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

[chevyontheriver]

I would say that with the Ordinariates and Eastern Churches there is a juridically enshrined group of people who are beholden to a particular liturgy. An Ordinariate is something like a pseudo-Rite. But those who favor the old form of the Latin Rite have no special ethnic or religious identity. They are just Roman Catholics who prefer a different liturgy. So the principled basis that exists for the former does not exist for the latter. In the latter case the group is distinguished by taste or liturgical sensibility, and not by objective ethnic or religious roots.

All true, except Ordinariate members are members of the Latin Rite with a different liturgy. Which is what this newfound problem with the vetus ordo is all about, members of the Latin Rite using a different liturgy than the one pope Francis likes. I will be eager to see what happens to the arguments that having multiple liturgies in the Latin Rite is just conceptually all wrong all of a sudden.

 

[Gnarwhal]

Please let us hope not! The Anglican Church is also termed " Catholic Lite".
In other words, on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the full, traditional Latin Mass, the High Episcopal Church would be a #4, the typical Catholic new mass would be a #5.
United Rainbow Methodist would be a #2, Free Methodist would be a #3.
So there are already several other choices available out there that have already splintered away from the Latin Catholic mass. No need to add more.
In fact, the real need is exactly the opposite these days: more God-centered, and less man-centered.

I'm not sure that's true, have you seen an Ordinariate Mass? The Ordinariate priests themselves describe it like the Tridentine Mass but "in Elizabethan English" (St. Luke's parish in Fort Washington, MD).

It's celebrated at a high altar ad orientem, the vestments, gestures, and rubrics are all much closer to the TLM than the Novus Ordo. I'd say on a scale of 1-10 it's probably an 8 and the NO is a 5. It's actually stunningly beautiful, holy, and reverent.

 

[zippy2006]

All true, except Ordinariate members are members of the Latin Rite with a different liturgy. Which is what this newfound problem with the vetus ordo is all about, members of the Latin Rite using a different liturgy than the one pope Francis likes. I will be eager to see what happens to the arguments that having multiple liturgies in the Latin Rite is just conceptually all wrong all of a sudden.

But again, an Ordinariate is like a pseudo-Rite. A Rite is basically a particular form of worship grounded in a cultural identity. The Anglican Ordinariates and the Eastern Catholic Churches have a cultural identity on which to ground a particular form of worship. Traditionalists don't. The Traditionalist culture is identical to the Novus Ordo culture. There is no truly distinct ethnic or religious identity on which to ground a particular form of worship. The Ordinariate group and the traditionalist group are fundamentally different kinds of groups.

If the Ordinariates grew to a very large size it would be plausible to make them into a full-fledged Western Rite. The basis for this would be their religious roots. No such basis exists for Traditionalists. In Catholicism Rites or forms of worship have never been understood merely as matters of preference, but that is the only basis that could set traditionalists apart from other Latin Rite Catholics. It isn't a sufficient basis.

The same thing holds for the Dominican "Rite" or the Carmelite "Rite". There is an objective cultural identity grounding those forms of worship.

 

[chevyontheriver]

But again, an Ordinariate is like a pseudo-Rite.

And yet Ordinariate members are 'ARE' Latin Rite Catholics. Verify that if you need to.

A Rite is basically a particular form of worship grounded in a cultural identity. The Anglican Ordinariates and the Eastern Catholic Churches have a cultural identity on which to ground a particular form of worship. Traditionalists don't. The Traditionalist culture is identical to the Novus Ordo culture. There is no truly distinct ethnic or religious identity on which to ground a particular form of worship. The Ordinariate group and the traditionalist group are fundamentally different kinds of groups.

And yet both are Latin Rite Christians not using the now standardized liturgy. Yes the Ordinariates have a sort of cultural identity, but then you would have to say there is a distinct Anglican culture within our own culture.

