BREAKING: internet oracles were right, new Motu Proprio undoes Summorum Pontificum

[Gnarwhal]

From Rorate Caeli.

New motu proprio “Traditionis Custodes”

“Therefore, it is [the bishop’s] exclusive competence to authorize the use of the 1962 Roman Missal in the diocese according to the guidelines of the Apostolic See.”

with added rules:

1. No personal parishes allowed.
2. Scripture must be read in the vernacular language. Using the same translations as the bishops conference (not older translations that are sometimes more faithful.)
3. The Bishop is encouraged to eliminate existing personal parishes that don’t meet the intent of this document.
4. Do not authorize new groups.
5. Priests ordained after this document cannot offer the traditional Mass unless their bishop and Rome agree.
6. Priests offering the Latin Mass need permission from their bishop to continue.


RORATE CÆLI: URGENT: ANTI-SUMMORUM MOTU PROPRIO "Traditionis Custodes" -

 

[pdudgeon]

WOW!

 

[pdudgeon]

It looks like the Bishops will be under pressure from Rome on this issue.

 

[pdudgeon]

And it will also be interesting to see what the reaction in Rome will be.
My guess is that this will be just as important and defining a "Line in the Sand" as any revolution has always been.
(And that brings to mind the French Revolution and what happened in France as well.)
So get ready for a rough ride, and protect your priests!

 

[Gnarwhal]

I imagine SSPX vocations directors are going to be very busy now.

EDIT: Sorry I'm livid right now and feeling really snarky.

 

[BrAndreyu]

In English layman's terms, this means what exactly? That nobody is allowed to say the "Latin Mass" anymore?

If that is the case, why is that so horrible exactly? Like I said about the Latin Mass: It's not that I'm against it, I've never been to one but I'm skeptical about how "great" it supposedly is, because it's held up by the "tradcath" scene of 30-something converts who only became Catholic because they believe that the Catholic church fits well with their quasi-White nationalist political beliefs and they use it as a means to virtue signal to the rest of us who have gone to mass in English (or our native language) since birth. Seriously. The Novus Ordo was good enough for St. John Paul II and Mother Theresa, so it's good enough for me. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the Novus Ordo and I'm going to take the unpopular opinion of siding with Pope Francis on this one: rigidity for rigidity's sake is bad, especially when we're supposed to be bringing people into the church rather than making it an exclusive place that only the most dedicated people can belong to and I feel that the constant promotion of the Latin mass as being superior to the Novus Ordo (and the believers that have experienced Novus Ordo since birth) does that. It's not right and it is uppity and pharisaic.

Now sometimes I want to see a different form of mass, but not because I want to be able to signal to my secular political tribe how "pious" and "holy" I am that I go to a mass that I cannot understand in a dead language that nobody uses, but because there are different traditions that are just as valid as the Latin mass and Novus Ordo. If you want to see a different form of the mass, just go to an Eastern Catholic church! Ukr. Greek Catholic, Byzantine Catholic, Maronite, Armenian Catholic... these all exist in communion with Rome and shouldn't be viewed as inferior just because they don't use the Latin mass.

Again, I'm not down on the Latin mass. I've never been to one, but the notion that the Novus Ordo is somehow invalid or inferior to the Latin mass is ludicrous on it's face and ludicrous in it's spirit because of the kind of people that promote that ideology and their motives for doing so.

 

[Michie]

From Rorate Caeli.

New motu proprio “Traditionis Custodes”

“Therefore, it is [the bishop’s] exclusive competence to authorize the use of the 1962 Roman Missal in the diocese according to the guidelines of the Apostolic See.”

with added rules:

1. No personal parishes allowed.
2. Scripture must be read in the vernacular language. Using the same translations as the bishops conference (not older translations that are sometimes more faithful.)
3. The Bishop is encouraged to eliminate existing personal parishes that don’t meet the intent of this document.
4. Do not authorize new groups.
5. Priests ordained after this document cannot offer the traditional Mass unless their bishop and Rome agree.
6. Priests offering the Latin Mass need permission from their bishop to continue.


RORATE CÆLI: URGENT: ANTI-SUMMORUM MOTU PROPRIO "Traditionis Custodes" -

I wish I could say I was surprised.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

That nobody is allowed to say the "Latin Mass" anymore?

It is up to the bishop.
Art. 2. It belongs to the diocesan bishop, as moderator, promoter, and guardian of the whole liturgical life of the particular Church entrusted to him, to regulate the liturgical celebrations of his diocese. Therefore, it is his exclusive competence to authorize the use of the 1962 Roman Missal in his diocese, according to the guidelines of the Apostolic See.

