturgy scrapped the original draft documents and created a new schema from scratch, and the way Fr. Bugnini edited the new schema with the idea that "we must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is, for the Protestants," and come to the conclusion that the liturgical changes were made in good faith.

 

[fide]

Erose and Akita - I'm sorry you have extrapolated my comments on extremes, 'way beyond my intention, to hear them as pointing to you personally. This is ever the danger with this cold medium.
With that, it's time anyway for me to get out of this discussion. The Lord is at work, and He knows where conceptions end and misconceptions begin - that is plain.

 

[Erose]

I am still studying it as well, but with all due respect, I don't think you can read about the coordination of the Rhine group, the way Cdl. Ottaviani was silenced while defending the traditional liturgy, the way the Preparatory Commission for the Liturgy scrapped the original draft documents and created a new schema from scratch, and the way Fr. Bugnini edited the new schema with the idea that "we must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is, for the Protestants," and come to the conclusion that the liturgical changes were made in good faith.

We will have to disagree here. I get that people want to find some hidden conspiracy on why the Mass was changed, and I am sure that there was a lot of back and forth on what must be done; but let us not forget:

A) No pope since the changes came out has said "Nope not happening, we are going back to the Pius X missal or a more conservative revision of it. All the popes since the change grew up with the Pius X liturgy let us not forget; but not one did anything to reverse the changes.
B) After the new missal came out, yes there was some outcry because of the changes, but it came from a minority of Catholics. Most faithful Catholics actually liked and loved the changes to the liturgy. As one of my fellow parishioners said last Sunday, "we finally understood what was going on."
C) Concerning the Protestant thing. I will agree it makes it a whole lot easier for a Protestant to transition to Catholicism now. At least you can figure out what is going on because it is in the same language as we speak. I have no clue how I could have transitioned myself if my first experience with Catholicism was a strange ceremony that I could not understand one bit of. With the Novus Ordo, once I figured out the missal, I was able to worship right along with the Catholics, which was (is) important to me.

 

[Erose]

Erose and Akita - I'm sorry you have extrapolated my comments on extremes, 'way beyond my intention, to hear them as pointing to you personally. This is ever the danger with this cold medium.
With that, it's time anyway for me to get out of this discussion. The Lord is at work, and He knows where conceptions end and misconceptions begin - that is plain.

Fide, I apologize that I did not fully understand your comments, and I guess for the most part we were talking past each other instead of to each other.

Just to clear the air, I have no issues with the TLM. I have no issues with making it more widely accessible. I do not doubt those who have said that they connect more with the TLM than the NO. I can really see why, especially in the some regions of the United States, where it seems that liturgical abuse is more prevalent. I wish the Pope did not feel he had to take this action; but I do understand why he is doing it. But I think (I hope) he is doing it in response to a very loud small minority of the Catholics who prefer the TLM that are really pushing the envelope toward heresy. Sadly, I think his advisors on this matter are not telling him what he needs to know, and that is restricting the TLM right now, and doing only this, is not going to make things better. Instead it is going to exasperate the issue.

Now if he was doing this, while pushing for cleaning up liturgical abuse, and addressing some of the complaints of those Catholic who prefer the TLM, I think it would work. But what he is doing right now, isn't going to. All it is going to do, is push more Catholics into the SSPX and other sedevacantist groups.

Anyway, we all must understand that popes are human and their advisors are human, and the thing humans are good at is making mistakes. And I think that this is one of them.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Maybe it is good that we have controversy in stead of the religious apathy that is more pervasive.

 

[jas3]

All the popes since the change grew up with the Pius X liturgy let us not forget; but not one did anything to reverse the changes.

I would say Benedict did reverse the changes to some extent by making diocesan TLMs possible again, and on top of that saying that the TLM had never been and could never be abrogated. Also, the liturgy is much older than Pius X.

B) After the new missal came out, yes there was some outcry because of the changes, but it came from a minority of Catholics. Most faithful Catholics actually liked and loved the changes to the liturgy. As one of my fellow parishioners said last Sunday, "we finally understood what was going on."

The way I've heard it, most faithful Catholics were simply given no other option. I doubt either of us could substantiate our claims with any kind of approval numbers though, and it's a moot point anyway because the Church is not a democracy.

C) Concerning the Protestant thing. I will agree it makes it a whole lot easier for a Protestant to transition to Catholicism now. At least you can figure out what is going on because it is in the same language as we speak.

And ironically a vernacular mass is specifically not what Sacrosanctum Concilium called for:

36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
2. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.

The use of the vernacular was supposed to be limited, it was never the intention that it would completely replace Latin.

But beyond that, to me, leaving a Protestant denomination that went off the rails in the 50's - 70's, seeing all these changes in Catholicism in the 60's and 70's where the Mass as a sacrifice to God was de-emphasized in favor of the Mass being a communal "supper" with the goal of being "seeker sensitive" is throwing up all kinds of red flags. I'm trying to hang on, but it's difficult.

 

[Erose]

I would say Benedict did reverse the changes to some extent by making diocesan TLMs possible again, and on top of that saying that the TLM had never been and could never be abrogated. Also, the liturgy is much older than Pius X.

Pope Benedict didn’t reverse anything with the Novus Ordo. He being pope had the authority to do so, but he didn’t. That needs to be taken into account.

The missal prior to VII was the Pius X missal.

The way I've heard it, most faithful Catholics were simply given no other option. I doubt either of us could substantiate our claims with any kind of approval numbers though, and it's a moot point anyway because the Church is not a democracy.