If the Ordinariates grew to a very large size it would be plausible to make them into a full-fledged Western Rite. The basis for this would be their religious roots. No such basis exists for Traditionalists. In Catholicism Rites or forms of worship have never been understood merely as matters of preference, but that is the only basis that could set traditionalists apart from other Latin Rite Catholics. It isn't a sufficient basis.

The same thing holds for the Dominican "Rite" or the Carmelite "Rite". There is an objective cultural identity grounding those forms of worship.

If you think the Ordinariate can evolve, and that the Dominicans and Carmelites have evolved, then the traditionalists could evolve. Sorry I'm being contrarian here but this thing about how we need one liturgy for one rite seems too much for me.

 

[zippy2006]

Sorry I'm being contrarian here but this thing about how we need one liturgy for one rite seems too much for me.

That's alright. I am pretty happy with the arguments I have given. Maybe we just have to agree to disagree, though I am not convinced that you are grasping my argument.

I could just dumb the whole thing down, ignore Rites, and say, "Western Catholics should pray the common liturgy--the Novus Ordo--unless they have a good reason to pray a different liturgy." I'm saying that former Anglicans have a good reason to pray a different liturgy. So do Maronites, and Byzantines, and Melkites, and Ruthenians. But not Traditionalists. Traditionalists' reasons have nothing to do with ethnic or religious roots. Their reason has to do with liturgical preference rather than objective ethnic or religious background. Personal preference isn't a good reason.

At the very least I hope you would admit that Traditionalists have less reason to pray a different liturgy than Eastern Catholics or members of an Ordinariate do.

 

[pdudgeon]

I'm not sure that's true, have you seen an Ordinariate Mass? The Ordinariate priests themselves describe it like the Tridentine Mass but "in Elizabethan English" (St. Luke's parish in Fort Washington, MD).

It's celebrated at a high altar ad orientem, the vestments, gestures, and rubrics are all much closer to the TLM than the Novus Ordo. I'd say on a scale of 1-10 it's probably an 8 and the NO is a 5. It's actually stunningly beautiful, holy, and reverent.

I've spent the last 50 years tracing the History of the Christian Church backwards.
I began at the 1970's Methodist Church, ( before they adopted the rainbow flag) then went backwards to the Episcopal Church, then backwards again to the Pentecostal Home Church movement, and then to the Catholic Church before Pope Benedict.
I was always going backwards, searching for I didn't know what at the time.
But I think now that I was searching for The Latin Mass with a parish that would welcome me, and not snub me.
In those long ago days, that wasn't easy to find, because the split between cradle Catholics and the World was huge.
In those days, you were either born Catholic or you were an abomination; there was nothing in-between, no crack in a doorway, much less the open invite to come in and learn like there is now.
So yes, I did finally find a parish with a way to come in, and I availed myself of that opportunity, and continued my search backwards.

 

[chevyontheriver]

That's alright. I am pretty happy with the arguments I have given. Maybe we just have to agree to disagree, though I am not convinced that you are grasping my argument.

I could just dumb the whole thing down, ignore Rites, and say, "Western Catholics should pray the common liturgy--the Novus Ordo--unless they have a good reason to pray a different liturgy." I'm saying that former Anglicans have a good reason to pray a different liturgy. So do Maronites, and Byzantines, and Melkites, and Ruthenians. But not Traditionalists. Traditionalists' reasons have nothing to do with ethnic or religious roots. Their reason has to do with liturgical preference rather than objective ethnic or religious background. Personal preference isn't a good reason.

At the very least I hope you would admit that Traditionalists have less reason to pray a different liturgy than Eastern Catholics or members of an Ordinariate do.

I donno. I think I am on the same page as our old pope Benedict, who said "What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful".

 

[anna ~ grace]

I donno. I think I am on the same page as our old pope Benedict, who said "What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful".

I miss him. He is an awesome Pope.

 

[anna ~ grace]

I am not saying that Benedict is still the only valid, reigning Pope, but I understand why some do. Pope Francis needs prayers.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I am not saying that Benedict is still the only valid, reigning Pope, but I understand why some do. Pope Francis needs prayers.