 

[Michie]

The Pope hopes to foster the unity of the Church by his decision, but it’s unlikely to happen immediately in the wake of the Holy Father’s clampdown on celebration of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass.

Pope Francis’ Traditionis Custodes: Five Consequences of the New Motu Proprio Curtailing the Latin Mass

 

[Gnarwhal]

In English layman's terms, this means what exactly? That nobody is allowed to say the "Latin Mass" anymore?

If that is the case, why is that so horrible exactly? Like I said about the Latin Mass: It's not that I'm against it, I've never been to one but I'm skeptical about how "great" it supposedly is, because it's held up by the "tradcath" scene of 30-something converts who only became Catholic because they believe that the Catholic church fits well with their quasi-White nationalist political beliefs and they use it as a means to virtue signal to the rest of us who have gone to mass in English (or our native language) since birth. Seriously. The Novus Ordo was good enough for St. John Paul II and Mother Theresa, so it's good enough for me. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the Novus Ordo and I'm going to take the unpopular opinion of siding with Pope Francis on this one: rigidity for rigidity's sake is bad, especially when we're supposed to be bringing people into the church rather than making it an exclusive place that only the most dedicated people can belong to and I feel that the constant promotion of the Latin mass as being superior to the Novus Ordo (and the believers that have experienced Novus Ordo since birth) does that. It's not right and it is uppity and pharisaic.

Now sometimes I want to see a different form of mass, but not because I want to be able to signal to my secular political tribe how "pious" and "holy" I am that I go to a mass that I cannot understand in a dead language that nobody uses, but because there are different traditions that are just as valid as the Latin mass and Novus Ordo. If you want to see a different form of the mass, just go to an Eastern Catholic church! Ukr. Greek Catholic, Byzantine Catholic, Maronite, Armenian Catholic... these all exist in communion with Rome and shouldn't be viewed as inferior just because they don't use the Latin mass.

Again, I'm not down on the Latin mass. I've never been to one, but the notion that the Novus Ordo is somehow invalid or inferior to the Latin mass is ludicrous on it's face and ludicrous in it's spirit because of the kind of people that promote that ideology and their motives for doing so.

In short, Pope Benedict's 2007 motu proprio Summorum Pontificum said that if a priest wants to celebrate the Latin Mass he doesn't need his bishop's permission to do it. It really opened the Mass up for a lot of people to discover and it's thrived in the 14 years since then. Traditionis Custodes reverses that, essentially re-imposing old restrictions on the Latin Mass and adding more.

Under this it also creates an environment where the TLM could die out because it'll be difficult for priests to pursue their vocation as traditional priests. They'll need permission from their ordinary at every juncture to proceed.

So the bottom line is if you have a bishop who dislikes the Latin Mass cause he's a modernist boomer (and believe me, most of them are and most of them dislike the TLM) then the future of the Latin Mass in your diocese is in grave danger.

Most trads like me don't agree that the Novus Ordo is invalid. The issue I/we have is that there is too much flexibility in it's rubrics that allow for abuse and irreverence to be inserted into the fabric of the Mass itself. The Latin Mass had no such flexibility which was inherently a safeguard: this is how you celebrate it and there's no way to deviate from it, therefore there's no way to commit sacrilege or be otherwise irreverent towards our Lord.

I actually go to a Novus Ordo weekly, I only get to attend a TLM on first and third Fridays because that's all that's available to me in my diocese AFAIK. But now I'm wondering if even that will be challenged, I don't know what my bishops position on the TLM is. I know others like @chevyontheriver agree with me that the Novus Ordo can be executed well, it's just that in most practical cases - at least half the time - it isn't.

I wish I could say I was surprised.

Me too. The portents saw this one coming quite a while ago. Francis has been hinting at it for months, if not years.

 

[BrAndreyu]

I wish I could say I was surprised.

I trust that the holy spirit is leading Pope Francis on this, because I think that there are a lot of people who are obsessed with the Extraordinary form of the mass for the wrong reasons, and I think that he understands exactly that.

Furthermore, this is designed to aid in the New Evangelization. He wants more people to come to church and get something out of it, which is harder when parishes are using only the extraordinary form of the mass because let's face it: Latin is a dead language. It is only used within the church and it's use and the promotion of the extraordinary form of mass as somehow being "superior" to the Novus Ordo is by people with a very specific agenda that isn't so much for the benefit of the church as it is for their own pride and political signaling. Pope Francis sees through what's going on with the recent promotion of the extraordinary form by the "tradcath" movement (largely people who converted in their late 20s & early 30s because they think that Catholicism lines up with their far right political agenda).

It is up to the bishop.