If there was a widespread dislike or hatred for the new mass, there would have been at minimum outrage that would have been very obvious. From my impression from the older Catholics that I have known since my conversion, is that it was a great boon to them.

And ironically a vernacular mass is specifically not what Sacrosanctum Concilium called for:


The use of the vernacular was supposed to be limited, it was never the intention that it would completely replace Latin.

Yeah this is true, but it definitely was a boon, when it happened. It is also telling that you didn’t have any of popes at that time and on, that thought this was an issue that needed fixing.

But beyond that, to me, leaving a Protestant denomination that went off the rails in the 50's - 70's, seeing all these changes in Catholicism in the 60's and 70's where the Mass as a sacrifice to God was de-emphasized in favor of the Mass being a communal "supper" with the goal of being "seeker sensitive" is throwing up all kinds of red flags. I'm trying to hang on, but it's difficult.

This mentality was not universal IMO. I never got the impression from any pastor I have had over the years, that Mass was a communal “supper”. Emphasis I have always gotten has been more traditional. Maybe I have been lucky enough to always have orthodox priests.

 

[Michie]

Pope Benedict didn’t reverse anything with the Novus Ordo. He being pope had the authority to do so, but he didn’t. That needs to be taken into account.

The missal prior to VII was the Pius X missal.



If there was a widespread dislike or hatred for the new mass, there would have been at minimum outrage that would have been very obvious. From my impression from the older Catholics that I have known since my conversion, is that it was a great boon to them.

Yeah this is true, but it definitely was a boon, when it happened. It is also telling that you didn’t have any of popes at that time and on, that thought this was an issue that needed fixing.

This mentality was not universal IMO. I never got the impression from any pastor I have had over the years, that Mass was a communal “supper”. Emphasis I have always gotten has been more traditional. Maybe I have been lucky enough to always have orthodox priests.

Never heard it either. I was taught It is the source and summit of the Christian life, that the Mass is a sacrifice.

 

[narnia59]

Pope Benedict didn’t reverse anything with the Novus Ordo. He being pope had the authority to do so, but he didn’t. That needs to be taken into account.

The missal prior to VII was the Pius X missal.



If there was a widespread dislike or hatred for the new mass, there would have been at minimum outrage that would have been very obvious. From my impression from the older Catholics that I have known since my conversion, is that it was a great boon to them.

Yeah this is true, but it definitely was a boon, when it happened. It is also telling that you didn’t have any of popes at that time and on, that thought this was an issue that needed fixing.

This mentality was not universal IMO. I never got the impression from any pastor I have had over the years, that Mass was a communal “supper”. Emphasis I have always gotten has been more traditional. Maybe I have been lucky enough to always have orthodox priests.

The Eucharist is both a sacrifice and a communal meal.

It's the fulfillment of the Passover. There were two things the Israelites had to do in order to be "passed over" by the angel of death. They had to sacrifice the passover lamb, and they had to share the lamb as a family meal. Both of these actions were required.

On the cross, Christ literally is sacrificed in fulfillment of the Passover lamb, and at Eucharist we literally consume the flesh of the lamb, just as the Israelites did. At the Mass we are both present at Christ's sacrifice and participate in a family meal.

I think prior to Vatican II the sacrifice was primarily emphasized and after Vatican II some wanted to skip over the "sacrifice" part and focus primarily on the common meal aspect. In reality we should recognize it as both

 

[zippy2006]

The Eucharist is both a sacrifice and a communal meal.

It's the fulfillment of the Passover. There were two things the Israelites had to do in order to be "passed over" by the angel of death. They had to sacrifice the passover lamb, and they had to share the lamb as a family meal. Both of these actions were required.

On the cross, Christ literally is sacrificed in fulfillment of the Passover lamb, and at Eucharist we literally consume the flesh of the lamb, just as the Israelites did. At the Mass we are both present at Christ's sacrifice and participate in a family meal.

I think prior to Vatican II the sacrifice was primarily emphasized and after Vatican II some wanted to skip over the "sacrifice" part and focus primarily on the common meal aspect. In reality we should recognize it as both

It's rather misleading to talk about these as two separate and separable things. Consuming the sacrifice is how one appropriates its effect.

 

[Erose]

The Eucharist is both a sacrifice and a communal meal.

It's the fulfillment of the Passover. There were two things the Israelites had to do in order to be "passed over" by the angel of death. They had to sacrifice the passover lamb, and they had to share the lamb as a family meal. Both of these actions were required.

On the cross, Christ literally is sacrificed in fulfillment of the Passover lamb, and at Eucharist we literally consume the flesh of the lamb, just as the Israelites did. At the Mass we are both present at Christ's sacrifice and participate in a family meal.

I think prior to Vatican II the sacrifice was primarily emphasized and after Vatican II some wanted to skip over the "sacrifice" part and focus primarily on the common meal aspect. In reality we should recognize it as both

The Eucharist is so much more, as we all know. Yes it is:
A Sacrifice
A Communal meal
A Thanksgiving
A Re-Presentation
A Marriage feast
And so much more.

What I should have been clearer, is I have never seen it being emphasized as just a communal meal. I have seen it emphasized as a sacrifice.

 

[eastcoast_bsc]

It’s sad and a sign of the times we live in. I said a year or two back that the popes politics and intentions seem to parallel those of society in general . He never missed an opportunity to criticize Donald Trump but never says a peep when it comes to president Biden. He has completely sold out the church in China, turning his back on plight of Chinese Catholics. His silence speaks loudly.

I am sad and disheartened , and I will honestly say that I don’t trust the Pope. I am leery of his motives and taken back at his cruelty to traditional Catholics.