Francis is our pope, even when he makes mistakes. We need to pray for him, and forgive him as needed. He blundered here.

What all of this points out is that we have not gotten to liturgical unity in the Latin Rite, even though that is what is being imposed on us now by force. The reason the vetus ordo has become popular at all is that the novus ordo typically practiced doesn't fill needs of lots and lots of people. Many of those just stay home, many have left to become Orthodox or Protestant, and some have discovered the older mass in Latin. What pope Francis SHOULD HAVE DONE is to realize that the novus ordo needs real work, and incorporated lots from the vetus ordo to help fix the novus ordo. Cardinal Sarah wanted to do that. Pope Francis let him go instead. And now he works to kill the vetus ordo. But without fixing the novus ordo. It still needs fixing.

 

[zippy2006]

And now he works to kill the vetus ordo. But without fixing the novus ordo. It still needs fixing.

Francis talks about this a few times in Traditionis and the accompanying letter. Not a lot, but some. Worth a read.

 

[Gnarwhal]

I am not saying that Benedict is still the only valid, reigning Pope, but I understand why some do. Pope Francis needs prayers.

I've been wondering what Benedict would do if Francis passed before he does. Since there's been some speculation with Francis' extended hospital stay. Clearly his resignation doesn't mean he reassumes the throne if Francis were gone, but with some of the speculation out there surrounding his abdication I wonder whether he would feel like a threat was removed. Of course the greater threat is from the Cardinals who support Francis...I can't remember who took Benedict aside (before he was Benedict) at the conclave that elected him. Supposedly he elaborated on a plan that was in motion, because Francis was allegedly supposed to be elected in that conclave but Benedict unexpectedly beat him.

I need to revisit that whole story and remember who the players were.

 

[anna ~ grace]

I've been wondering what Benedict would do it Francis passed before he does. Clearly his resignation doesn't mean he reassumes the throne if Francis were gone, but with some of the speculation out there surrounding his abdication I wonder whether he would feel like a threat was removed. Of course the greater threat is from the Cardinals who support Francis...I can't remember who took Benedict aside (before he was Benedict) at the conclave that elected him. Supposedly he elaborated on a plan that was in motion, because Francis was allegedly supposed to be elected in that conclave but Benedict unexpectedly beat him.

I need to revisit that whole story and remember who the players were.

Sounds kind of like Hilary vs. Trump.

“He won?! He won?! How did he do that?! We worked so hard!!!”

Yeah, Benedict is pretty amazing. It’s a miracle (literally) this he is still alive, and I think he has some awesome, secret, hidden role to play in all this. His writings are always amazing, insightful, clear, and orthodox.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Francis talks about this a few times in Traditionis and the accompanying letter. Not a lot, but some. Worth a read.

Not a lot. Kill off the TLM and say a few words about a problem or two with the novus ordo. Underwhelming.

 

[Lady Bug]

I actually prefer Mass in the vernacular but two things about today's Novus Ordo really bother me: the music is atrocious (don't give me the "church is not entertainment" thing, I'm not looking for entertainment) and I don't like that the Douay Rheims has been abandoned. I don't care if Mass is in Latin. IMHO I'm less inclined to pay attention. However I'm perfectly fine with an Ad Orientum Mass.

 

[chevyontheriver]

The Latin Mass preserves the very taste or flavor of Catholicism. It is not that the vernacular is wrong to use, but that the issues in the novus order go far beyond the language.

In places in Europe, like Poland, the novus order is often almost forced to be more similar to the Latin Mass due to the fact that many church buildings are ancient and the people more faithful - a seminarians I know who grew up in Poland said that often the difference was only in language.

Here, as in most places, the novus order destroyed the very concept of sacred space. That the place of worship should create a sacred space and not be modeled after a profane theatre - as many recently built churches now are.

And if it's just a theatre and just a profane space like anywhere else, then Christ himself can be put anywhere, I'm any side Chapel or broom closet (side chapels are often so empty of worshippers they seem to be considered almost as closets anyway.