So what's the problem with that? I would think that the Bishops should be the ones setting down the rules in their dioceses as to how the mass is most commonly celebrated in the way that will reach the most souls in their diocese. I have experienced the Novus Ordo from the time of my birth and never once have seen (I say seen, because I wouldn't be able to actively participate in) the extraordinary mass, as I have a hard enough time adjusting to the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom when I go to St. Mary's Ukr. Greek Catholic church to feel closer to my Ukrainian heritage. If it wasn't for the Novus Ordo, I probably wouldn't have the pleasant memories of comfort that I have attached to the mass that kept me coming when I was in the darkest period of my life with drugs, fornication, violence, and criminal behavior. I like being able to actively participate in the mass and being able to understand what's going on rather than having to follow along with a missal and repeat a bunch of words that I don't understand.

Like I said, the Novus Ordo was good enough for St. John Paul II and Mother Theresa, so it's good enough for me.

 

[Michie]

Several advocates of the extraordinary form of Mass discuss the good fruits they say come from its continued liturgical practice.

What Draws Parishioners to the Traditional Latin Mass?

 

[Michie]

“The People of God need to see priests and deacons behave in a way that is full of reverence and dignity, in order to help them to penetrate invisible things without unnecessary words or explanations.” —Pope St. John Paul II

Why I Love the Extraordinary Form of the Mass

 

[BrAndreyu]

Most trads like me don't agree that the Novus Ordo is invalid. The issue I/we have is that there is too much flexibility in it's rubrics that allow for abuse and irreverence to be inserted into the fabric of the Mass itself. The Latin Mass had no such flexibility which was inherently a safeguard: this is how you celebrate it and there's no way to deviate from it, therefore there's no way to commit sacrilege or be otherwise irreverent towards our Lord.

I can see that, because there things that I don't like about the Novus Ordo (Priest telling jokes, people applauding at certain points) but it's the only mass I know and is the one that I associate with happier times in my life such as my first holy communion, confirmation, and before the world corrupted me and turned me into a turd. I just went to mass this morning and had a really good experience, decided to sit in the section of the parish where you get communion on the tongue by kneeling (completely unaware of this until it happened, so that was a first for me).

Again, I've never been to a Latin mass. I want to go to one just to see, but I wouldn't make it a regular thing because I wouldn't be able to actively participate in it as I'd have to follow from a missal the whole time. I'm not against the Latin mass, I'm just against the people who convert in their late 20s or early 30s and then boast about attending Latin mass because it helps them to create an identity that fits with their extremely far right politics. If people want to go to Latin mass, I have no problem with it and I wish I could go to one sometime just to see the difference. My problem is when people use it as a means to build a secular political identity, which has been a trend now since around the start of the Trump presidency (and I'm not a liberal guy as we all know). There are people out there who convert and then think that they are somehow "better" or know "more" about Catholicism than those of us who were born into the faith, these are the people who are the most obsessed with the Latin mass and they try to force their way into parishes that have existed long before them and turn them into political projects rather than strengthening the faith of the parish. A parish shouldn't be a political project for right wing organizers seeking voters. I'm sorry, but the church needs to remain separate from secular political organizing in order to keep it's soul otherwise you're going to end up with more and more Nancy Pelosis and Joe Bidens both on the right and the left.

I actually go to a Novus Ordo weekly, I only get to attend a TLM on first and third Fridays because that's all that's available to me in my diocese AFAIK. But now I'm wondering if even that will be challenged, I don't know what my bishops position on the TLM is. I know others like @chevyontheriver agree with me that the Novus Ordo can be executed well, it's just that in most practical cases - at least half the time - it isn't.

And again, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. I'd love to be able to go to a Latin mass sometime, but my problem is with a very specific current of people around my own age who convert and then tell Cradle Catholics (me) that "You've never been to a valid Mass in your life. I'm so holy and pious!" and they don't know why they believe church teaching, they just accept it because "the church says so". It comes off as very shallow and motivated more by secular sociopolitical concerns than an actual love for the church, which again, even when I was in the darkest points of my life, I would vociferously defend the Catholic church to friends and acquaintances (and I wasn't even going to mass during these times).

Like this weekend, I might make the drive down to North Fort Myers to attend a small Byzantine Catholic Church out in the woods because it would be a new experience and I'm currently "on a quest" to be more authentic with my faith and get more out of it. Unfortunately, the Cathedral that is actually closer than the Byzantine church does not even offer an extraordinary mass or I'd check it out. I just feel like it's better for evangelization purposes for the Novus Ordo to be the dominant form of the mass because people can follow what's going on. It would be a lot harder to invite someone to mass if it wasn't in English (or Spanish, Haitian Creole, etc) and I think that's why Pope Francis has made this decision: the church is absolutely bleeding believers because of the sexual molestation crisis and the increasingly anti-christian culture, so they want the mass to be as accessible to communities as possible without trading in certain important doctrinal factors (ordination of men only, marriage=1 man & 1 woman, real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, etc)

I see where he's coming from and I think it was wise to leave it up to the Bishops but also to make the Bishops have to justify to Rome why they want to offer extraordinary form masses.

