It's strange that bishops have not leaned into the reform of the reform as a means to lower the temperature after Traditionis. Stranger still that some are actively doing the opposite.
I don't think this can last. Is there anyone young in the church who has enough vitriol against traditional liturgical practices to maintain such a divisive approach?
It's strange that bishops have not leaned into the reform of the reform as a means to lower the temperature after Traditionis. Stranger still that some are actively doing the opposite.
I don't think this can last. Is there anyone young in the church who has enough vitriol against traditional liturgical practices to maintain such a divisive approach?
But those are angry letters about TLM written by those who want the traditional Mass, not by people who attend and want to attend the Novus Ordo. There is nothing the bishop can do to reinstate what Rome has banned.
My policy is to never write angry letters to clerics. If I am upset at something my bishop has forbidden I write to thank him for an opportunity to break my attachments to created things and mortify my will. If I am disappointed that he moved a priest I write to thank him for the time that the priest was there and cite some specific inarguably good qualities of the priest because you know things go into a guy's permanent file to be used for God knows what.
If I am extraordinarily angry at someone (generally I reserve this for people closer to me than bishops or priests) I have a Mass said for them at mymassrequest.
My point is that if angry letters are going to be hinge on which the door swings, you're going to get a lot more angry letters. I don't think it makes sense to base what you do on that.
There are the pro-tradition bishops, who are keeping their heads down and trying to ensure that nothing traditional gets heard about outside the parish where it's actually happening. This requires them to actually suppress traditional things on occasion, lest they get caught. It also means we're less likely to hear about bishops who are reforming the reform.
Then there are the bishops who are anti-traditionalist, and they use the "Spirit of Traditionis Custodes" to justify opposing anything traditional.
Then there are the bishops who do whatever they think the relevant people want (those who determine promotions), as loudly as they can. If I remember right, everyone involved in bishop assignments in the US is anti-traditionalist. Certainly a lot of Vatican Cardinals are, or TC would never have gotten to the Pope's desk.
There are young priests (and laity) who oppose tradition. I expect they will be the ones most likely to be promoted for at least another decade, maybe two. There are a LOT more priests than bishops, so they don't actually need many such young priests. On the bright side, bishops' hearts can change.
Yes I suppose I was speaking more from emotion than prudence in my comment. The cruelty some bishops have shown in following up Traditionis with gratuitous bans on e.g. ad orientem took me somewhat by surprise. Especially given that even very small gestures in the other direction would go a long way to healing relationships with hurting members of the flock.
As a general rule, people don't develop strong empathy for those they do not see and talk to regularly. Empathy is an emotion designed to help form a community, and you can't form a community with someone you never see. So you can expect bishops to react empathetically to hurting people primarily when those people are diocesan employees. I do not believe many of those employees are traditionalists, and most probably don't lean in that direction either.
The number of bishops who have responded to sexual abuse victims by trying to protect the priest (whom they know) or the diocesan coffers, rather than the victim (whom they have probably never seen) is a good indication that bishops are not immune to this. There is usually some additional grace given to those whom your community has designated as a protected class, but that clearly does not apply to traditionalists in the Catholic Church.
Two of the most interesting things about Bishop Strickland was that he actually did a daily holy hour, and he actually walked around and talked to ordinary Catholics on a daily or weekly basis.
I’m not sure how to articulate the feeling of dismay evoked by the knowledge that it is noteworthy and unusual for a bishop to have a daily holy hour.
…..
I just. I don’t have words. What do they think their JOB is. Can you imagine a married couple being *noteworthy* bc they spent an hour together speaking during a day? 😞
To be fair, I don't know that other bishops don't do a daily holy hour. I just know that the only other bishop I've heard talk of it was Fulton Sheen. And he gradually shifted from gently suggesting that his priests do one, to insistently and persistently recommending it as of great importance.
I like your use of the married couple analogy. I remember a group of us talking to an Amish guy while touring his milking parlor, asking whether he or his wife did the milking. He very sincerely explained that they did it together, because "I don't want to do without her, and she don't want to do without me." They legit wanted 24/7 together, and probably got pretty close. That's noteworthy. It's also what St. Paul told the Thessalonian laypeople that they should be doing: "pray constantly". When I'm doing well, I can wish for that sort of prayer.
The men who are chosen to become bishops are chosen, in great part, because they are safe men who will not rock the boat. To promote the "reform of the reform," would be rocking the boat for those who have power in the Church today.
For some people, it's TLM or nothing. Reform of the reform won't do anything for them. But for some others, it's not TLM or nothing. More than anything, they want a reverent liturgy, and so reform of the reform would be a way to get them to give the ordinary form another look. So I'm agreeing: if you are trying to get people to choose the ordinary form over the TLM, you'd think this would be the way to go....
It's strange that bishops have not leaned into the reform of the reform as a means to lower the temperature after Traditionis. Stranger still that some are actively doing the opposite.