Never-ending that God Himself gave the prototypes for liturgical practice and the means for preserving sacred spaces. The novus order in common practice sets no standards and separates itself from the proper order.

This is the major WHY of why we even have people who want the vetus ordo. The novus ordo hasn't worked very well. So people go back to what worked better. Sure you have your ritual freaks and other strange sorts, but for the most part it's people who finally found a reverent way to worship their Lord. It wouldn't be half as popular if it didn't do that. It wouldn't be half as popular if the novus ordo consistently delivered a reverent worship. Sometimes, but not consistently enough.

Some of the problem is the priests we are given. A holy priest at a novus ordo mass is far better than a failed lecher of a priest speaking Latin. Some of the problem is insipid architecture, though not all new churches are ugly. Some is entertainment when people just need reverence. And the music. Don't get me started on that. Not that all TLM music is great, nor all novus ordo music is awful by any means. You know, I would be happy enough with the novus ordo if we followed cardinal Sarah's advice to turn the altar around, had a functional communion rail, and the music took advantage of hundreds of years of wonderful old music.

 

[Lady Bug]

.

 

[chevyontheriver]

.

So what's a person to do?

Remain a faithful Catholic.

The new moto proprio has almost nothing lay people are required to do. All we need to do is remain Catholic and remain faithful. We need to forgive this pope and pray for him. And carry on. We can still go to a TLM while it is still available if we want to. We can move to a location with a good and faithful bishop if we need to.

It has some things bishops are required not to do. Such as they are not able to institute a new parish as a TLM parish. But if a bishop wishes to allow TLM that bishop can. A bishop cannot allow a new priest fresh out of seminary to say TLM. That's gonna burn some seminarians but the practical effect of that will only begin a few years down the pike.

I really didn't like this pope's decision. For lots of reasons. But it isn't the end of the world. Not just yet. It isn't infallible. It's harmful, but what's new? Doesn't change the day to day lives of many people, though I imagine some bad bishops will use their new legal rights to stomp on anyone who is more traditional. I guess you gotta move then to a different diocese. Priests will be more effected by this. Some will be shut down. Some may be cancelled. And it isn't easy for them to move to a different diocese. There might be some fireworks with this, but priests will need to obey, showing what they are made of.

 

[Michie]

At The Catholic Thing there is a piece translated from the original German (by a good friend of mine, two, as a matter of fact), by Gerhard Ludwig Card. Müller. The former Prefect of the CDF examines Francis’ new Plessy v. Ferguson-esque move against people who participate at the Traditional Latin Mass. In effect, what the Cardinal does is dissect not just the Motu Proprio but even more the Letter Francis sent out to the bishops.

It is a cosmic law that it takes a great many more words to refute the specious claims of another. Müller’s piece is longish, but it is good, and instructive. He goes into the depth of Francis’ starting points in a way that Francis did not.

Beyond the presentation of his subjective reactions, however, a stringent and logically comprehensible theological argumentation would also have been appropriate. For papal authority does not consist in superficially demanding from the faithful mere obedience, i.e., a formal submission of the will, but, much more essentially, in enabling the faithful also to be convinced with consent of the mind. …

[…]

This dichotomy between good intention and poor execution always arises where the objections of competent employees are perceived as an obstruction of their superiors’ intentions, and which are, therefore, not even offered.

Müller breaks down the claim that Traditionis does the same thing that Pius V did in 1570.

He points out that if one Pope can cancel people, so can another cancel another group.

The Cardinal looks into the “defense of Vatican II against attacks” by “traditionalists” argument. Does Francis really have the will to deal with “progressivist” attacks on the Council and their paganization of the liturgy? Will truly deal with what the Germans are doing with the “synodal way” (“walking together”)? Will he correct those who promote same-sex acts?

Then there is Francis’ tone:

Continued below.
Card. Müller drills into Francis' "Letter to Bishops" with "Traditionis custodes"

 

[Michie]

New Liturgical Movement: Roundup of Major Reactions to Traditionis Custodes