 

[Michie]

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.

Continued below.
Traditionis Custodes

 

[narnia59]

I have limited memories of the Latin Mass from my childhood, and it's not available in my diocese.

I've attended in two different places, one at an FSSP parish in Minneapolis when I was traveling and also at Our Lady of Clear Creek Abby in Oklahoma while on retreat there.

I could write many paragraphs on what I think are the benefits and negatives of both the Latin Mass and the Novus Ordo, and how I would do it if I were in charge. But I'm not, that's not my lane.

There was one thing that happened at the Mass in Minneapolis though that I found problematic. During the homily several times the catechism from the Council of Trent was quoted, no reference to our current universal catechism. And then it was mentioned that the Church has two parts, the Church Triumphant and the Church Militant. I remember thinking what happened to the Church Suffering? I did a bit of research when I got home, and evidently the inclusion to consider those in Purgatory as part of the Church developed after Trent. Which was news to me, but if you look at the catechism of the council of Trent, sure enough, it only speaks to the Church Triumphant and the Church Militant.

So perhaps that is the concern Pope Francis is trying to address, it's not just a fondness for that liturgy at play but a rejection of doctrinal development since Trent that is problematic. That does cause division in the Church.

And yes, if I had to write my top 10 list of problems I wish he would address, that would probably not make the list. But it doesn't mean it's not a real problem.

 

[zippy2006]

In English layman's terms, this means what exactly?

It means that the Latin Mass will be phased out in time. Francis is saying that the Missale Romanum was reformed at the Second Vatican Council and that there are not two forms of the Roman Rite, but one. He is also saying that the concord and unity that popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI sought to promote with Latin allowances has not been achieved, and that it will be more properly achieved with the abrogation of those allowances.

The decision now falls to the bishops on a case-by-case basis, but the bishops are instructed to "return to a unitary form of celebration." That is, bishops can extend the existence of the Latin Mass in their diocese if there is pastoral need, but this extension is clearly intended to be temporary.

-Traditionis Custodes
-Letter of the Holy Father accompanying Traditionis Custodes

 

[Michie]

Twelve quick thoughts on Pope Francis dropping his long-expected bomb on the traditional latin Mass - Catholic Herald

 

[Michie]

Here’s an explainer from The Pillar about the changes to the Traditional Latin Mass

Pope makes extraordinary changes for Extraordinary Form

 

[zippy2006]

I have limited memories of the Latin Mass from my childhood, and it's not available in my diocese.

I've attended in two different places, one at an FSSP parish in Minneapolis when I was traveling and also at Our Lady of Clear Creek Abby in Oklahoma while on retreat there.

I could write many paragraphs on what I think are the benefits and negatives of both the Latin Mass and the Novus Ordo, and how I would do it if I were in charge. But I'm not, that's not my lane.

There was one thing that happened at the Mass in Minneapolis though that I found problematic. During the homily several times the catechism from the Council of Trent was quoted, no reference to our current universal catechism. And then it was mentioned that the Church has two parts, the Church Triumphant and the Church Militant. I remember thinking what happened to the Church Suffering? I did a bit of research when I got home, and evidently the inclusion to consider those in Purgatory as part of the Church developed after Trent. Which was news to me, but if you look at the catechism of the council of Trent, sure enough, it only speaks to the Church Triumphant and the Church Militant.

So perhaps that is the concern Pope Francis is trying to address, it's not just a fondness for that liturgy at play but a rejection of doctrinal development since Trent that is problematic. That does cause division in the Church.

And yes, if I had to write my top 10 list of problems I wish he would address, that would probably not make the list. But it doesn't mean it's not a real problem.

See, I don't really have a problem with this change. I understand the rationale. But the larger problem is the bloat of the Roman Church. It's kind of bizarre that 98% of Catholics belong to a single Rite. Liturgical (and cultural) differences do result in doctrinal differences, and this has been one of the ongoing problems with Orthodox and Eastern Catholic relations. Common sense would indicate that the more than one billion Roman Catholics are going to have cultural differences that result in liturgical differences and (non-infallible) doctrinal differences. This dance that places them all into one singular camp is becoming more awkward by the day.

Francis is attentive to this in many ways. He is open to handling issues on a local basis (such as the legitimacy of celebrating the 1962 missal). I have no idea how this larger problem would be addressed, but the difficulty is clear.