I don't think this can last. Is there anyone young in the church who has enough vitriol against traditional liturgical practices to maintain such a divisive approach?
> It's strange that bishops have not leaned into the reform of the reform
Not strange at all.
Some people write angry letters to bishops about what their new priest does.
Bishops don't like angry letters.
Why would they willingly bring angry letters on themselves?
Yes, you're right, but I was thinking of reform of the reform as a response to the angry letters Traditionis would have already occasioned.
But those are angry letters about TLM written by those who want the traditional Mass, not by people who attend and want to attend the Novus Ordo. There is nothing the bishop can do to reinstate what Rome has banned.
I suppose we need to write angry letters about what our old priests do then
My policy is to never write angry letters to clerics. If I am upset at something my bishop has forbidden I write to thank him for an opportunity to break my attachments to created things and mortify my will. If I am disappointed that he moved a priest I write to thank him for the time that the priest was there and cite some specific inarguably good qualities of the priest because you know things go into a guy's permanent file to be used for God knows what.
If I am extraordinarily angry at someone (generally I reserve this for people closer to me than bishops or priests) I have a Mass said for them at mymassrequest.
My point is that if angry letters are going to be hinge on which the door swings, you're going to get a lot more angry letters. I don't think it makes sense to base what you do on that.
There are the pro-tradition bishops, who are keeping their heads down and trying to ensure that nothing traditional gets heard about outside the parish where it's actually happening. This requires them to actually suppress traditional things on occasion, lest they get caught. It also means we're less likely to hear about bishops who are reforming the reform.
Then there are the bishops who are anti-traditionalist, and they use the "Spirit of Traditionis Custodes" to justify opposing anything traditional.
Then there are the bishops who do whatever they think the relevant people want (those who determine promotions), as loudly as they can. If I remember right, everyone involved in bishop assignments in the US is anti-traditionalist. Certainly a lot of Vatican Cardinals are, or TC would never have gotten to the Pope's desk.
There are young priests (and laity) who oppose tradition. I expect they will be the ones most likely to be promoted for at least another decade, maybe two. There are a LOT more priests than bishops, so they don't actually need many such young priests. On the bright side, bishops' hearts can change.
Yes I suppose I was speaking more from emotion than prudence in my comment. The cruelty some bishops have shown in following up Traditionis with gratuitous bans on e.g. ad orientem took me somewhat by surprise. Especially given that even very small gestures in the other direction would go a long way to healing relationships with hurting members of the flock.
As a general rule, people don't develop strong empathy for those they do not see and talk to regularly. Empathy is an emotion designed to help form a community, and you can't form a community with someone you never see. So you can expect bishops to react empathetically to hurting people primarily when those people are diocesan employees. I do not believe many of those employees are traditionalists, and most probably don't lean in that direction either.
The number of bishops who have responded to sexual abuse victims by trying to protect the priest (whom they know) or the diocesan coffers, rather than the victim (whom they have probably never seen) is a good indication that bishops are not immune to this. There is usually some additional grace given to those whom your community has designated as a protected class, but that clearly does not apply to traditionalists in the Catholic Church.
Two of the most interesting things about Bishop Strickland was that he actually did a daily holy hour, and he actually walked around and talked to ordinary Catholics on a daily or weekly basis.
I’m not sure how to articulate the feeling of dismay evoked by the knowledge that it is noteworthy and unusual for a bishop to have a daily holy hour.
…..
I just. I don’t have words. What do they think their JOB is. Can you imagine a married couple being *noteworthy* bc they spent an hour together speaking during a day? 😞
To be fair, I don't know that other bishops don't do a daily holy hour. I just know that the only other bishop I've heard talk of it was Fulton Sheen. And he gradually shifted from gently suggesting that his priests do one, to insistently and persistently recommending it as of great importance.
I like your use of the married couple analogy. I remember a group of us talking to an Amish guy while touring his milking parlor, asking whether he or his wife did the milking. He very sincerely explained that they did it together, because "I don't want to do without her, and she don't want to do without me." They legit wanted 24/7 together, and probably got pretty close. That's noteworthy. It's also what St. Paul told the Thessalonian laypeople that they should be doing: "pray constantly". When I'm doing well, I can wish for that sort of prayer.
The men who are chosen to become bishops are chosen, in great part, because they are safe men who will not rock the boat. To promote the "reform of the reform," would be rocking the boat for those who have power in the Church today.
For some people, it's TLM or nothing. Reform of the reform won't do anything for them. But for some others, it's not TLM or nothing. More than anything, they want a reverent liturgy, and so reform of the reform would be a way to get them to give the ordinary form another look. So I'm agreeing: if you are trying to get people to choose the ordinary form over the TLM, you'd think this would be the way to go....
I agree. Look at St. Ignatius in NYC, for a parish with reverent liturgy and great preaching (sometimes from Fr. martin!).